VIEWS FROM THE PEOPLE : Whites Told Not To Apply ; Immigration Proposals Made For Netherlands ; Large Number Of Ontario Immigrants Live In Poverty ; Poor Countries Robbed Of Medical Professionals

VIEWS FROM THE PEOPLE : The following comments were sent to us from people in different parts of Canada.

Whites Told Not To Apply ; Immigration Proposals Made For The Netherlands ; Large Number of Ontario Immigrants Living In Poverty ; Poor Countries Robbed Of Medical Professionals



A young woman in Winnipeg, who is embarrassed to tell anyone, was told when she went to apply for a job opening, “We will hold onto your resume, but we're not hiring any Caucasians right now. ”

I was in shock when she told me this.

My husband has lost his job and I'm terrified that he will have trouble finding another. Not because he's not highly educated, which he is, but his skin color might be wrong. Aren't we moving backwards here?




Here are the immigration and integration proposals of Geert Wilders' Party For Freedom in The Netherlands :

1 – 5-year moratorium on immigration from non-Western countries
2 – Establishment of a limit of 5000 per year for refugees.
3 – Article 1 to be replaced by an article that provides that the Christian/Jewish/ humanistic culture should remain the dominant culture in the NL.
4 – 5-year moratorium on the building of new mosques and Islamic schools.
5 – Closing of radical mosques and deportation of radical imams.
6 – Prohibition on foreign financing of or foreign administrative influence in mosques in the NL.
7 – Prohibition on preaching by foreign imams and mandatory use of the Dutch language in houses of worship.
8 – Abolition of the municipal right to vote for non-citizens.
9 – Exclusive use of the Dutch language in information brochures published by the government.
10 – Abolition of dual citizenship.
11 – No medical care for illegals except emergency treatment.
12 – Naturalisation only after 10 years of legal residency in the NL, during which period the applicant must have worked steadily and committed no crime.
13 – During the first 10 years of residency in the NL, foreigners will not be entitled to social assistance.
14 – No residency permit to be given to foreigners who in the 10 years previous to their application have been convicted of a crime anywhere in the world.
15 – No payment of government benefits to any country outside the EU.
16 – Prohibition on wearing a burka in public spaces.
17 – Prohibition on wearing head-covering dress at public occasions.
18 – Encouragement of voluntary return migration.



I have set about trying to estimate the cost of the poverty of recent immigrants to Ontarians. I've used the recent “THE COST OF POVERTY” study. It defines recent immigrants as those who entered the country within the past five years. Since the figures in the study seem to run up to and including 2006, I looked up on the Citizenship and Immigration Canada website the number of newcomers who settled in Ontario in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 and found that this came to 644,823.

According to the study, 35.8% of those immigrants are in poverty which comes to 230,846 (the 35.8% was actually the percentage for 2001, which I had to assume had not changed a great deal by 2006).

The study states that in 2006 1.3 million people in Ontario were living in poverty. The number who are recent immigrants would therefore comprise 17.8% of this total.

Since the study estimates that poverty costs the residents of Ontario $32 billion to $38 billion a year, this would mean that poverty among recent immigrants costs Ontario taxpayers between $5.7 billion and $6.8 billion a year.

While immigrants who had been in the country for more than five years may well have somewhat lower poverty levels than recent arrivals, I expect that, if one were to include all immigrants who have arrived since the early 1980s (when the economic performance of newcomers began to fall consistently below that of earlier immigrants or Canadian-born), the cost to Ontario arising from immigrant poverty would be much higher than $5.7 billion and $6.8 billion a year. Such figures moreover cover only poverty and do not include all the other costs associated with immigrants.

In the circumstances, Professor Herb Grubels estimate in his 2005 paper that immigrants who had arrived between 1990 and 2002 received $18.3 billion more in benefits than they paid in taxes in 2002 alone would seem to be well founded and, if anything, on the conservative side.



Before WWI, establishment opinion in Western countries held that a country needed a place in the sun to prosper. A place in the sun meant some territory in Africa and Asia. The Italians, for instance, were not content with their recently unified country, which contained nearly all Italians. No, they had to have their place in the sun too. So they conquered Lybia, Somalia and Eritrea.

The arguments for imperialism then were as weak as the arguments used by immigration advocates today, but that didn't prevent them from becoming part of the conventional wisdom. As people then thought that they needed colonies, so today they think that they can't do without immigrants.

Immigration advocates like to see themselves as internationalists and their opponents as narrow-minded nationalists. The truth of the matter is that immigration promoters rarely look at immigration from the viewpoint of people-exporting countries. If they did, they might come to the conclusion that skimming the best and the brightest from poorer countries is perhaps not the best way to help them.

Two Canadian prime ministers went to Africa to proclaim their concern for that continent. Meanwhile, Canada continues to import doctors, nurses and other professionals from African countries, where they have very few to begin with. This is the sheerest hypocrisy. It is like insisting that one has the best interests of a large, poor family at heart while adopting their brightest child.