[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / abdl / ask / aus / fur / htg / hwndu / hypno / u ]

/canpol/ - Canadian Politically Incorrect

Desiderantes Meliorem Patriam
Winner of the 80rd Attention-Hungry Games
/otter/ - Otter For Your Soul

THE INFINITY CUP IS COMING BACK
May 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 4 per post.


GAS THE KIKES, RACE WAR NOW EH?

File: 7319b9c9ba10be9⋯.png (661.85 KB, 625x403, 625:403, bordercrossing.PNG)

 No.94

Questions asked to migrants intercepted at the Quebec border by the RCMP causes outrage

Labeled "troubling", "shocking", and "discriminatory" against Muslims, the 40-point questionnaire was used as a screening tool on migrants crossing the border illegally in and around the Lacolle, QC area this summer. After voicing his "outrage" on the subject, Minister of Public Safety Ralph Goodale ordered the usage of the questionaire to be stopped.

French article on the subject from Le Devoir

>http:// archive.is/2BjfZ

Toronto Sun article

>http:// archive.is/DCXVx

Notice that nowhere in these articles are the words "crossing illegally" used - the migrants concerned by the questionnaire had not made a formal request for asylum, nor had they applied for citizenship through the usual means. We know literally nothing about their background, beliefs, or place of origin, hence the usefulness of asking a series of key questions before we accept them in our fucking country.

Critics argue the questionnaire unfairly targets muslims; the questions that sparked the most controversy include "What is your opinion on women who don't wear the hijab?" and most crucially "What is your opinion of ISIS and the Taliban?", though the questionnaire (which i will post later) also included a number of run-of-the-mill questions such as "Have you ever committed a criminal offense?" and "Why did you not come to a border crossing?"

(((Mitchell Goldberg))), President of the (((Canadian Association for Refugee Lawyers))), stated:

>« These questions are not at all relevant. I may be in disagreement with an individual on religious grounds, but that does not imply that this person is a security threat. These are the types of questions asked in the leadership race for the conservative party. »

From the Toronto Star article:

>Speaking in Vancouver on Friday, Ahmed Hussen described the Mounties’ interview guide as unacceptable, saying it is incompatible with the government’s anti-discrimination policy.

>That line of questioning is simply not consistent with the way we do things in Canada,” Hussen said. “It is unacceptable. It is against our values as a society to treat everyone equally.”

Fo Niemi, president of the CRARR (Commitee on Research-Action on Race Relations) stated that the questionnaire was a

>"contemptible and discriminatory practice. What are we actually researching via these types of questions? What message are we sending?"

This is another example of the encroachment of (((human rights))) theology into domestic affairs. The trend towards severely crippling the border authorities' ability to screen and refuse applicants continues.

Post last edited at

 No.96

File: 80de57221639d20⋯.png (300.43 KB, 640x820, 32:41, questionnaire_page1.PNG)

File: 9c2befdec99a630⋯.png (357.35 KB, 629x831, 629:831, questionnaire_page2.PNG)

File: 5fb6dac814d823c⋯.png (203.71 KB, 622x794, 311:397, questionnaire_page3.PNG)

Here is the full questionnaire. Both the Le Devoir and Toronto Star articles focused exclusively on the questions deemed "insensitive" towards muslims. However you will see that the questions are mostly of a general nature and there is definitely nothing outrageous in there.

The manufactured outrage from the media serves to exaggerate the supposed discriminatory character of the interview process; what they're actually implying that any form of screening is discriminatory. It's part of the "accept first, vet later" refugee policy that is heavily promoted as the only "humane" option by Human Rights Groups including the (((U.N.))).


 No.97

Ahmed Hussen, the Head Nigger in Charge of Immigration, commented on the supposed controversy during an official press conference(?) in Vancouver this week where he revealed changes to the Canadian Citizenship Act. And no, the changes are not destined to render citizenship more difficult to obtain…

From the Toronto Star Article:

>http:// archive.is/DCXVx

>Hussen was in Vancouver to showcase changes to the Citizenship Act that came into effect this week that reduce the residency and language requirements for people applying to become Canadians.

Obviously.

>As of Wednesday, permanent residents only need to be in Canada for three of the previous five years before they are eligible to apply for citizenship, with no minimum days per year. That compares with the previous law requiring that four of the past six years are spent in Canada, with a minimum of 183 days in each of those four years.

This Nigger is so flagrant.

>The new law also narrows the age at which applicants must meet language and knowledge requirements to anyone between 18 and 54 years of age, compared with the previous span of applicants who are between 14 and 64 years old.

>Changes to the act also now give credit towards the residency requirement for citizenship even before an applicant becomes a permanent resident. “We hope that these steps will encourage even more permanent residents to meet their citizenship requirements to become Canadians,” Hussen said.

>“These changes will enable them to become Canadian citizens faster and do so in a flexible manner, contribute to them joining our family sooner and allowing them to contribute even more to our country’s economic, social and cultural success.”

Clearly the media frenzy over the questionnaire is designed to stir up some white guilt among the public in order to facilitate a further loosening of the obstacles towards receiving citizenship and refugee status. Makes you wonder why they don't just stop the charade and grant a priori citizenship to all non-whites of the known universe. Why even have an Immigration Department? It's such a colonialist institution right?


 No.100

News coming out now that asylum seeker claims are being accepted for people who claim to fear "deportation from the US by Donald Trump" and that these claims are being accepted at much higher then historical acceptance rates. Curious to know what vetting they are doing if they can push so many through when the wait times are such that people who arrive this month have an estimated 18 month wait for their hearing.


 No.103

File: c520f378dc53a4f⋯.png (55.02 KB, 864x564, 72:47, safe2.PNG)

File: d7f9b84b9fda29f⋯.png (7.26 KB, 751x194, 751:194, safe.PNG)

>>100

>News coming out now that asylum seeker claims are being accepted for people who claim to fear "deportation from the US by Donald Trump"

In other words, people who fear that countries' immigration laws are actually enforced.

Trump has provided (((them))) with a perfect excuse to bypass existing laws concerning passage from countries considered "safe"

>pic related

Since 2012, supposedly one could not apply for Canadian refugee status if one was coming from the States. The JWO is butthurt beyond belief that Trump isn't following the "amnesty for all non-whites" game plan. Theoretically, the CIC should be refusing all these claims by default. Revolting to see the media coverage about how the U.S. has taken an "anti-democratic" and "authoritarian turn" - what they mean ofc is that it's the wrong kind of authoritarianism.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / abdl / ask / aus / fur / htg / hwndu / hypno / u ]