Basic Vocabulary

Immigration Terminology


Cultural Marxism : Cultural Marxism: An offshoot of Marxism that gave birth to political correctness, multiculturalism and “anti-racism.” Unlike traditional Marxism that focuses on economics, Cultural Marxism focuses on culture and maintains that all human behavior is a result of culture (not heredity / race) and is thus malleable. Cultural Marxists absurdly deny the biological reality of gender and race and argue that gender and race are “social constructs”. Nonetheless, Cultural Marxists support the race-based identity politics of non-whites.

Cultural Marxists typically support race-based affirmative action, the proposition state (as opposed to a nation rooted in common ancestry), elevating non-Western religions above Western religions, speech codes and censorship, multiculturalism, diversity training, anti-Western education curricula, maladaptive sexual norms and anti-male feminism, the dispossession of white people, and mass Third World immigration into Western countries. Cultural Marxists have promoted the idea that white people, instead of birthing white babies, should interracially marry or adopt non-white children. Samuel P. Huntington maintained that Cultural Marxism is an anti-white ideology. Critics of Cultural Marxism have maintained that Cultural Marxists intend to commit genocide against white people through mass non-white immigration, assimilation, transracial adoption and miscegenation.


1. AD HOMINEM ARGUMENT: An argument in which one of the persons involved in a debate strays from the issue being talked about and begins to talk about the person who has voiced an argument. It is name-calling, rather than talking about the issue being debated.  The Latin phrase “ad hominem” literally means “toward the man”. Debating primers refer to this as one of the “Fallacies of Irrelevance” because the obvious purpose of a debate is to talk about an issue, not the “man” (person) expressing an opposing view.

The ‘ad hominem” argument is used frequently during debate on the immigration issue. More than discussions on most other issues, discussions on the immigration issue stray from the immigration issue itself to “ad hominem” attacks on those who find fault with current immigration policy. A number of people who use “ad hominem” arguments seem to believe that Canada’s current immigration policy is beyond fault and beyond criticism.

2. ADMINISTRATIVE (MINISTERIAL) REVIEW: This is a euphemistic term used by Canada’s Department of Citizenship and Immigration and its ministers for the word “amnesty”. As Charles Campbell has noted in “Betrayal And Deceit”, the term is one of many examples of immigration deceit practiced against Canadians.

Some Canadians may find the word “deceit” somewhat harsh, but they need only look at proposals by a preceding Minister of Immigration, Joseph Volpe, for a 40% increase in immigration levels to the 320,000+ range. Mr.Volpe did not provide any evidence to justify the increase. This example should give the politically naive the proof they need that Mr. Volpe, like his many predecessors and successors, found nothing wrong with practicing deceit on Canadians.

In the past, the term “administrative or ministerial” review was used to hide the incompetence of both immigration ministers and senior political officials in dealing with false refugee claimants. The numbers of these claimants had become so high in the 1980’s that the entire refugee system had become unworkable. Rather than deal with the root problem, which was the policy of letting so many people make such claims, successive ministers and other political officials allowed these people to stay in Canada.

“Administrative (Ministerial) Review” soon became a clear signal to other potential refugee claimants that they could come to Canada and apply for refugee status also. The significance of “Administrative Reviews” and other administrative incompetence is that literally hundreds of thousands of false refugee claimants have been allowed into Canada and that they have been allowed to bring in literally hundreds of thousands of extended family members.

3. AGING ISSUE, (THE) : This term refers to the proportion of older people in a society. All societies age (grow older). Like many developed countries, Canada has an increasing number of older people in its population, but its position is favourable compared to that of some European countries.

Canada is the only country that uses immigration to deal with the issue of an increasing number of older people in its population. The landmark Health and Welfare Canada study, “Charting Canada’s Future”, looked at the issue of a larger number of older people.

Its conclusion was that immigration would not reverse the aging trend in Canadian society because immigrants, like native-born Canadians, also grow old.(See “Research” section for either “Highlights” or a long summary of the Health and Welfare Canada report.)

Its recommendations were that Canada encourage an increase in its own birth rate, that it increase Canadian female participation in the country’s work force and that it make use of Canada’s unemployed 45+ year old males. It showed that for the aging issue, these measures were statistically superior to immigration.

It also implied that these, especially the latter two, were morally superior to immigration since Canada would be fulfilling its obvious responsibility to its own citizens.

The general conclusion of most of the studies which have looked at using immigration to deal with the aging issue or other issues is that Canada should look within its own borders for solutions, not to immigration which often causes more problems than it remedies.

4. ANCHOR BABIES: This is an American term which is sometimes used in Canada. Anchor babies are children of women who are in Canada as refugee claimants or as visa or non-visa holders/visitors. These children are entitled to Canadian citizenship as a result of being born on Canadian soil. Women refugee claimants use this provision to try to bolster their own immediate claims to refugee status.

Some pregnant female visa holders deliberately come to Canada in order that their children will be born on Canadian soil. In that way, these mothers obtain citizenship for their children who will years later be able to come to Canada and sponsor relatives for entry to Canada.

5. BIG CITY MAYORS’ CAUCUS: The Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM)  web site describes this group in the following way: “The Big City Mayors Caucus (BCMC) comprises a regionally representative group of FCM member cities. It meets two to three times a year to discuss shared issues and to reinforce FCM’s policy and advocacy agenda set by the National Board of Directors.”

One of the shared issues is immigration. It has tended to look uncritically at federal immigration policy. Critics have said that it should be evaluating the impact of immigration policy on Canada’s urban areas—especially because high immigration levels have had such a major effect on urban areas. A considerable part of this effect has been very negative.

In making comments on immigration, several of the cities have relied on information from immigration lawyers, consultants and advocates as if these people were the only ones in their communities who should be listened to on this topic. Critics have likened this approach to inviting Hell’s Angels’ members or other drug dealers to give advice on how the city should deal with drug issues.

Current (2015) members of the Big City Mayors’ Caucus are the following:

The Big City Mayors’ Caucus (BCMC) comprises a regionally representative group of FCM member cities. It meets two to three times a year to discuss shared issues and to reinforce FCM’s policy and advocacy agenda set by the National Board of Directors.

Brampton, Mayor Linda Jeffrey
Calgary, Mayor Naheed Nenshi
Edmonton, Mayor Don Iveson
Gatineau, Maire Maxime Pedneaud-Jobin
Halifax, Mayor Mike Savage
Hamilton, Mayor Fred Eisenberger
Kitchener, Mayor Berry Vrbanovic
Laval, Maire Marc Demers
London, Mayor Matt Brown
Mississauga, Mayor Bonnie Crombie
Montréal, Maire Denis Coderre
Ottawa, Mayor Jim Watson
Québec, Maire Régis Labeaume
Regina, Mayor Michael Fougere
Saskatoon, Mayor Don Atchison
St. John’s, Mayor Dennis O’Keefe
Surrey, Mayor Linda Hepner
Toronto, Mayor John Tory
Vancouver, Mayor Gregor Robertson (Chair)
Windsor, Mayor Drew Dilkens
Winnipeg, Mayor Brian Bowman

6. BUSINESS IMMIGRANT : Business immigrants include three classes of immigrants :­ Investors, Entrepreneurs and Self-employed people. Business immigrants become permanent residents on the basis of their ability to become economically established in Canada. The spouse and children of the business immigrant are also included in this category.

7. CHAIN MIGRATION: This is the practice used by immigrants to Canada of sponsoring qualifying members of their extended families to become immigrants to Canada. The practice is referred to as “chain” migration because of the length of time over which it extends. The practice can literally go on for many decades because sponsored immigrants can become sponsoring immigrants—ad infinitum.

This is the chief criticism that is to be made of chain migration.

Another is that it can also involve considerable fraud because false identity documents are sometimes manufactured in a number of countries for people unrelated to sponsors. These people subsequently try to enter Canada.

Critics have often pointed out that Canada should adopt Australia’s policy on this phenomenon to avoid the never-ending “family” sponsorship cycle that ensues when the chain begins. The Australian policy was introduced in 1988. It uses a “balance of family” test whereby the parents must have more children in Australia than in any other single country or as many children in Australia as in all other countries combined. If potential sponsoring parents do not have more children in Australia than in any other single country or as many children in Australia as in all other countries combined, they cannot sponsor those children. Parents either meet it or don’t meet it.

The Australian model is a more realistic “re-unification” model because half or more of the family is already in Australia. If most of the family is in another country, and only one or two are in Australia, “re-unification” can be better achieved by the family member in Australia moving to the country where the majority of the family is than by having the majority move to Australia. This model puts a limit on “re-unification”. It does not allow the endless cycle called “chain migration” to begin–and to continue endlessly as in Canada.

The Australian example is based on the good of Australia. The Canadian model is naively based on the good of non-Canadians.

8. CONVENTION REFUGEE (Government Definition): A person who, by reason of a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion, is (a) outside each of their countries of nationality and is unable, or by reason of that fear, unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of each of those countries; or (b) not having a country of nationality, is outside the country of their former habitual residence and is unable, or by reason of that fear, unwilling to return to that country.

9. CULTURAL ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY: This is the limit that any group consciously or unconsciously sets regarding the number of immigrants it will accept before it begins to feel overwhelmed. At the federal level where immigration policy is decided, cultural absorptive capacity has been completely ignored.

Canada’s immigration industry and a number of elected officials at all three levels of government have intimidated other elected officials into accepting virtually unlimited numbers of immigrants. The result is that areas of Canada such as Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal feel they have been inundated by recent immigrants. In the past, in many parts of the world, such an inflow would have been termed “colonization”. In Canada today, it is referred to as establishing “multiculturalism and diversity” and Canadians are told to accept it or else.

10. DEPENDANT : (Government Definition) : The spouse, common-law partner or conjugal partner and children of a landed immigrant. A dependent child is either a biological child or an adopted child. Children can be dependent if they meet one of the following conditions:

(a) they are under age 22 and unmarried or not in a common-law relationship;
(b) they have been full-time students since before age 22, attend a post-secondary educational institution and have been substantially dependent on the financial support of a parent since before age 22 and, if married or a common-law partner, since becoming a spouse or a common-law partner; or
(c) they are age 22 or over and have been substantially dependent on the financial support of a parent since before age 22 because of a physical or mental condition.

Before June 28, 2002, dependants were defined as the spouse of a landed immigrant and the children of that immigrant who were unmarried and under 19 years of age; or continuously enrolled as full-time students in an educational institution and financially supported by their parents since reaching age 19 (or if married before age 19, from the date of their marriage); or due to a medical condition, unable to support themselves and are dependent on their parents for financial support.

11. DEPENDENCY RATIO: the number of working Canadians required to support non-working Canadians such as the young, the very disabled, and the pensioned/non-pensioned elderly. Canada’s immigration industry claims that working Canadians face the prospect of supporting an ever-increasing number of dependents. They try to suggest that Canada’s dependency ratio will become unbearable.

This industry says that immigration is the only way to prevent this situation from getting worse. The Health and Welfare Canada study (referred to above) involved 200 university experts from all across Canada. Because of its professional and objective expertise, it has overwhelming legitimacy and contradicts the claims of the immigration industry. It said that making more use of Canada’s female work force and of Canada’s unemployed males in the 45+ age group was statistically superior to immigration.

12. ECONOMIC ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY: the ability of an economy to absorb new workers without causing unwanted competition with Canadians for jobs or displacing Canadian-born from their jobs. Up to 1990, Canada had an immigration policy based on economic absorptive capacity. When Canada needed workers, it looked for them. When it did not need them, it did not look.

Canada’s Prime Minister Trudeau was the last of Canada’s prime ministers to follow this policy. He did this in the early 1980’s. (See the graphs from Citizenship and Immigration which indicate a pattern/tradition of rises and falls in Canada’s immigration levels over the last 80 years because of this policy.)

13. ECONOMIC IMMIGRANT (Government Definition) : People selected for their skills and ability to contribute to Canada’s economy, including skilled workers, business people and provincial nominees.

14. ENTREPRENEUR (Government Definition) : An immigrant who has been admitted to Canada by demonstrating that they:

(a) have managed and controlled a percentage of equity in a qualifying business for at least two years in the period beginning five years before they apply; and

(b) have a legally obtained net worth of at least $300,000 Canadian.

15. EMPLOYMENT EQUITY FOR VISIBLE MINORITIES: This is the equivalent of the American “Affirmative Action” programme which was intended to improve the educational and employment opportunities of American blacks.

In the mid-1980’s, Judge Rosalie Abella (who now sits on Canada’s Supreme Court) was asked to investigate the plight of visible minorities in Canada. After a cursory examination of evidence, she came to the conclusion that widespread, systemic discrimination against visible minorities existed in Canada. As others have observed, this is strange behaviour from a person who is supposed to base judgements on evidence.

Subsequent thorough research done by Dr. Martin Loney showed that Ms. Abella’s findings were not true. Dr. Loney discovered that, in fact, a number of visible minority groups such as Japanese and Chinese Canadians were doing better economically than mainstream Canadians. Also, other visible minorities were doing just as well. Some were doing poorly, but Abella’s conclusions that all visible minorities faced widespread, systemic prejudice (and thus low incomes and poverty)were unsupported by the facts. Loney’s work shows that her recommendations should never have been implemented.

In spite of the large amount of evidence which has been accumulated and which clearly contradicts the conclusions of Abella, the federal government has refused to withdraw this legislation. The number of mainstream Canadians negatively affected by this legislation has never been calculated. But it is in the tens of thousands at the very least. Probably, the numbers are in the hundreds of thousands because this programme has been put into effect in the federal, provincial and municipal jurisdictions. It has also been imitated in the private sector.

The entire “Employment Equity For Visible Minorities” programme has been aptly described as institutionalized discrimination against mainstream Canadians.

To compound the problem, Abella’s mistakes require that a large bureaucracy be maintained (mostly by Canadian taxpayers) to investigate and implement policies that discriminate against the majority of Canadians. To perpetuate their jobs, these employees require an unending flow of visible minority immigrants.

16. FAMILY CLASS (Government Definition) : A class of immigrants to Canada made up of close relatives of a sponsor in Canada, including a spouse, common-law partner or conjugal partner; dependent children; parents and grandparents; children under age 18 whom the sponsor intends to adopt in Canada; children of whom the sponsor is the guardian; brothers, sisters, nephews, nieces and grandchildren who are orphans under age 18; and any other relative, if the sponsor has no relative as described above, either abroad or in Canada.

17. FLOWS (Government Definition) : Based on the initial entry method, the number of people identified as entering the CIC system (and presumably the country) for the first time. CIC commonly measures foreign student flows and foreign worker flows. Flows are calculated based on the earliest effective date of any valid permit issued to a foreign student or a foreign worker. The Monitor’s quarterly figures measure foreign student flows and foreign worker flows as opposed to stocks (see stock definition for more details).

18. FOREIGN STUDENT (Government Definition) : A temporary resident who has been approved by an immigration officer to study in Canada. The study permit identifies the level of study and the length of time the individual may study in Canada. Students do not need a study permit for courses of six months or less if they will finish the course within the period of stay authorized upon entry, which is usually six months. Before June 28, 2002, students did not need a study permit for English and French as a second language courses of three months or less. Every foreign student must have a student authorization, but may also have been issued other types of permits or authorizations.

Foreign Students may come to Canada for primary, secondary, post-secondary or English/French language education. Citizenship and Immigration Canada says that Canada takes about 130,000 foreign students annually. Most Canadians have no objection to foreign students coming to Canada to study—-as long as those students do not displace Canadian students in Canada’s education system. However, some displacement has definitely occurred at both the secondary and post-secondary levels.

In addition,like Canada’s regular immigration programme and its refugee programme, the foreign student programme has been abused. A number of foreign students use it as a third immigration door into Canada.

For example, at a number of Canadian universities, foreign students are recruited with the understanding that they will pay 3 to 4 times the tuition rates that Canadian students pay. However, as a number of universities have discovered, a significant number of these foreign students apply for landed immigrant status after their first or second year here. This status allows their fees to be reduced to Canadian student levels, thus defeating the universities’ purpose of trying to get extra income from foreign students.

19. GOVERNMENT-ASSISTED REFUGEES (Government Definition) : People who are selected abroad for resettlement to Canada as Convention refugees under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act or as members of the Humanitarian-protected Persons Abroad Classes, and who receive resettlement assistance from the federal government.

20. ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS : These are people such as failed refugee claimants who have been ordered to leave, but who have gone into hiding. The term also includes people such as those who have overstayed their visas. The federal government claims to have some idea of the number of failed refugee claimants. But it says it has no idea how many people have overstayed visas because it keeps no such records. Estimates of the total of these people range as high as 600,000.

Illegal immigrants are undoubtedly working in order to support themselves, so they are taking jobs away from Canadians. (Some are probably involved in other illegal activities such as serious crime.) The federal government has failed to recognize the significance of Canadian workers being displaced. Instead, prominent officials have trivialized the effect of illegals.

In the U.S., research has shown that employers exploit illegals’ fears of being caught by paying them much less than citizens. This has resulted in a lowering of wages in many job categories formerly occupied by citizens. Harvard economist George Borjas has said that it has also caused an enormous transfer of capital (Over $190 Billion annually) from workers to employers.

A similar phenomenon has probably occurred in Canada, but our federal government has not uncovered the extent of this phenomenon yet. It may be more accurate to say that Canada’s federal government refuses to uncover it.

21. IMMIGRATION INDUSTRY : A number of immigration lawyers, immigration consultants and ethnic groups who have lobbied the federal government to make significant changes to Canadian immigration policies and to raise immigration levels to historically high and anomalous numbers. These people have combined with a number of prominent urban federal politicians from several political parties, particularly from the Liberal Party of Canada, to achieve their ends.


(A) ECONOMIC: People coming to Canada presumably as contributors to Canada’s economy. These include the following:


Citizenship and Immigration claims that about 60% of the total number of immigrants to Canada come here as economic immigrants, but the fact is that C and I has included the spouses and child dependents of these immigrants in this category in order to make its figures look better.

In reality, only between 20 to 25% of immigrants to Canada fall into the economic class. Contrary to what C and I tells Canadians, only these 20 to 25% of immigrants to Canada have to meet any real point system requirements. In other words, the C and I claim that it is getting harder and harder to be an immigrant to Canada(that even Einstein might have had difficulty getting enough points to get in) is not true, to say the very least. In 2002, economic immigrants represented 23.3% of all immigrants.

Nannies and Live-In Caregivers. After being here for 2 years, these people can apply for landed immigrant status and then bring in spouses and dependent children. Like dependents of economic migrants, and the people in the family and refugee classes, these people do not have to meet any point system requirements. In 2002, these people represented 0.9% of all immigrants. There were 1981 of them.

(B) FAMILY: These are immediate family members of people who are landed immigrants or who are Canadian-born. This also includes parents and grandparents. Like the dependents of economic immigrants, people in this category do not have to meet any point system requirements. In 2002, the family class represented 28.5% of the total number of immigrants. When combined with the dependents who are now included in the economic category, these people make up more than 50% of all immigrants to Canada every year.

(C) REFUGEE: This category includes around 10,000 Government Assisted (genuine) refugees which the government of Canada selects from refugee camps from around the world. It also includes a varying number of refugees privately sponsored by churches and humanitarian organizations.

It further comprises asylum seekers who arrive in Canada and claim refugee status. Since 1989, over 700,000 asylum-seekers have arrived in Canada. A former Executive-Director of Canada’s Immigration Service, Mr. James Bissett, claims that most of these asylum-seekers are illegitimate refugee-claimants. Mr. Bissett says that most of these people are abusing Canada’s refugee system and that Canada annually spends more than $1 billion dealing with them.

Mr. Bissett points out that Canada spends enormous amounts on these illegals, whose cause is championed by Canada’s immigration industry on purported humanitarian grounds. On the other hand, it spends extremely little on genuine refugees languishing in refugee camps around the world. In 2002, refugees represented 11% of all immigrants to Canada (25,122 immigrants).

(D) HUMANITARIAN: This group often consists of people who have failed the refugee application process.

In effect, between 75% to 80% of all immigrants to Canada every year do not have to meet any point system requirements.

Investor : An immigrant who has been admitted to Canada because they:
have business experience as defined in the Regulations; have a legally obtained net worth of at least $800,000 Canadian; and
have invested $400,000 Canadian before receiving a visa.

The Canadian government allocates the investment to participating provinces and territories, which guarantee the investment and use it to develop their economies and create jobs. The investment is repaid, without interest, after five years.

The amounts required to be invested vary from province to province. This category has acquired a certain amount of notoriety because after many complaints of abuse to Citizenship and Immigration Canada, a number of audits were conducted of this program. The conclusion was that this program was “riddled with fraud”.

23. JOINT ASSISTANCE SPONSORSHIP (JAS) (Government Definition) : A joint undertaking by a sponsoring group and CIC to sponsor refugees requiring special assistance and whose admissibility depends upon the additional support of a sponsor. In order to resettle successfully, these refugees may require more than a 12-month sponsorship. Under the JAS Program, CIC provides financial assistance to cover the cost of food, shelter, clothing and essential household goods. The sponsor’s role is to provide orientation, significant settlement assistance and emotional support. Refugees sponsored under the JAS program are identified as having special needs that will likely result in a longer or more difficult period of integration.

24. LANDING (Government Definition) : The permission given to a person to live in Canada as a permanent resident. An immigrant who has been “landed” is a permanent resident.

25. LEVEL OF SKILL (Government Definition) : Skill levels for foreign worker occupations are derived from the National Occupational Classification (NOC) system.

They are:
0 – Managerial
A – Professionals
B – Skilled and Technical
C – Intermediate and Clerical
D – Elemental and Labour
E – Not Stated (This category is the result of special programs and of foreign workers who were able to enter Canada initially with no requirement for a foreign worker permit)

26. LEVEL OF STUDY (Government Definition) : There are five levels of study shown for the foreign student population in Canada. They are:

(a) University ­ Foreign students pursuing undergraduate, postgraduate (master’s and doctoral) and other studies at university institutions in Canada.

(b) Trade ­ Foreign students pursuing education in a vocational trade at non-university educational institutions in Canada (such as technical and vocational institutions, CEGEP, and colleges).

(c) Other Post-Secondary ­ Foreign students pursuing a post-secondary level of study, not specifically university or trade level. This category may include language institutions, private institutions and university qualifying programs.

(d) Secondary or Less ­ Foreign students attending primary or secondary educational institutions in Canada.

(e) Other ­ Foreign students who could not be classified at any of the above levels of study.

27. LIVE-IN CAREGIVER : (Government Definition) : A temporary resident of Canada who has successfully completed the equivalent of Canadian secondary school; has six months of full-time training in a field or occupation related to that for which they are seeking a work permit; is able to speak, read and understand English or French at a level sufficient to communicate effectively in an unsupervised situation; and signs an employment contract with the future employer.

Participants in this program may apply for permanent resident status in Canada after completing two years of live-in caregiving employment within three years of arrival in Canada.

28. MULTICULTURALISM: A term used to refer to the phenomenon, in Canada, of promoting, among immigrants, the retention of their own cultural practices. It also refers not only to the different ethnic backgrounds of many people in Canada, but to the growing number of those backgrounds.

Multiculturalism has been widely criticized. Some critics have said that multiculturalism requires a continuous inflow of immigrants in order to survive. If multiculturalism is to continue, immigration (particularly high and unnecessary immigration) must continue. As some critics have said, Canada’s multiculturalist policies are a prescription of what Canada will become, not a description of what we are.

Multiculturalism has positive connotations for some, but for many Canadians, it is a euphemism and a disguise for a continuation of Canada’s present unprecedented, unremitting high immigration levels. In fact, one critic has said that continued, high immigration levels are the oxygen for multiculturalism. Without continued high immigration, multiculturalism would die the death it richly deserves.

To others, the words “multiculturalism” and “diversity” are the positive-sounding “artillery” used against an unsuspecting Canadian public to get them to accept unjustified immigration. In other words, these terms are more examples of the deceit used to perpetuate high immigration levels.

29. OTHER (Government Definition) : This category includes people classified as Post-Determination Refugee Claimants or members of the Deferred Removal Order Class.

30. PERMANENT RESIDENCE for PROTECTED PERSONS IN CANADA (Government Definition) : People who have been determined to be Protected Persons by the Immigration and Refugee Board in Canada or through the Pre-Removal Risk Assessment, and who have been granted permanent residence as a result.

31. PROVINCIAL NOMINEE (Government Definition) : An immigrant selected by the provinces and territories for specific skills that will contribute to the local economy. The Regulations establish a provincial nominee class, allowing provinces and territories that have agreements with CIC to nominate a certain number of workers. A nominee must meet federal admissibility requirements, such as those related to health and security.

32. PRINCIPAL APPLICANT (Business Applicant)(Government Definition): The person who best meets the definition for one or more of the types of business immigrants and in whose name the application for immigration is made.

33. PRINCIPAL APPLICANT (Economic Applicant)(Government Definition) : The person who is likely to earn the most points in the self-assessment and in whose name the immigration application is made.

34. PRIVATELY-SPONSORED REFUGEES (Government Definition): Refugees selected abroad for resettlement to Canada who receive resettlement assistance from private sources.


(a) CONVENTION REFUGEES (See government definition above.): People who meet the United Nations description of a refugee. These people almost always need permanent residence in another country. In the past, an example would have been a Russian dissident fleeing the former Soviet government. He was persecuted for his political beliefs. There was no prospect of him returning to the Soviet Union because the government he was escaping from was going to be in power indefinitely. He needed Geneva Convention status, leading to permanent residence in the country providing sanctuary.

(b) NON-CONVENTION REFUGEES: People who do not meet the United Nations definition of a refugee, but who still need protection. An example is a person who fled the former Yugoslavia during its civil war. These people were not singled out for persecution (as the Russian dissident had been). They were just getting out of the line of fire and required temporary protection. There was nothing illegal about their flight and their search for a safe country. They stayed in temporary camps in Germany and now almost all of them have gone back home.

36. REFUGEE PROTECTION CLAIMANT (Government Definition) : A person who has arrived in Canada and who seeks the protection of Canada. If such a person receives a final determination that he or she has been determined to be a Protected Person, he or she may then apply for permanent residence.

37. SAFE COUNTRY: The term “Safe Country” refers to an issue in Canada’s refugee programme. Since 1989, the eve of Canada’s high immigration levels (and not co-incidentally record high refugee claimants), over 700,000 people have landed here and claimed refugee status. The majority of those claims have been fraudulent. In that large group are a significant number who have come from countries that are generally recognized to be democratic and to have good human rights records. Officials within Canada’s immigration system have long recognized that people who come from such countries should not be allowed to initiate refugee claims. They explain that allowing such claims to enter Canada’s system makes a mockery of our system and costs Canada enormous sums of money that should be properly directed towards real refugees in real refugee camps around the world.

Officials have argued that Canada should compose a list of “Safe Countries” and that people from those countries should be summarily refused the right to make a refugee claim. However, Canada’s immigration industry has managed to sabotage all efforts to enact such legislation. They have argued that in order to protect the safety of claimants, that Canada must negotiate separate agreements with all countries to guarantee that failed claimants will not be maltreated when deported from Canada. As a result, Canada has absurd situations such as large numbers of Mexicans, as well as many others from similarly-governed countries, arriving at the Canada-U.S. border or at our airports and claiming to be refugees.

38. SAFE THIRD COUNTRY: The term “SAFE THIRD COUNTRY” refers to an issue in Canada’s refugee programme. A person’s home country is regarded as the “first country” in this discussion. When a person decides to leave his home country in order to avoid persecution of the type described in The U.N. Convention on Refugees, it is expected that he make a refugee claim in the first country that he flees to. However, many refugee claimants are not political refugees, the type recognized by the U.N., but are “economic refugees”, a type which the U.N. does not regard as refugees. Economic refugees are looking for a country which will provide them with the best package of social benefits that are available. These people are often referred to as “asylum shoppers”. The country in which refugee claimants actually make their refugee claims is referred to as the “second country”. The country through which these claimants have travelled before making their claims is regarded as the “third country”.

About a third of Canada’s refugee claimants since 1989 have entered Canada from the U.S. These people should have made their claims in the U.S., but for a number of reasons such as the likelihood that they would have been rejected in the U.S., they have entered Canada which has the highest refugee claimant acceptance rate in the world. For a few years, Canada has had an agreement with the U.S. which allows Canada to refuse entry to claimants who have used the U.S. as a “safe third country”. This agreement has worked for Canada in a number of ways, but it does have loopholes through which claimants have been able to slip.

39. SELF-EMPLOYED PEOPLE (Government Definition) : An immigrant who has (a) shown that they can and intend to create their own employment in Canada and (b) that they can contribute significantly either to the Canadian economy as farmers or to the cultural or athletic life of Canada.

40. SINGH DECISION ON REFUGEES (1985): This was a momentous decision because it granted to anyone who entered Canada and who claimed refugee status, the right to a hearing and to the same rights to health and welfare that were available to Canadian citizens.The following is a copy of an official statement on the Singh Decision from the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada :

“The Singh decision is often referred to as a landmark decision for Canada’s refugee determination system. But what do you actually know about the Singh decision? There are many fascinating and informative aspects to this landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision which ultimately changed Canada’s refugee determination system.

“To start with, did you know that this decision involved seven appellants, six of whom were named Singh? Six of the claimants were citizens of India claiming Convention refugee status on the basis of their fear of persecution by Indian authorities as a result of their political activities and beliefs. The seventh appellant, Ms. Indrani, was a citizen of Guyana whose claim was based on fear of persecution on racial, religious and political grounds. The Minister of Employment and Immigration and the Immigration Appeal Board both denied their claims, and an appeal was brought to Canada’s highest court: the Supreme Court of Canada.

“The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the refugee determination process existing at the time was invalid because it did not necessarily provide the claimant with an oral hearing. The appellants argued that this process violated s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and s. 2(e) of the Canadian Bill of Rights.

“Section 7 of the Charter provides: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

“Section 2(e) of the Bill of Rights provides: … no law of Canada shall be construed or applied so as to … (e) deprive a person of the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice for the determination of his rights and obligations.

“Based on the Reasons from six judges, the Supreme Court’s decision was rendered on April 4, 1985.

“Supreme Court of Canada–Three of the Supreme Court judges used the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as the basis for their decision. The judges’ greatest concern with the Immigration Act was the lack of opportunity of the claimant to state his case and know the Minister’s case against the claimant. At that time, an application before the Immigration Appeal Board (IAB) was usually rejected before the refugee claimant had an opportunity to discover the Minister’s case against him in the context of a hearing. The Court therefore found that the refugee determination procedures established in the Immigration Act, 1976 did not accord the refugee claimant fundamental justice and violated section 7 of the Charter.

“The other three judges used the Canadian Bill of Rights as the basis for their decision. Their Reasons explained that in order to comply with s. 2(e), of the Bill of Rights, a full oral hearing had to be held in regards to appellants’ claims to refugee status.

“This decision significantly changed Canada’s refugee determination process and helped lead to the creation of the IRB as we know it. Also of significance is the fact that this was one of the earliest cases providing a thorough analysis of section 7 of the Charter to be decided by the Supreme Court.

“To this day, Refugee Rights Day (each April 4th) commemorates the Singh Decision and the impact it had on refugee rights.

The Supreme Court of Canada noted that the word “person” in the Canadian charter meant that a ‘person” in Canada did not have to be a Canadian citizen in order to receive medicare and social assistance benefits. This decision has meant that Canadian taxpayers pay well over $2 to $3 Billion per year for benefits provided to people who make refugee claims. At the peak of the abuse of Canada’s refugee system, about 30,000 to 40,000 claims were being made here every year.

As we noted above, about a third of refugees to Canada were crossing the Canada-U.S. border and claiming refugee status in Canada. These people had often been in other safe countries and either been granted status there or refused status.

41. SKILLED WORKER (Government Definition) : Immigrants selected for their skills, which will ensure their success in a fast-changing labour market and benefit the Canadian economy. The Regulations stress education, English or French language abilities, and work experience involving certain skills, rather than specific occupations.

42. STOCKS (Government Definition) : Stock statistics measure the number of people present in the CIC system on a specific date in each year of observation. CIC commonly measures foreign student stocks and foreign worker stocks. For a foreign student or a foreign worker to be counted as present in the stock, he or she must have a valid student or work authorization on that date. Any foreign student or foreign worker who has been granted landed status on or before the observation date is excluded from the stock count from that date forward.