letter to Sun and their articles

• Between Mansur's column and Coren's column the answer to many of our problems is easy. We don't need immigration and we especially don't need immigration from Islamic countries, as those immigrants will bring with them a type of Islam or customs which are antithetical to Canadian values. It doesn't much matter if the practices and ideas of those from Islamic countries are or are not part of Islam. They are customs and values that we do not want in our country.

Immigration in the face of globalization
115

By Salim Mansur ,QMI Agency
FIRST POSTED: FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 03, 2012 08:00 PM EST

In 1958, John F. Kennedy, then a U.S. senator, published a small book aptly titled A Nation of Immigrants. The world was much different then, as new states in Asia and Africa emerged, while European colonialism retreated.
The West was in the midst of a post-war economic recovery, and there was demand for low-wage workers in a growing economy.
Kennedy’s book made the case for ending quotas on immigration based on national origins. His argument was also in keeping with the Cold War politics, of denying Soviet Union influence among the newly emerging countries at the expense of the U.S. depicted as a racist society.
Two years after President Kennedy’s assassination, his successor, Lyndon B. Johnson, signed into law the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. The U.S., as Kennedy had called for, adopted an open immigration policy and Canada followed soon after.
Kennedy celebrated in his book how much America, in its making, owed to immigrants. He wrote, “Since 1607, when the first English settlers reached the New World, over 42 million people have migrated to the United States.
“Another way of indicating the importance of immigration to America,” Kennedy observed, “is to point out that every American who ever lived, with the exception of one group, was either an immigrant himself or a descendant of immigrants.” The exception was the aboriginal people inhabiting the continent.
The act of leaving the old world for the new, Kennedy wrote, involved breaking with the past and embracing the future as immigrants braved the immense hazards in making the journey across seas and oceans filled with uncertainties. But inside a decade of Kennedy’s writing, the arrival of wide-body transcontinental jetliners brought about a revolutionary change in the means of travel, and with it the entire meaning of immigrants and the experience of migration were altered.
Then came Pierre.
Elliott Trudeau’s multiculturalism and this policy, together with the revolutions in global transportation and communications, meant immigrants arriving since the 1970s were more or less trading places without making any break with their old world cultures and loyalties.
As a result, what Kennedy wrote about earlier generations of immigrants may not be said to the same extent for new immigrants. In the new conditions of globalization, the distinction between migrant workers and immigrants became increasingly obscure.
Many among new immigrants — given the policy of multiculturalism and the acceptance of dual or multiple citizenships — are migrant workers landed as immigrants, who draw upon the benefits of the host country while remaining attached to the customs and values of their native country.
It is politically incorrect to probe the practical reality of what has come to pass in the half-century since Kennedy pushed for open immigration, but the growing disconnect evident among newly arriving immigrants with the culture of their host country is undeniable.
These are issues that need to be discussed openly and widely. Immigration is not merely about numbers, as I indicated in my previous columns. Its effects over time inevitably change, and not necessarily for the better, the host country’s culture.
Kennedy, in looking back, celebrated the overall positive outcome of immigration. In looking ahead, we are far more aware since 9/11 of immigration’s divisively negative side.

Article by Coren – Feb 3rd 2012 – Toronto Sun
I sat last Sunday watching television with a mixture of incredulity and anger as a police inspector stood in front of a camera and explained the evils of domestic violence.
He was discussing, of course, the Shafia case and the murder of four innocent women, some of them mere girls, by their Muslim father, their Muslim mother, and their Muslim brother.
The detective meant well, I’m sure, but this had nothing to do with domestic violence and everything to do with honour killings.
I then watched a Kingston Islamic cleric explain how this mass murder was not about Islam, and how “people of other faiths commit such crimes.”
Do they? Well, there have been some isolated cases within the Sikh community, but the only religion that produces such slaughters in countries throughout the Middle East, Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, is Islam.
Yes, of course the vast majority of Muslims would never kill or harm their children, but what does Islam actually say about the place of women within the family, the community and society?
A woman is property within the Muslim faith, first of her father, and then of her husband. Often these fathers and husbands are loving and kind, but not always. And when they are not, they are empowered by teachings of the Qur’an and by Muslim tradition to act in a horribly barbaric and oppressive manner. Look, let’s be candid here. There are Jewish people who think their children dead if they marry out of Judaism. This is rare these days, but even when it occurs, there is never any violence and certainly not death.
The same might occur with Jehovah’s Witnesses, and there can be division and pain when a Hindu or Christian young person goes astray or even marries a non-Christian or non-Hindu.
But nothing like an honour killing. This is a product of the gender power imbalance intrinsic to Islam, just as was the polygamous marriage that was the context for this family. Two wives in this case, more in many marriages in our major cities.
For God’s sake, when are we going to grasp the nettle truth and ask genuine questions?
What happens if a Muslim converts to another religion? Will they be safe, will they be tolerated? What happens if a Muslim is attracted to someone of the same gender? Forget gay marriage — that’s a viable debate — but will a Muslim be allowed freedom and safety if they are homosexual? What if a Muslim marries a Christian or a Jew, what if they critique the Qur’an?
This is not the cringe-worthy Little Mosque on the Prairie, this is not cozy fantasy, but difficult reality. You’ve read and will read myriad comments and articles splashing around in relativism and obfuscation.
You’ll hear comments about “all religions,” “all people,” Islamophobia, racism. Put it aside. You know the truth, and you know police, politicians, consensus journalists, mainstream commentators and the like are running scared.
It’s too late for that cowardly, anti-intellectual nonsense. Four dead women are crying out from the grave for the truth to be screamed from the top of the houses, from the top of the mosques!

Shafias - letter to the Sun - Jan 30th

Shafias and immigration


I applaud the Sun for its coverage of the Shafia trial results but there are a few
points that should have been discussed. The first is the cost. It will cost Canada
at least 1 million dollars for the trial itself and undoubtedly more for the appeals.
In addition it will cost Canada about $100,000 per year per person to keep these
three misfits in prison in Canada. The cost benefits from immigration are already being questioned.Surely only a few of these types of cases or "group of 18" cases will negate any benefits that Canada has from immigration. The next question is why we let the Shafias enter Canada at all when it seems obvious that they had no intention of assimilating or adopting any of our culture? Surely simple cultural questions by our immigration officers could have determined that Mr. and Mrs. Shafia would never adopt Canadian customs. Lastly the Sun correctly congratulated the Jury for their efforts and moral stance. It is true that the jury based their decision on Canadian values but it should not be forgotten that their values and our whole justice system is based on Judea-Christian moral values and that they have served us well and should be continued to be appreciated.

Globe editorial -Nov 30th 2011

I don't understand why Canada should help pay for foreign doctors to train here and

then go back to their homelands. Should the U.S. reimburse Canada for all the trained

Canadian doctors and other professionals that we lose every year to the United States?

Does largess only go one way? Shouldn't we just tell the Sudan and other African nations

that if they want their doctors to return they have to offer them democracy, capitalism and other freedoms?

Our economy is based on a free market. If the African and other countries were to adopt our social,

economical and political freedoms, they wouldn't need our continuous support. So, especially in these

financially hard times, let's stop giving away the ship to foreign nations, especially those who do not

espouse our freedoms, democracy, and way of life

Re NP article Translator shut out of Canada Sept 27th

Although every Afghan and everyone else is a potential spy, the odds are strongly in favour of his being what he says he is - a Muslim with a strong work ethic and commitment to capitalism and democracy. He has already proven his worth by providing excellent and courageous service to Canada. He is exactly what Canada needs. I vote for allowing him and his family into Canada as very welcomed new immigrants

letters to Globe re Feb 18th - immigartion, Manji. judges,

1. Good for Jason Kenney for reviewing our immigration criterion. Single people will adapt better than married people, those who speak Englsih or French will adapt better than those who don't, the young will adapt better than the old, and the technically or reasonably educated will adapt better than extremely well educated. Adaptability should be given much more weight and many more points on our immigration assessment scale.

2. Irshad Manji is right when she says that the challenge for Arab democracy starts at home. But cultures take years to change so she is effectively saying that there is no hope for Arab democracies or perhaps Islamic democracies in the near future. However what she and your editorial forget is that the Arab world doesn't want democracy. They want more wealth, freedom and human rights. These, however, are tied together, and like Manji says, are dependent on changes to the family culture more than on democracy.

3. It is unfortunate that Jason Kenney is critical of judges. However it is the judges' duty to interpret the law, not to make creative decisions, based, not on the law, but on their own views of what is good for our society. It is this new judicial intrepretation of a judge's role that is leading to the criticism.

Christian Copts

There are 18 million Christian Copts in Egypt. If the Egyptian Brotherhood takes power in Egypt this group will be persecuted, killed and forced to emigrate from Egypt by those of the religion of peace. Canada must consider taking in our 200,000 annual immigrants from this group and excluding all other immigrants until the 18 million Copts find safety either here or elsewhere.

Liberal and Conservative stands on immigration

According to today's National Post, Liberals, Bob Rae, Joe Volpe and Dan McTeague wish the government to apologize to Suaad Mohamud and give her $2.6 million for trying to fiddle the government with her passport, while Kenney is trying to amend our immigration laws. Hmmm. I wonder which party I should support.