Canada Has to Re-Take Control Of Its Borders

Canada Has to Re-Take Control Of Its Borders—-Part 4

By David Richardson,

Retired Senior Immigration Examining Officer

Why does Canada have “borders”? Why is the control of human movement necessary?

What has changed over the years? Why is it different now versus 30 – 40 – 50 or more years ago? During the 1950’s and 1960’s right up until even the 70’s and 80’s, most immigration was controlled by Canada’s embassies abroad. To come to Canada, people
would make an application to an immigration officer at a Canadian embassy or visa office. People would require approval before they left their countries.

As a signatory to the UN Resolution on Refugees and subsequent conventions, Canada has given up its sovereignty over the immigration process. Coupled with the need for  government budgetary restraints, Canada’s overseas control of the immigration process through the 80′ and 90’s has been decimated. Now, if people can make it here, they get to stay.

Here are four more examples of the type of people we are now taking.

(1) CRIMINALS : One day, the office where I was working got a call from a Senior Immigration Examining Officer informing us that a good friend who manages a hotel in Niagara Falls was having problems with a group of guests of Middle Eastern origin. The men were behaving offensively toward the female staff and were disturbing the other guests. We decided to look into it and set out to check out the hotel and surrounding
businesses. After canvassing nearby businesses, a pattern was beginning to unfold. These men would use the credit card machines by using blank cards. We contacted the local police and began to watch their movements. We were informed by the manager that they had
checked out creating a scene, and we notified the locals. The car which they were driving was pulled over for a traffic violation and it was discovered that they had in their possession credit card scanners, credit card producers, a false SIN card duplicator, and a laptop with the programs required to produce these fraudulent cards.

They were arrested and charged with possession. It was discovered they were refugee claimants from the Montreal Area. What does this tell Canadians about so-called “desperate refugee claimants” ?

(2) ILLEGAL WORKERS : In the Niagara Peninsula are Niagara College and Brock University. We had heard of a number of foreign “students” working illegally. We asked the department if we could check to see if foreigners on student visas were actually attending school. The department refused, and in fact warned us against such activities. We also asked the department if we could investigate local businesses we suspected of hiring illegals. Again, we were refused. This should tell Canadians much about the attitude of Immigration Department managers towards foreign students who were abusing the conditions of their “Student” visas.

(3) TUBERCULOSIS SPREADERS : While working at the Fort Erie Port of Entry, our office got an influx of Tibetan Refugee Claimants. Anyone familiar with the situation in Tibet knows that none of the “Tibetan Refugees” had ever been to Tibet. They were born and grew up in a Refugee camp in India. One of the problems at these refugee camps is rampant Tuberculosis. While these people have treatment available at the camp, they rarely continue the treatment to fruition once they start feeling better. THUS, all of these claimants were infected with DRUG RESISTANT TB that is highly contagious and extremely expensive to treat. As the Union Rep, it was my duty to protect the Officers during their interactions with these highly contagious individuals.

I demanded that management do something to protect us. And not only that, but to inform the other agencies involved in the refugee process of the danger. The Education Minister in Ontario at that time pronounced that all refugee children would be allowed to attend school. I asked Management if they had informed their provincial counterparts. Nope. The Union then went public, but its declaration received scant notice. We also asked if Health
Care Professionals were made aware, as all claimants require a mandatory physical. The answer was “NO”. Nobody was willing to take the steps necessary to protect Canadians.

(4)  INCOMPETENT / TIMID IMMIGRATION AND CBSA MANAGEMENT : The new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act was introduced around 2002. I was selected to be a trainer for staff and outside enforcement agencies. After extensive work, we began to roll out the act. As a matter of fact, there is a video of me giving the training that the department produced. So I was somewhat of an expert on the Act and its Regulations. One of the new things introduced in the act as an effort to streamline the refugee process and meet UN requirements was the creation of the Pre-Removal-Risk-Assessment Officer (PRRA). Every individual under a removal order has the right to state that they are at risk of torture, inhumane treatment or death should they return to their country of origin. This was their very last kick at the can before deportation.

Under the Act, the PRAA Officer does an extensive review of the subject’s file, and then does a thorough investigation based on the known conditions in that country to make a determination of risk.

The PRAA Officer’s determination is FINAL.

I began work as a PRRA Officer in 2004 out of the Niagara Falls Office. The department held a Competition for PRAA Officer Positions and I made the list. However, there was no opening in Niagara and I had to accept a position in Toronto. This wasn’t that bad because
while I would attend meetings in Toronto, I was allowed to work out of the Niagara Falls Office.

When I began making determinations, the determination that a person was at risk was relatively low. This was to be expected since the refugee board had already made this determination, and the circumstances had not changed. Although the requirement for a PRAA assessment was that some NEW situation or information had arisen since the
Refugee determination was made, this was seldom the case.

Not long after assuming my position at Pearson I got a call from my Supervisor to come
to a meeting to consider a case on which I had made a determination. The details were the following :

This refugee claimant initially had come to Canada 10 years prior under a certain name. He was found not to be a refugee and was scheduled for removal. He did not show and a deportation order was created. The claimant then went to the US and filled for asylum there. US Immigration and Naturalization Services (USINS) refused his claim, and he
returned to Canada under a different name to make another refugee claim. The details of his second claim changed, as  he stated that while he was in the US, he had changed his
religion to that of his mentor, and that that religion was persecuted in his country of origin. He was refused the second time by the IRB and the PRAA was the last chance. Since nothing had basically changed, the PRAA request was dubious at best. I made my determination of no Risk, and filed it.

For some reason, my supervisor felt that I should call this individual in for an Interview. I didn’t feel it was necessary, so I refused. Then the Manager called me into his Office and
threatened to fire me unless I did the Supervisor’s  bidding. I filed a grievance. I did mention I was involved in the Union.

I told the Manager, that having extensive training on the Act in my role as a trainer, that the act states that the PRAA Officers determination is final, and management interference in PRRA decisions is not acceptable. To make a long story short, the manger and supervisor were re-assigned. Not wanting anything more to do with the sorry state of affairs in the Immigration Department, I retired a year later.

I could go on but I don’t want to. The Canadian Public are patsies to government and media propaganda. They have no concept of what is going on.

This is what happens when a government gives up its control to un-elected bureaucratic agencies. The surrender can be seen in its most dramatic form in Europe today. The EU (European Union) is dictating immigration quotas to the sovereign nations of Europe. The populations in these countries are starting to foment a backlash to these EU policies and I’m afraid it will not end well.

What has changed? In the past, immigrants were required to assimilate into the
population. Indeed, immigrants relished the task because of the opportunities it gave their children. Now, due to rampant out of control political correctness, immigrants are
demanding not to be offended by the culture they have “chosen” to adopt. The whole thing is crazy, ass backward lunacy —–especially when dealing with Muslims who demand that their sharia law be accepted, that women be seen as chattels and and that genital mutilation of their women be allowed unhindered. And our government is too afraid to put its foot down.
We need to wake up to the forces at work here. We need to make our voices heard. We need to stop the tail wagging the dog, and we need to do it now.