The People Speak
The U.K. Public 'Don't Believe' Their Government on Immigration; A Canadian Immigrant Thinks Canadian Programmes To Fight Discrimination Actually Encourage Discrimination
The following are two examples of the public's views on immigration.
The first is a poll done for Migration Watch U.K. on the opinions of the U.K. public on mass immigration there. Canada's federal, provincial and municipal governments should note the important point that Migration Watch UK makes about the poll. According to the Chairman of Migration Watch UK, Sir Andrew Green, the poll results “reflect a deep underlying resentment among the public that they have not had any opportunity to express their views still less to be consulted – on a matter of major importance to them and to the future of our country”.
The Migration Watch UK point is particularly relevant at this time in Canada because our federal government has this week made commitments in its budget to multi-billion dollar infra-structure projects in Ontario and British Columbia. It should be noted that the huge amounts of cash will go to Canada's largest immigrant-receiving areas. Those projects have been undertaken primarily because of population explosion and traffic congestion generated primarily, as Census Canada has recently stated, by mass immigration. Once again, the projects show that if this unnecessary immigration had not occurred, the multi-billion dollar spending projects would not have been necessary.
Similar municipal and locally-driven projects such as cross-Canada “Smart Growth” initiatives and Vancouver's “Eco-Density” programme are mere efforts at managing mass immigration. If Ottawa had given the vulgar order, “Lick my boots”, would these people think they could do nothing but get down on their hands and knees and comply? Yet they are doing exactly that. Federal mass immigration policies are senseless and should be resisted, not obeyed as if they were virtual divine decrees. Complying with mass immigration will result in even more congestion and environmental degradation.
“Eco-Density” is really ecological destruction. “Smart Growth” is growth undertaken by people with a peculiar genetic propensity to appear positive or without the backbone to say no. Both “Eco-Density” and “Smart Growth” are oxymorons and deserve their just rewards in the deepest part of the nearest landfill–preferably with a concrete covering.
The second is the viewpoint of an immigrant to Canada. From his immigrant perspective, he observes that Canadian programmes to fight discrimination actually encourage discrimination. In considerably more detail, Dr. Martin Loney makes a similar point about Canada's so-called “Employment Equity” programme in his book “The Pursuit Of Division: Race, Gender and Preferential Hiring In Canada”.
His book is very critical of the research and conclusions drawn by Ms. Rosalie Abella, a current member of Canada's Supreme Court. Ms. Abella's faulty work in the mid-1980's eventually led to “Employment Equity” legislation which has been described as “Employment Inequity” legislation because it institutionalized job discrimination against a large part of Canada's host population.
—————————–
January 30, 2007
U.K. Public 'Don't Believe' Government on Immigration
The public overwhelmingly believe the Government has lost control of immigration and is not honest and open about its scale, according to a new survey out today.
In the YouGov survey, for think tank Migrationwatch, only 4% of those polled thought the Government was in control of immigration while a massive 82% disagreed (57% strongly). (see full results)
Similarly, when asked if the Government was open and honest about the scale of immigration into Britain, 80% disagreed (53% strongly).
“The latest Home Office plan was entitled 'Restoring Confidence.' These figures show that it has a mountain to climb all the steeper because the public simply dont believe what they are being told, said Sir Andrew Green, chairman of igrationwatch. After a decade of efforts to stifle debate, there is now a fundamental lack of trust between the Government and the public on this issue.
Other responses in the survey show just how deep and broad are the public's concerns.
Some 68% agreed or strongly agreed that there are too many immigrants coming into the country and 63% either disagreed or strongly disagreed that we need more immigrants to do the jobs that the British dont want to do.
The survey also shows that people are not convinced by the Governments economic arguments as less than a third of those polled agreed (24%) or strongly agreed (7%) that immigrants are of economic benefit to Britain.
There was also a huge margin in favour of an annual limit to the numbers allowed to come to Britain each year. 83% agreed (63% strongly) with this proposal. Only 7% disagreed (2% strongly).
Some 78% thought that anyone admitted for settlement should have to pass an English test.
There is also a strong belief that Britain is already overcrowded with 76% agreeing (49% strongly).
These figures illustrate that there is very strong support for a way forward involving a strict limit on numbers and an English language test before anyone is admitted for settlement.
They also reflect a deep underlying resentment among the public that they have not had any opportunity to express their views still less to be consulted – on a matter of major importance to them and to the future of our country, said Sir Andrew.
—————————
The View Of An Immigrant To Canada: Canadian Programmes To Fight Discrimination Actually Encourage Discrimination
In Canada, a case can be made that aboriginals deserve preferential treatment as compensation for historical injustices. However, that doesn't imply in any way that all visible minorities deserve the same. Nearly all members of visible minorities, however one defines them, are immigrants or children of immigrants, and they arrived in a country that had made a commitment to end whatever racism may have existed in earlier times.
The value of a privilege is inversely proportional to the number of people that enjoy it. The more people who are eligible for affirmative action, the less valuable this will be for aboriginals, the only ones who can make a legitimate claim to preferential treatment.
In any system of race-based rights, an important question arises: What should the rights of mixed race offspring be? If blues have more rights than greens, how should blue-greens be treated? To avoid such problems, jurisdictions with race-based rights usually forbid interracial marriages. That was the case in SA, in most American states, and in the Third Reich.
Whether racial purists like it or not, the number of interracial marriages in Canada is steadily increasing, with the result that more and more Canadians will be of mixed race. At what point do they cease to be ''visible”?
Are the children of David Suzuki, whose wife is white, still entitled to be regarded as members of a visible minority? What if one of his children marries a white? Is their offspring still visibly non-white?
Strictly speaking, race and “visibility” are not synomynous. Two full siblings must have the same race, but they can have different color, in the same way that they can differ in height or intelligence. That's how Mendelian genetics works.
If one sibling is dark-skinned and another is light-skinned, should only the former be entitled to whatever benefits are given to members of visible minorities?
The best thing that we can do is to terminate all racial classifications, except that of aboriginal , before we end in some racial theatre of the absurd.
We should not be thinking about race at all, but we are all becoming more race-conscious precisely because we are constantly told to combat racism. Both racism and anti-racism presuppose and heighten racial awareness. However much we wish to deny it, there is only a short distance from racial awareness to racism.
Nearly every ad in Canada that contains more than two people nowadays shows some racial balancing. Whoever does the balancing must be very race-conscious.
It is contradictory to have an immigration policy that is racially blind and at the same time promotes social policies that are anything but racially blind.
