The number of Canadian immigration applications from London is actually on the rise, but they’re not exactly swelling the ranks of the Church of England: “According to the 2006-2007 planning report for London, 62 per cent of applicants being processed in London originated in Gulf region countries and more than 55 per cent of visas issued went to Gulf residents.” (CTV, October 18, 2006)
The Refugee Act
One of the most provoking flaws in our refugee system is the powerful incentive it gives people to spin out an already lengthy process: As long as the case remains unresolved, benefits like welfare, housing, education (including ESL), medical, dental, etc. are assured. Now, you might think such a soft landing would look pretty good to people in genuine fear of their lives, but you’d be wrong: While their claims go unsettled, Canada’s self-professed refugees cannot legally vote, secure bank loans, cross international borders or sponsor other immigrants. To add to the muddle, old softy Canada will not deport anyone to any country mired in a state of hopeless turmoil, no matter how deserving the candidate. (That is the reason we were stuck with Ahmed Ressam years after his claim was bounced). In other words, the worse your home country, the better your chances of staying. In 2001, Canada granted the right of permanent residence to thousands of Afghanis and Somalis based on nothing more substantial than sworn testimony that the individual was who he/she claimed to be. And winning strategies don’t go unnoticed in the immigration game. “Algerians demonstrated after the North African country was removed from the [no deportations] list in 2002. Ultimately, 93 per cent of those living in Canada were allowed to remain. [Now, a new coalition] from eight countries whose ‘generalized insecurity’ has prompted the Canadian government to impose a moratorium on deportations to Afghanistan, Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, Haiti, Iraq, Liberia, Rwanda and Zimbabwe … wants the federal government to grant residence to about 4,000 people from the eight countries after they have been in Canada for three or more years. … In May, [immigration] minister Monte Solberg acknowledged the difficult situations these people face. But he told the Commons that 85 per cent of applications under humanitarian grounds are approved. [By a huge margin, the single highest approval rate among multiple entry devices. Approval, however, is] subject to an applicant not having a criminal record or posing a security risk. [Not good enough, gripes Lives on Hold coalition spokesthingey, Rick Goldman. He says that] an unusually high number of denials under humanitarian and compassionate grounds — some 22 that have been documented by the coalition in Montreal alone — demonstrates that this route is not effective for many. … The largest of these communities come from Congo, Zimbabwe and Haiti.” (Canadian Press, September 26, 2006) Given Canada’s deserved reputation as a not very discriminating pushover and our near-universal (85%) humanitarian approval rates, why the “unusually high number of denials”? Under Canadian refugee law, people from the most violently backward places on earth are shoo-ins; that these candidates somehow failed to meet even our degraded standards suggests that we have little reason to now press them to our bosom. As former British defence minister, Michael Portillo, notes: The West has been guilty of “pursuing liberal policies on immigration, by extending asylum to those who faced ‘persecution’ without much reflection on why they found themselves in that position.”
When the Conservatives upped 2007 immigration targets to 265,000, they made no mention of the current backlog of 800,000, or the fact that the backlog has grown by 100,000 in a single year. We can’t possibly process the numbers we’ve got, so why not shill for a few votes? Even when it is clear “we cannot immigrate our way out of our demographic problem. The C.D. Howe Institute demonstrated last month that since immigrants are only a little younger than those already here, they have little statistical impact on our demography. [Take office and the very next day it is preferable to sink billions into underperforming unassimilables rather than encourage even a single Canadian birth.] The Tories, it was said, just want to be seen as immigrant-friendly. Few seemed to realize that, since Canada routinely exceeds its target total, and is doing so this year, what the Conservatives propose is no real increase at all. [In fact, it’s the same old refrain: the tax payer feeds the jukebox and the immigrant/refugee industry picks the tune.] Last spring’s budget put aside $300 million to teach newcomers English or French and to help them settle. [Immigration Minister Monte Solberg] says he’s working on improved temporary-worker approvals, and better priority for blue-collar workers, and on the perennial issue of professional credentials.” (Montreal Gazette, November 6, 2006) In reality, the “perennial” problem of professional accreditation dates from CIC‘s asinine and relatively recent decision to tie admissions to (not very) “transferable skill sets” among “life long learners” rather than labour market need. Ever since, every cabby in the Dominion is a sobbing thoracic surgeon while spot welders are beaten back from our borders with pikestaffs.
Herbert Grubel, emeritus professor of economics at Simon Fraser University, calls the current system an economic disaster for Canada. “Government data from the census … show that the average earnings of recent immigrants during the first year after their arrival are only about 50 to 60 per cent of what is earned by Canadians of comparable age and education. While this gap closes in the years after their arrival, it remains at 80 per cent even after 10 years and does not improve thereafter. This is a large cost for Canadian taxpayers because our welfare benefits go to all residents regardless of income, so that recent immigrants and other Canadians on average absorb the same value of government services and transfers. However, taxes paid by these two groups depend on income. Because recent immigrants have much lower average incomes, they pay proportionately less taxes. [And Grubel has] estimated the value of the gap between the average value of government services absorbed and taxes paid by recent immigrants. Applied to the number of immigrants that had arrived in the preceding 11 years, in a recent year the costs to taxpayers have come to more than $16 billion. This cost is incurred ANNUALLY and will never be recouped. [Grubel calls this figure conservative, and recommends] quick and easy issuance of temporary work visas to skilled individuals. … These visas would be valid for two years and renewable for two more years before landed immigrant status is granted. During this quasi-probationary four-year period, those unemployed for more than three months face deportation. … Under the proposed system, we would admit more highly trained and skilled workers from Switzerland, Germany and other countries who, under the present system, are denied visas because they do not meet our system’s rigid requirements for formal schooling. At the same time, we would no longer admit immigrants with university degrees, who drive taxis, are unhappy doing low-skilled work and are needed in their home countries.” (Edmonton Journal, October 31, 2006) Grubel has almost certainly underestimated losses at $16-billion per year. Forget the significantly lower contribution immigrants make to general tax revenue while enjoying the same access to services (medical, educational, welfare, housing) — entire departments of government at the federal, provincial and local level are expressly dedicated to spending in the immigrant cause: Immigrant language instruction, immigrant skills upgrading, immigrant settlement and counselling services, immigrant credential evaluation, upgrading, workplace mentoring programmes. Other departments reputedly perform immigration processing, background, security and health checks. Then there’s the immigrant enforcement branch, immigrant law, legal aid, the IRB and the appeals process, to the point where immigrant and refugee cases now make up nearly 90 per cent of the Federal Court docket. Then, there’s the very existence of the Multiculturalism Secretariat, the Asia-Pacific and Immigrant Communities portfolios, various rights commissions, hate squads and the ceaseless, churning production of propaganda reminding tax payers to celebrate diversity or else. And periodic pay outs to various aggrieved ethnic groups have to come out of somebody’s pocket. Consider that Canada’s illegals (sorry! undocumented workers) and the failed refugees, overstayers and undeportables who have gone underground are eligible for these same tax funded essential and immigrant targeted services while paying no taxes at all. Consider how many millions are snatched out of the Canadian economy at the front end and re-routed to Guatemala, Gujarat or Guangdong in the form of remittances. All in all, a very little bang for a lot of bucks. Despite, or perhaps because of this ever-bubbling jack pot, the complaining never ceases. We would argue that the real cost to Canada cannot be weighed in dollars and cents, but for some reason, the only permissible measure by which to criticize immigration policy is purely fiscal. Add Grubel’s estimate of $16-billion to this September’s $13.2-billion federal budget surplus and you just might feel ever so slightly over taxed.
Does it strike anyone else that immigrant and refugee receiving countries all share similar pathologies? In the UK, “refugees and asylum seekers are to get free classes — on being clowns. Twenty-five between 12 and 25 years of age will be taught by professional circus performers. The seven-week trial course … will cost taxpayers more than Ј2,000. It will be paid for by the Belgrade Theatre in Coventry, West Midlands,[which is, in turn, funded by the British Arts Council. Early reaction has not been overly enthusiastic] but Justine Themen, the Belgrade Theatre’s assistant director for community and education, insisted: ‘Clowning is very British and we want to use it to raise the confidence and social skills of these people. Some may be in the country because they are escaping persecution. The workshops will be funny and will take people’s minds off what might be a depressing reality. As well as having fun, the participants will build up language skills which will be a major help for them.'” (The Sun, October 18, 2006) And speaking of oversize novelty shoes, “a 7ft 2ins Pakistani woman is to live in Britain on benefits after claiming asylum because she is ‘too tall’ to return home. Zainab Bibi, 33, claims she faces constant persecution and ridicule in her own country over her height. She has lodged an asylum claim with the Home Office and has already been granted a two-year visa to remain in the UK. Miss Bibi, who, in 2003, held the title of tallest woman in the world, plans to live off benefits and take advantage of free NHS healthcare. … After flying in from Pakistan, she claimed asylum in June and was given a council flat in Stockport, Greater Manchester, where she pays no rent or council tax and receives Ј40 a week in benefits. Speaking through an interpreter, she said: ‘I like it very much in Britain … I have diabetes and I can get treatment for free here, unlike Pakistan where it is more expensive.’ She said: ‘Because of my diabetes I do not plan to work but any money I can make will be sent back home to my mother and six sisters.'” (Daily Mail, October 16, 2006) Well, at least until mother and six sisters are eligible for clown college themselves.
“The scale of Spanish immigration makes angry debates in other European countries look trivial. Some 650,000 people arrived last year, pushing the total population over 44m. … Immigrants now make up 8.7% of the population — a fourfold increase in just six years. … More than half a million foreigners have arrived for each of the past three years. Some 700,000 illegal immigrants were granted amnesty last year.” (The Economist, October 12, 2006)
That’s No Lady, That’s My Mother
A CIC document dated October 10, this year huffs: “Marriages of convenience are not allowed. Citizenship and Immigration Canada’s officers are specially trained to recognize genuine immigration applications, and they know how to detect marriages of convenience. They use a variety of techniques to uncover marriage fraud, including document checks, site visits and interviews with sponsors and applicants.” It ends with an admonition that it’s flirting with deportation to engage in a marriage of convenience, but in practice, “between 70% and 80% of those claiming marital status are accepted on production of documentation only. [And why does this matter? Because] some immigrants are marrying their own sisters — or even their mothers — to get them into Canada. … The practice is not unheard of in several ethnic communities of Montreal, including Somalis, Congolese and Guineans, and from other countries where it is relatively easy to falsify documents. One case cited was of a man of Guinean origin arriving in Montreal in 2001. He married his sister in 2004 after wedding another woman in a nearby country. His sister arrived in Montreal early this year and he has since left the country to be with his real wife. Another man from Guinea, however, was tripped up in his attempt to bring his sister to Canada. Sources say Immigration officials raised questions and ordered DNA tests when he attempted to bring in more than the two children registered in his file. It’s very difficult to know exactly how widespread the practice is. Our reporters met at least 30 recent immigrants who claim to know at least one person who gained entry to Canada this way. All requested anonymity, fearing personal retribution. One former Congolese official expressed fear that public knowledge of the scam would be harmful to his people. ‘You’re giving away all our secrets to Immigration, you’re giving them weapons against us,’ he said. An Immigration Canada official told Sun Media the federal department is aware of the practice of using fraudulent marriages between brothers and sisters to gain entry to the country, but has no special plans to address the issue. ‘We have no particular position on this subject,’ Stephane Malepart said, adding a reliable system is already in place to verify the authenticity of family relationships.” (Toronto Sun, November 1, 2006) Sorry, are we keeping you up?
Take It From Rhubarb
In mid October Immigration Minister Monte Solberg overturned the deportation order that would have sent Piotr Mazur and his family back to Poland and allowed them to stay in Canada on humanitarian grounds. Although they had been living in the US, an accident on a Manitoba highway left Mr. Mazur a paraplegic 2 years ago. Next up, a Pakistani family of eight, the Razas, took up residence in Winnipeg’s 123-year-old Crescent Fort Rouge United Church on Aug. 3. (Why Jews and Moslems insist on holing up in Christian edifices is just one mystery of the asylum process.) David Giuliano, the Right Reverend and Moderator for the United Church of Canada flew in from Toronto to stir the pot with a speech worthy of da little thug from Shawinigan: ‘I mean you have a situation in Winnipeg where a Christian White Polish family’ — the Mazur family — ‘got accepted in four days. We got a situation where a Muslim, brown skinned, family with probably at least as much legitimate claim to refugee status, and they won’t even talk to us.’ [Taking her cue from the hired gun, one Raza daughter complains:] ‘I find (the government) a little rude, not talking to us. They should listen to us and give us a reason why they want to send us back,’ Rubab Raza, the 13-year-old family spokesperson said. Hassan Raza said he got a letter at in July telling him to pay $1,700 for immigration fees. He said he sent the cheque and then a week later got a letter back saying he had to leave. He did not get a refund or a reason. The Razas moved here from Brooklyn, New York, after 9-11, when tensions towards Muslims rose. Rubab has learned at least one thing from this: she wants to become an immigration lawyer.” (Winnipeg Free Press, November 6, 2006) Isn’t that precious?
In fiscal year 1991-92, the IRB finalized a mind-boggling 57,455 humanitarian cases; this year’s 20,000 claims represent the lowest number of filings since 1980. The decline is entirely consistent with the lowest global refugee population since 1980: According to the UN, where there were 16-million refugees in 1990, there are just 9.2-million today. If you misread this as good news, it’s because your paycheque is not predicated on ever-escalating crisis. Janet Dench, executive director of the Canadian Council for Refugees, blames the drop-off in business on the Safe Third Country Agreement. Concluded two years ago, this instrument compels so-called refugees to pursue their claim in the country of first landing, rather than casting about later for a better dental plan, aka asylum shopping. Ms. Dench’s bread and butter is further menaced by the Tories’ decision to axe the tax-funded Court Challenges Programme, once so helpful in setting up base camp preparatory to a long siege on the Supreme Court. For refugees in general, these are undoubtedly positive developments — no more decades languishing in stateless limbo — but it’s hard to see how speeding and streamlining a shambolic process improves employment prospects in the refugee trade itself. StatsCan notes that, “between 1981 and 1991, Canada admitted 279,000 people as permanent residents on humanitarian grounds.” Golden Years for the CCR and other groups sharing a vested interest in expanding their customer base with more refugees, more refugees with problems, and more refugees with more problems destined for Canada’s top court. The refugee industry has never been seriously inconvenienced with intrusive questions about its own motives, although it helps to be taken seriously: When IRB bureaucrats tell the paying customer that they are “consulting with their partners and stakeholders,” what they mean is groups like the CCR — players. And not just any old players — players with an agenda. Upstarts with opposing views will have doors slammed in their faces well in advance of so-called consultations. Still, with just 20,000 refugee claims on the docket this year, the head of the IRB gripes that the minister of immigration has left the agency itself in a state of limbo: “‘This year, the IRB has a complement of 156 members. As of today, we have 40 vacancies,’ Jean-Guy Fleury said at a meeting of a parliamentary immigration committee.” (Globe and Mail, October 18, 2006) Well, we know why at least three of those chairs stand so reproachfully empty — two adjudicators have been suspended while allegations of sexual misconduct are investigated while the third, Yves Bourbonnais, serves another prison stretch for malfeasance in office. But just what is M. Fleury actually suggesting? That, unlike 1991-92, when the agency romped through 57,455 files, it might (just might) be able to manage a reasonably competent review of one-third the number of cases, if only it had a full complement of board members?
In 2002, the Canada Food Inspection Agency ordered Darrel and Anthea Archer to slaughter their herd of imported water buffalo as suspected reservoirs of bovine spongiform encephalopathy. In the event, none of the animals were infected. The Cowichan Valley BC couple struggled to recover from the ordeal and spent four years rebuilding the herd. By Sept this year, they were within a hair’s breadth of realizing their long-held ambition — production of artisanal mozzarella — when Ottawa pressed the old detonation button again: “A master Australian cheesemaker, who was supposed to advise [them] on the fine points of making water buffalo mozzarella, was turned away last week by an immigration official at Vancouver International Airport. [Anthea explains] ‘To help get our business going, Andrew [Royal, of Shaw River Buffalo Cheese] was willing to spend his holiday time here. So, we offered him a ticket and borrowed the funds. This has set us back a long way,’ Anthea said. … ‘The problem appears to be that Andrew was too truthful when he arrived at Vancouver Airport and said he planned to spend his vacation helping make water-buffalo cheese. … Immigration determined he was an immigrant worker without a permit and returned him to Los Angeles.’ After attempting to return the next day, and again being sent back to Los Angeles, Royal returned to Australia. No one in Canada has the expertise to help and Royal was not being paid for his assistance, Anthea said. However, Janis Fergusson, Canada Border Services Agency spokeswoman, said anyone planning to work in Canada — even if it is unpaid work — must first get a labour market opinion via Human Resources Development Canada to establish no Canadian can do the job . With input from the prospective employer, a work permit can then be obtained from a Canadian consulate outside the country, she said. Fergusson cannot discuss individual cases, but said officials would have little choice but to turn away someone without a work permit. … The two families have known each other since 2000, when the Archers imported their original buffalo from Denmark. Last year, their son visited Australia and worked in the cheese plant. … ‘Andrew just wanted to help. He could have told us all the pitfalls,’ Anthea said.” (Victoria Times Colonist, September 26, 2006) Well, not all the pitfalls.
The cover of the August 7 issue of Maclean’s magazine features a spin off on that syndicated perennial, The Brady Bunch — in this case, interviews with The Khadr Bunch. Unsurprisingly, Canada’s leading mujahadin family spends much of its time “railing against the evils of the same Western world that signs their welfare cheques [flat screen tv notwithstanding. Loudmouth daughter Zaynab didn’t just happen by in a show of moral support at the bail hearings of the Toronto terror suspects; she’s been friendly with the wives of the alleged ringleaders since she groused her way back to Canada: One of these wives crowed on line that she would divorce her husband if he ever refused an opportunity to commit jihad. Of the arrests, Zaynab bawls:] ‘With these guys, now that they’re arrested, I’m pretty sure it goes through their minds that they wish they’d done something. … In their minds,’ Zaynab continues, ‘maybe it would have been worthwhile that we’d done something, so at least then we’d be punished for something we did, instead of being punished for something we didn’t do.’ [Tortured syntax aside, life in the Khadr cosmos is an interminable round of slights and offences. Kareem the paralytic] plays competitive wheelchair basketball. ‘I’m good,’ he says smiling. Recently, he tried out for an all-star rep team, but the coach cut him. He has no proof, though he is pretty sure his last name had a lot to do with it. ‘They didn’t say that, he says, ‘but there were players that I played better than.’ [Grammar is evidently another Western value this family resents. Then there’s the dreadful targeting of the Khadr klan mother.] A few months ago, Maha accompanied her granddaughter on a field trip to the Ontario Science Centre. At the end of the day, the class went to the closet to retrieve their coats. ‘Only my jacket was gone!‘ Must have been the infidels. [On the other hand, family ‘black sheep’ Abdurahman, who still lives with the rest of them by the way, has extracted more than mere welfare and health care from the infidel: his bizarre tale of being recruited as a CIA special operative was optioned] in January 2005. He sold the rights to his life story for a reported US $500,000. … The screenplay [for Son of Al Qaeda] portrays Abdurahman as nothing less than a Hollywood hero, an intelligent, compassionate young man who rejects radical Islam and happily helps the Americans track down the bad guys. He drives fast, drinks vodka and takes his new colleagues on a ‘five-star tour’ of al-Qaeda safe houses across Afghanistan.” The name is Bond. Abdurahman Bond.
For decades, homosexual advocacy groups have used civil rights rhetoric to position themselves as just another minority pursuing just another minority lifestyle. While the tactic has succeeded beyond wildest ambition, securing rights of immigration for partners and potential partners has been an enduring goal, despite official rhetoric that we need immigration “because Canadians are not having children.” The UN would use its 1992 International Year of the Family as a springboard to launch a new definition of “family” — making same-sex unions a third tier in abiding ties of blood and marriage. That same year, the founders of LEGIT (the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Immigration Task Force) sued Ottawa for discriminatory immigration policies. Unsurprisingly, Ottawa caved — or sort of caved — granting landed immigrant status to one of the plaintiffs without clarifying the issue or taking a principled stand of any kind. By 1994, the new Liberal government would reverse earlier policies altogether, allowing “same-sex partners” to immigrate on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Ottawa would justify this as a reflection of “new social realities” but failed to alter the Immigration Act, which still defines “spouse” as a member of the opposite sex. Few have done more to further their own interests than the man convicted of the stress-related theft of a $64,000 ring: Svend Robinson and fellow “out” MP Rйal Mйnard would jockey their way into key positions from whence came policy decisions affecting foreign homosexuals — Mйnard on the House of Commons Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, Robinson on the aptly named House of Commons Committee on Foreign Affairs. (In the case of his own foreign affair, Robinson brought Cuban love interest Max Riveron to Canada under the 1994 “humanitarian and compassionate” exemption. In 1997, after Board of Internal Economy regulations were relaxed, Riveron was entitled to as many as 64 flights to/from Ottawa per year at taxpayer’s expense). It’s no wonder Canada’s HIV-AIDs infection rate continues to plod upward when dedicated and highly successful advocacy groups work flat out to open Canada up to precisely those people experiencing abnormally high rates of infection around the world: According to Canada’s Centre for Infectious Disease Prevention and Control, Communicable Disease Report, August 1, 2006, an estimated 58,000 persons in Canada are HIV positive (including those suffering from the onset of AIDS): Homosexual males account for 51% of all Canadian HIV infections and represent “the largest absolute increase [among exposure categories] with 3,400 more prevalent infections since 2002 (13% increase). There were an estimated 1,670 more prevalent infections in the heterosexual/non-endemic [country] exposure category (24% increase), 1,370 more among the heterosexual/endemic [country] category (24% increase) and 960 more among IDU [intravenous drug users] (11% increase). [But the gross numbers and even percentage increases can be misleading: For reasons best known to itself, our national public health agency chooses not to publish infection rates among the highest of all possible risk groups — homosexuals from countries where HIV has reached epidemic proportions. On the other hand, even so-called straight] persons from HIV-endemic countries continue to be over- represented in Canada’s HIV epidemic. New infections attributed to the heterosexual/endemic exposure category increased slightly from a range of 300 to 600 (15%) in 2002 to 400 to 700 (16%) in 2005, yet according to the 2001 Census, approximately 1.5% of the Canadian population were born in an HIV-endemic country. Therefore, in 2005, the estimated infection rate among individuals from HIV endemic countries was at least 12.6 times higher than among other Canadians.” Among reported AIDS cases between 1979 and 1998 — 84.4% occurred among whites while infections among blacks then accounted for just 8.8%. By June of 2004, Whites accounted for 40.5% of new diagnoses, and 29.7% among Blacks [accounting for 2% of the overall population]. (HIV and AIDS in Canada, Surveillance Report, Public Health Agency of Canada, Nov 2004)
“Figures from Citizenship and Immigration Canada show that of the 2,260 applicants who tested HIV-positive from Jan. 15, 2002, when mandatory testing began, to June 30, 2006, 1,483 were refugees and refugee claimants who cannot be refused for causing an excessive demand on the health and social system. The remaining 777 applicants included economic immigrants, temporary residents and family class members, who can be refused admission if they are deemed to be a burden on the system [but, of course, these] are allowed to make an application to stay in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. In effect, they get a second kick at the can.” (Globe and Mail, September 23, 2006) “In Manitoba last April, a Sudanese refugee with HIV was charged with aggravated assault. He is alleged to have infected 45 women and girls from the Winnipeg and Brandon areas — one victim was only 12 years old. Police were concerned that some of these victims might have unwittingly infected other individuals. There have been other cases of HIV being spread by refugees. These cases seldom get national media coverage presumably because it is not politically correct to suggest there is a down side to admitting refugees with the HIV virus. Almost 10 per cent of Canada’s AIDS/HIV population consists of newcomers from countries where the disease is widespread. Most of these newcomers have come to Canada either as refugees or as refugee claimants. Health Canada‘s strategy for controlling AIDS is centred on prevention, but the current policy of admitting refugees with HIV works to undermine this strategy. There are more effective ways for Canada to contribute to the international effort to combat AIDS than to admit refugees with the virus.” (James Bissett, Ottawa Citizen, September 13, 2006) Oh, yes, and two years after pushing through the Access to Medicines Regime — cheap AIDS drugs for Africa — Canada has not managed to ship a single pill to Africa.
“In the 60s, Popeye the Sailor Man guzzled spinach from a can in order to battle the bad guys. He became an icon of good health for those who ate vegetables and exercised. As of this week, you don’t want to eat spinach nor vegetables grown and picked by North America’s newest slave class. Restaurants called for a ban on serving spinach salads. I’ll bet most Americans shy away from lettuce, cabbage and other leafy vegetables in the coming weeks. They’re all grown and harvested under the same conditions by the same people. As of Wednesday, 146 citizens in 23 states suffered E. Coli infection and one died. How do you think this disease outbreak occurred? To bring it into sobering focus, please understand that 20 million illegal aliens crossed into NorthAmerica in the past 20 years without any health screening. They pick our food, wash our dishes and, as is the norm in Third World countries, rarely if ever wash their hands after using the toilet. Additionally, most suffer functional illiteracy. They do not practice personal hygiene or health habits most of us assume as a normal way of living.” Frosty Wooldridge