Canadian Immigration Authorities

by Natasha Petrova
Canadian Immigration Authorities

I had my first experience with the Canadian state this week. The immigration authorities questioned me about my trip to Canada. One dicey moment was when the customs officer asked about whether I paid taxes or not. I replied that I only pay sales tax. I haven’t made enough money to pay income tax since 2006. Another obnoxious question was about whether I had ever been stopped by the police. Both of which were answered for the purpose of smoothly entering the country.

Few aspects of the modern state are more irritating than the control of borders. Our movements are circumscribed by the nationalistic regimentation of migration and travel. This makes it more difficult to vote with your feet. One polity may be particularly oppressive, but the entrance requirements of another can be rather repressive too. This renders it more difficult to escape unjust conditions and reside in a more just area.

I am only here on a visit, but I could very well be migrating to another country sometime in the future. It will be a nightmare to go through this again with different immigration authorities. One of my fears relates to how they will treat my computer and other valuable items. I could be stopped for my political activites too. It would be the restriction of my liberty based upon a political disagreement.

Nation-states have other major disadvantages, but the restriction of movement is definitely one of the worst. A basic human right includes the liberty to move about without arbitrary restrictions on said movement. What could be more arbitrary than imaginary lines drawn in the sand by military and police power? Not much! All such borders are political fictions that benefit ruling classes.

Border restrictions especially hurt lower class people who need to get to a better locality. Such individuals are out to create a better life for themselves and deserve our moral support. They are the ones with the least amount of resources to fight immigration laws. The laws are thus biased against lower income people. They are the most restricted and affected by them.

Strong border controls allow rulers to pick and choose who enters a given territory. It priliveges some people at the expense of others. The individuals who have political connections are at an advantage relative to those who don’t. A base of support can thus be created and cultivated amongst the immigrant populace. Let’s work to open the borders and end nation-states.

flattr this!

8 responses to “Canadian Immigration Authorities

  1. In Canada we get all kinds of folks from the US, and not necessarily US citizens, but residents as well, trying to claim refugee status. One such person was a detroit welfare queen and her brood. If she had been granted entry, it would have take a year to get rid of her. So the customs folks ask, “what is the source of your income”. She told them, she got tossed. Sorry for your slowdown at the border, but we are too kind to layabouts here in Canada, and we dont need anymore.

  2. So if your house is nicer and more comfortable than mine (which it probably is), you would welcome me to come & move in with you, & possibly live at your expense?

  3. “ruling classes” – what have “ruling classes” got to do with immigration controls?

    In reality immigration controls tend to be supported by the low paid (fearing competition with newcomers).

    Immigration controls are nothing to do with some sub Marxist nonsense about “ruling classes” (what not go the whole hog and make the ultimate drivel claim that the state is the “tool of the capitalists”).

    I am put in mind of an immigration case in the United States in the 1920s – where the ruling was written by my favourite Supreme Court Justice of modern times (Pierce Butler of Minnesota – the lone dissenter in “Buck V Bell” and one of the “Four Horsemen” in the 1930s).

    An immigrant had sworn allegiance to the Constitution of the United States – it later became obvious that he had sworn falsely (that he did not believe in the principles he had sworn to defend).

    The defence did NOT dispute this – they just said that the freedom of the immigrant covered any political stance the immigrant took.

    Justice Butler ruled that the as the immigrant admitted he had sworn falsely, he had entered the nation under false pretences – and therefore the government was right to send him home.

    And if someone goes on about “the ruling classes” and wishes to go to Canada?

    Errr this does not sound like a desirable person, not someone who is going to do good (rather than harm) in Canada.

    Unless further information showed that the fear (the fear that one is dealing with a Red) is groundless, I would stamp the application form – REJECTED.

    Keeping Marxists (and communal “anarchists” – also collectivists and with a long record of terrorists) out of an area is obviously better than having to fight (and kill – or be killed) them once they have arrived. Ditto followers of Islamism.

    The state is a sword (hence the Sword of State) – it is not legitimate to use a sword against people who are not enemies, but someone who goes on about “the ruling classes” sounds like an enemy (at least till it is explained what is meant by the use of this term). It is legitimate to use the sword against enemies – because they are political people (i.e. people of the sword) themselves.

    However, there is a factor I have not considered……

    Someone (of working age) who had not worked enough to pay income tax since 2006 is obviously very ill (or disabled) and, therefore, one should show compassion.

  4. I obtained ‘Green Card’ Resident Alien status in the United States about five years ago. In order to obtain this privilege I had to invest a very large sum of money in a commercial enterprise, which investment had to generate employment for ten US citizens. I had to demonstrate, to a high standard of proof, that the money I had invested had been obtained lawfully. I had to show business records and tax returns for the past ten years. I had to undergo a thorough medical examination, and a thorough criminal background check. My wife, who is half Swiss and who had lived briefly in Switzerland as a teenager, even had to obtain a certificate from the Swiss police to demonstrate that she had not been in trouble as a teenager over forty years previously. My immigration petition ran to 487 pages of close legal argument, for which my attorney charged me $10,000. I had to demonstrate that my presence (or my investment at any rate) would be an asset to the country and that I could support myself and would not become a burden to US taxpayers. If I break the law the US authorities can, and will, deport me.

    All this is entirely as it should be. Why can we not do the same in the UK?

  5. If you want to stop immigrants end welfare. The C4S’r was only visiting ffs. The present situation harasses the native population and still allows in vast numbers of those who should not be allowed in.

    Of course there is a ruling class of NuBluLabour sludge and assorted others, judgeboy scum, senior civil service, public school pricks, guardian reading BBC media trash–the enemy class Sean speaks of very convincingly.

    Hugo Miller–is it buggery “entirely how it should be”. You should be free to move anywhere that you can support yourself by moral means–ie without welfare or charity handouts and without force or fraud. Those conditions alone would ensure that the immigrant population of any country would be small and well-integrated not an attempted takeover-in-progress. . All you have done by kissing the arse of Uncle Sam is to puff the bureaucrats ego.

  6. Quite so Mr Ecks – and America (and Britain) used to be like that.

    No (or virtually no) “public services” and come in if you want to – but no “civil rights” (if people want to “discriminate” against you they can).

    The vast bureaucracy that Hugo was subjected to (basically the result of the 1965 Immigration Act – British people used to be able to basically go to America on the nod, the Amish and Mennonite name for Americans is still “the English”, but Senator “Teddy” Kennedy hated the British) does not stop endless millions of Third World people arriving in the United States (mostly illegally) and demanding what is “owed” to them and their children.

    I just watched an example of this attitude on “Al Jazerra”.

    A farmer in Paraguay was angry that the government had failed to… him a tractor (and give lots of other stuff as well).

    The television station shared his anger (perhaps they could give him some of their oil money – no? why not?) and was angry about only “2% of the population of Paraguay owning 90% of the farm land”.

    So bleeping what? Why should people be given tractors (or farmland) if they can not PAY FOR IT.

    And, by the way, there is no “racial” difference between rich and poor in Paraguay – these people are “racially” identical (both are of mixed European and indian ancestry)..

    The poor have no “this other race” excuse – they have just been stirred up by demagogues (Liberation Theology types). And Mohammed was doing that a thousand years before Karl Marx (hence Al Jazeera’s de facto alliance with the socialists and communal “anarchists” – the Green Flag joins the Red Flag and the Black Flag).

    Sadly this Third World attitude is coming to the United States (every day – over the Southern border).

    Prosperity depends (in the end) on beliefs – principles.

    Adopt Third World beliefs (the sort of “Social Justice” beliefs that have reduced Argentina from the level of Canada to the level of a dump) and you will end up Third World.

    Regardless of geography and regardless of “race”.

    After all Franklin Roosevelt was bad enough, but if the United States had followed Father Coughlin instead (never forget that Father C. attacked Roosevelt from the LEFT) then the United States would already be like Argentina (or Venezuela or…..) without any demographic change.

    Yes “Social Justice” politics (and theology) is that lethal.

  7. As for Europe….

    Imagine that “free migration” was established WITHOUT the end of the “Public Services” (“free” health care, education, income support, housing……) , and WITHOUT an end to “anti discrimination” laws as concerning private property.

    After all “free migration” WITHOUT an end to “public services” and “anti discrimination” regulations is what the left want.

    What would be the result?

    GENOCIDE – that would be the result.

    The utter extermination of Western Civilisation in Europe – even the word “Europe” (and the words “England”, “Scotland”, “Wales”, “Ulster”, “United Kingdom”) would eventually be forgotten.

    It would be as if France (and the rest of Europe) had fallen to Islamic invasion in the 8th century.

    Who now remembers the once flourishing Western Civilisation in what is now Islamic North Africa?

    Asia Minor (which is now Turkey) was Christian for a thousand years – who now remembers them? Even the remains of the churches are being destroyed.

    The numbers of people who want to “emigrate” (read – take over) from North Africa and the rest of the Islamic world to the West is without practical limit.

    I repeat that this would be genocide – the utter extermination of the West.

    Libertarianism is not a suicide pact – it does not imply an agreement to being wiped out.

    • Concerned Briton

      Yeah, but “open borders” folk like this, people that fail to see the end result of their daydreams (and thus fail to recognise the rights of a nationhood, an identity, a sense of belonging, the rights of a nation to limit undesirables to protect the well-being of their own nation of people and to thus help sustain their success etc) might have to suffer the annoyance of questions about whether they have been stopped by the police and well, have a little worry about their laptop.

      Importation of criminals, disease, incompatible religions and the racial annihilation of the west etc pale into insignificance to a minor and temporary nuisance of being checked and delayed at points of entry on what are nothing, after all, but “lines on a map”……

      I just wish we actually had immigration controls enforced in this country. By all accounts (and from recent admissions) from former UK Border staff from the 1960’s all the way through to today, they have often been waving folk through like no tomorrow, not least in some cases because they have to!

      If the author wants to tackle matters of laptop contents, intellectual property and other infringements of liberty that fall under the free speech and ‘not harming anybody’ category, then they can be my guest – but that is a different kettle of fish to having open borders (and all it brings with it)!

      “C4SS” states on their website that it is an anarchist-left-libertarian group based in America. Why am I therefore not surprised to hear another insane open-borders daydream (and ‘unintended’ genocidal programme) being put forward from this group.

      They may as well be situated on Mars as far as understanding of the world and human dynamics go – and if I was religious, I would pray to God that these people never achieve power and influence.

      They should establish some highly successful colony somewhere with all mod-cons and good standards of living and then put into practice their madcap no border/immigration principles and see how long they – and their values – last, before pushing for the speeding up the destruction of the rest of us.