Immigration Watch Canada

A 16 year old English Canadian fears becoming a minority in his own land

Canada is not for sale

By Andrew Miller, 16, High School Student

Canada is one of the most interesting countries in the world. From west to east and south to north, it has incredible biological diversity and beauty. It is a large country and because of this, there are regions which contrast with each other in every way imaginable. Because we have been lucky enough to settle here, why would we sell it? The truth is that a price cannot be set for it – it is invaluable. Despite this, as a result of mass immigration over the past 18 years, Canada has been put up for sale. New immigrants now account for close to 20% of Canada's population. If immigrants keep arriving at the present rate, the immigrant descendant population will account for half of Canada by 2050. My question is this: Why would we ever allow this to happen?

Many people like to say that the creation of cultural diversity, that bringing the world to us and that turning Canada into a laboratory in which a social experiment is being conducted, is in the best interests of the country. Those who say this and promote this idea are deceitful and unpatriotic to say the least. The fact is that Canada was settled by the native people, then Europeans. After having been a colony, we as a people aspired to becoming an independent land and succeeded in forming the Dominion of Canada. From then on, we worked with the struggles which confronted us and slowly built Canada into what it is today: a fair minded, relatively wealthy society but a society which quite frankly lacks respect for itself. If we worked so passionately to make Canada great, why would we ever even consider surrendering our country? Why would we support policies such as multiculturalism and high immigration which contribute significantly to surrender?

It would be shallow and extremely naïve to suggest that multiculturalism and high immigration are in our best interests because in reality they result in Canadians changing themselves and making way for people who have nothing to do with Canada and its accomplishments. A great example of this is the Christmas Holiday which has been transformed unnecessarily, into a celebration which no longer recognizes the birth of Christ. For instance, someone I now go to school with had attended, up until a year ago, a school which had been absolutely flooded by immigrants from the Middle East. In three years, the immigrant students accounted for one third of the school. Last year, at Christmas time they demanded that Christmas celebrations not take place in the school in days leading up to the Christmas Break, claiming that it excluded them. However, when Ramadan came along in May, they insisted that the Canadian students (still the majority of the school) join in the celebration.

As that case and many others demonstrate, multiculturalism and high immigration have resulted in discrimination against the majority in Canada. We are headed into becoming second class citizens in our own country. What’s worse is that we have Canadians encouraging minorities to force us to celebrate their traditions and saying that this is a positive occurrence.

Some may argue that cultures have changed and evolved in the past and that limiting immigration levels and selecting which cultures should be allowed into Canada would be interfering with a natural process. The difference between evolution and what is now taking place is that Canada's high immigration levels are not an example of evolution and they are the very opposite of being natural.

The argument that we need immigrants for our economy is a weak one because it means that we are willing to give up Canada for the sake of an economy which ironically will no longer be ours. If this country is to continue to prosper, let it prosper through our hard work and dedication


In truth, when people have settled, worked with and developed an area, it is instinctive and moral for them to feel proud of it and to feel that it is theirs. It is a sign of national pride for a people to recognize that they are no longer newcomers but founders of country in which they live and that it is theirs to defend.

Lastly, I would like to address the argument that mass immigration and multiculturalism are inevitable and not allowing these to happen is resisting change. The question which needs to be asked next is whether or not in this case resisting change would be resisting progress. It is a common mistake to think that change and progress are the same. Change should never occur unless it is necessary. Any change which isn’t needed is change for change’s sake. Reforms which occur for this reason are often regretted later on because many times the damage they cause are irreparable.

In conclusion, I would say that this high immigration policy has to be abolished without delay. The idea that Canadian culture is equivalent to multiculturalism is wrong. In truth, multiculturalism and high immigration are things which have been thrust upon us and which some foolish Canadians have chosen to accept—along with the idea that one day we will no longer dominate this country which our people worked so hard to build into one of the most prosperous nations of the world.

Even though I am only 16 years old, I have felt this way for a very long time because I care about Canada and would never want to see it ever change beyond recognition.

It is time for Canadians to take their land back.

GOD FORBID IF THE CBC RAN ANYTHING (I doubt if the ABC or the BBC are much different)

This from Brishen Hoff: CBC seems ignorant of limits when it comes to immigration, as though Canada is an unlimited bottomless pit for immigrants. If they ran a grocery store, they would be charging the same for a 5kg sack of flour as a 10 kg sack, because apparently quantity is irrelevant. If the CBC ran a restaurant with tables to seat 100 they would take reservations for 200 and ask their customers to hold their plate and eat while standing in the lobby. Once again, CBC is ecologically illiterate! If CBC raised rabbits, the SPCA would shut them down for trying to put 10 rabbits in a cage designed for 5. CBC has never discussed the possibility that there may be more valid refugee cases of people wanting into Canada than what Canada's land could possibly support.

CBC Townhall meeting to be stacked with immigration advocates

The following e-mail was sent to Karin Chykaliuk on Tuesday 3 March 2008

From: Tim Murray
To: Karin Chylkaliuk

Karin Chykaliuk,
CBC Radio One 99.1


I have to love Andy's panel. It consists of Uzuma Shakir, an advocate and activist for the rights of newcomers. Patrick Habamenshi, a Rwandan refugee, and Raheel Raza, who works to promote cultural and religious diversity through her writing and speaking. One more panelist, the famous Mr. TBA, will no doubt shore up the pro-immigration front.

It's quite astonishing that a state broadcasting system doesn't even to make any attempt to represent those 65% of Canadians who oppose the kind of "diversity" that these panelists and Those Who Know Better support. You see, the kind of diversity most Canadians prefer is intellectual diversity. As one Canadian of Chinese origin recently put it, there is little point in sitting around in a discussion group with Mark Kelly when everyone looks very differently but spouts the same politically correct multicultural group-think. Occasionally one does bear witness to a CBC panel where one, just one, beleaguered white face sits facing off against a Third World chorus. That's diversity in the same way a dab of whipped cream is atop a very tall chocolate milkshake.

The other kind of diversity Canadians prefer is biological diversity, you know, when wildlife habitat isn't paved over by the subdivisions which are being built to house the immigration tidal wave. Almost three-quarters of species at risk are found in areas threatened by urban sprawl, and 70% of those housing units are occupied by immigrants. In Greater Vancouver it is more like 85%. Ontario Environment Commissioner Gordon Miller said that in the next 25 years immigration will jam 6 million more people into Southern Ontario. Hope you like dim sum and curry because you will be trading away flora and fauna to get it. Andy's panelists seem nice enough, but I am more enriched by our native biological heritage than them.

Multiculturalism is much like a leaky air-mattress in a swimming pool. To be kept afloat, it needs constant pumping. The air, in this case, consists of infusions of people from "non-traditional" sources. Once it stops, the colonies break down and people assimilate (horrors!). The mattress sinks. So this is not really about the mosaic, is it? That's a smokescreen. It is about the corporate pyramid scam of population growth, of cheap labour and real estate development. And the CBC is part of that growth coalition, holding up rose coloured glasses through which people can mistake congestion, pollution and environmental degradation for "enrichment" and "vibrancy".

Suggested panelists: An ecologist, a biologist and John Smith, an Anglo-Celtic Canadian born and raised in Toronto who was passed over for a city job in favour of a Jamaican woman just off the plane who got hired because a) she was a woman and b) she was black. Who would be screaming for balance then?

Tim Murray
Quadra Island, BC
March 6/08

Racist-baiting of immigration reformers is left-wing McCarthyism

Everyone gets in a lather when we propose an immigration moratorium for Canada. We are racist xenophobes with a fortress mentality who think that a national "gated" community will seal off CO2 emissions from China and India. Instead we should drop our fence, welcome newcomers, and thereby send out a message of friendship so as to gain global cooperation in our plan to fight global warming, and yes, over-population, which after all are GLOBAL problems that Canada can't solve alone.

Similarly, those Americans who propose building a more extensive and imposing fence along the Mexican border patrolled by more guards are called by similar ephithets. And their panaceas are ridiculed as unworkable. More border guards have been correlated with even more illegal alien intrusions. Ted Kennedy, using the tried and true vocabulary of the Quisling environmental movement, calls not for "open" borders but "smart" borders. That is, open borders that allow illegals to pour in at a more even pace. Kennedy wants to do the good decent liberal thing and crack down on the big bad employers who lure Mexicans into the United States. He has broad agreement on that. And he also wants to help the Mexican economy out with aid so that Mexicans will stay put. Good luck. But like so many, Ted Kennedy hasn't the backbone to face a Mexican and say "no". Like a 21st century Will Rogers he apparently never met an illegal alien he didn't like. This kind of hospitality is the univeral affliction of western governments, political parties, labour unions and environmental NGOs. And it is killing us.

What is interesting is that wherever migration is debated on any continent, the race card is played. Hispanic leaders complain about the overt racism of anti-immigration reformers. White liberals, socialists and greens indulge in the same psychologizing, which Sidney Hook long ago described as the classic trade-mark of the politically correct. Rather than deal with your arguments, they put you on a psychiatric couch and impugn your motives. But notice these soft-greens and socialists only target white European cultures that are under threat. They scream about Bush's Mexican border fence, but do they ever mention that Mexico has a shoot-to-kill policy regarding illegal immigrants on ITS borders with Central American countries? Or that India is completing a fence of several billion dollars to keep 150 million Bangledeshi's from overwhelming and despoiling what remains of India's wilderness? Did they ever mention, decades ago, when they were crying ad nauseum about the wicked "White Australia" policy, that Australia's regional neighbours were not allowing any immigrants into their countries no matter WHAT their skin colour? Did we ever hear of a "Yellow Japan" or a "Yellow Indonesia" policy?

It seems in the left-green universe only "people of colour" are permitted to control their borders. Some are even allowed to control the flow of people WITHIN their borders without much comment from the politically correct. Internal passports were not uncommon in the Marxist-Leninist orbit.

Our critics do not hold the moral high ground when debating these issues. Their stance smacks of nothing less than hypocrisy and inconsistency. And their attempt to intimidate and shut down discussion with name-calling is contemptible McCarthyism in fashionable left-wing clothing.