Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán Declares 2018 to be the Year of the Families

Prime Minister Viktor Orban giving his speech during the Budapest Family Summit. Photo: About Hungary Blog/PM Orbán at World Congress of Families XI summit: 2018 will be the year for families

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán declared 2018, to be the "Year of the Families"; a declaration made on May 25, during his opening speech at the Budapest Family Summit.

It is a declaration that not only spotlights a nation's strength relies on its people—and fundamental to that is the family, the primary cell of society—but also seeks to address the declining birth rate experienced by many countries in Europe (including Hungary) with real and immediate solutions that will help families have more children.

The World Congress of Families (WCF) and the International Organization for the Family (IOF) chose Hungary for the second time to host this summit—whose theme was “Building Family-Friendly Nations: Making Families Great Again”—because Hungary, as the WCF Managing Director Larry Jacobs put it, "...[H]as demonstrated its strategic leadership as an advocate for the natural family in Europe." Here is what the WCF also published about why they chose Hungary:

Hungary’s leadership in defense of family, life, and Christianity is well known in Europe. The adoption of key provisions in the Hungarian Constitution in 2011 defining marriage between a man and a woman and protecting human life from conception to natural death have made the Orban government the hero of pro-family and pro-life leaders from all over the world. Hungary’s leadership is fully committed to family friendly governance and has recently launched a new national motto, 'Hungary, the Family Friendly Country.'

In Hungary's constitution, The Fundamental Law of Hungary, there are four provisions that specifically point to the truth and accuracy of Jacobs' statements. The first is contained within the National Avowal, which states, "We hold that the family and the nation constitute the principal framework of our coexistence, and that our fundamental cohesive values are fidelity, faith and love." (2)

The second is located at FOUNDATION Article L, "(1) Hungary shall protect the institution of marriage as the union of a man and a woman established by voluntary decision, and the family as the basis of the survival of the nation. Family ties shall be based on marriage and/or the relationship between parents and children."

The third is under FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY Article II, "Human dignity shall be inviolable. Every human being shall have the right to life and human dignity; the life of the foetus shall be protected from the moment of conception."

The fourth is at FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY Article XV, "(5) By means of separate measures, Hungary shall protect families, children, women, the elderly and persons living with disabilities."

Hungary's constitution is impressive; reading it is time well spent. For those interested in knowing more about it, consider my post of December 2016, Viktor Orbán: A True Leader of and for the People of Hungary and Hungary's Constitution The Fundamental Law of Hungary.

It comes as no surprise that Hungary was chosen to host this summit; part of the goal of this summit, as stated on the WCF website, was to "...[S]trengthen our existing international network and help launch a new global profamily alliance of countries dedicated to defending marriage, the family and the sanctity of human life.”

Since Orbán and the party he leads, the Fidesz Party, was elected in 2010, the government has spent 9.7 billion EUR in support of families. Debt relief, child support, family housing incentives, support for household modernization are just some of the latest measures put into place to help families.

It is part of a demographic battle that Orbán is fighting—an approach that seeks to strengthen families from within Hungary rather than rely on the false solution of immigration—knowing full well that strong families will create a strong, competitive, and prosperous Hungary for current and future generations.

The family is at the center of Orbán's vision of the future! It is Orbán's firm belief that protecting families, no matter what the costs, is essential.

Orbán certainly articulated that very belief during his speech at the Budapest Family Summit (World Congress of Families XI); a speech worth reading to not only better understand the importance of the family, but to capture the strength and intelligence of Orbán's leadership.

A safe society is a fundamental component of any government's plan to protect families, which Orbán highlighted in the first part of his speech, when referring to Brussels' so-called "refugee" resettlement scheme and the migrant crisis that it created.

Hungary's southern border fences along the Hungarian-Serbian border. Photo: About Hungary Blog/Hungary’s southern border fence has been protecting the frontier of Europe for two years

Orbán responded to that threat with the building of two border fences along the border with Serbia, as well as establishing border-hunters (specially trained border guards), who form part of a security force: modern-day border-fort garrisons, police officers, and the defence forces.

Not only has Orbán brought the Balkan-migrant route—of which Hungary is an extension—to a complete halt, but he has enabled Hungarians to live in a peaceful and safe society; and in the process, has inspired confidence in young people to have families, secure in the knowledge that throughout Hungary will echo the "Happy cries of children rather than sirens from police cars and ambulances."

Today, Hungary is one of the safest countries in Europe!

The danger for Hungary and Europe is not over as Orbán pointed out, "It is only a matter of time and political expedience before millions of people who are ready to set out are once again channelled in our direction." (1) The coalition of human rights activists and people smugglers continue to work to send waves of migrants—mostly men in their prime—in the direction of Europe.

Recent developments prove Orbán to be absolutely correct as has been reported by Government Spokesman Zoltán Kovács in his latest blog post, European Parliament speeds up realization of the Soros plan.

In that post, Kovács spotlights the proposal made by the European Parliament's Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) for a limitless resettlement quota scheme, that coupled with what he described as a "Hungary-bashing report," points to a pro-immigration agenda that will attempt to strong-arm any member that refuses to cooperate.

Hungarian youth and traditional dancing at the Budapest Family Summit. Photo: Daily News Hungary/INTERNATIONAL FAMILY SUMMIT – ORBÁN: GOVERNMENT TO INCREASE FAMILY TAX BENEFITS

One of the most salient points in the speech that Orbán so candidly spoke of, is the declining birth rate among European countries, including Hungary. He went on to state that, "...The time for straight talking has come. Europe, our common homeland, is losing out in the population competition between great civilisations. Fewer and fewer marriages are producing fewer and fewer children, and the population is therefore ageing and declining." (2)

There are two views on how to solve this problem. The first sees immigration as the answer, while the other view taken by Central Europe (including Hungary) is that they must solve the demographic problem by relying on their own resources; a truth that Orbán stated must be acknowledged through a spiritual renewal.

To put the declining birth rate in Hungary into perspective, Orbán cited from national statistics on Hungary's population in 1980, when the population was at 10,709,000 people; by 2017, that figure dropped to 9,799,000. It is a dramatic drop in population—a loss of almost 1 million people—which as Orbán pointed out, "...[I]s more than all the casualties we sustained in World War II." (2) 

So important is the need to address the declining birth rate that Orbán refers to the restoration of natural reproduction not only as a national cause, but "the national cause."

Orbán's goal is to raise the birth rate to 2.1% by 2030, which will require responsible family policies that must be pursued for decades, over the course of several governments. Orbán considers this to be the first precondition for the population turnaround.

The second precondition is a powerful financial engine, "A competitive model that is full of energy." Elaborating further on this Orbán stated that any major political, social and intellectual turnaround always requires financial resources:

As far as we Hungarians are concerned, I can tell you that here economic growth is in a range between three and five per cent. This is the magical GDP growth. Government debt is declining and unemployment is coming to an end. Because our economic policy has been successful, the next target of our general and economic policy is to promote the number of children being born. It is to this that we’ve adjusted our fiscal system, it is to this that we’ve adjusted our housing support system; and our work-based economic system – with which we shall soon reach full employment – also serves this purpose. (3)

The third precondition for a successful demographic turnaround is for Europe to be in "good shape"; that is, each country's economic plan has to include support for the family. So important is this that Orbán stated, "If as a unit of community the family does not occupy first place in the hearts of young people, however, economic strength and excellent national economy figures are in vain: we cannot achieve anything." (3) Hungary spends 4.6% of GDP on family support.

Orbán acknowledged the simple truth that it is essential to pursue a policy that removes obstacles from the path of young people if more children are to be born. It was in the spirit of this truth, that he declared 2018, as the "Year of the Families." 

Accompanying that declaration is an action plan that will help to ensure young people are financially supported and encouraged to have more children. There is no better way to understand that action plan than to read it from Orbán's own words:

We’ve decided to further raise the rates of family tax allowances, and to place families with two children at the centre of this, as they represent the largest section in Hungary. And I’ve learnt that where there is room for two, there is also room for three – or even four. Braver families may even find room for five. For young women with two children and student loans, the Government will cancel fifty per cent of their debt, and for those with three or more children one hundred per cent of the student loan debt will be cancelled. For graduates we shall extend the term of maternity leave by a year, and for university students it is extended until the child reaches the age of two. Hungarians 3/4 understand the meaning of this family policy measure. “My home is my castle”: this is how the Hungarians think, and this is another reason why it is difficult to adopt a good policy here. We have decided that families with mortgages can have one million forints written off their debt if they have three children, and one million forints will be written off for each further child, with the state bearing the burden. Finally, we shall embark on infant day care developments on an unprecedented scale. We are going to build infant day care centres everywhere families live, and we shall renovate existing infant day care centres wherever necessary. We are also opening up our family support system – although cautiously – to fellow Hungarians who live outside the borders As a result, from next year they may also be eligible for maternity support after the birth of children, and baby bonds will be available across the entire Carpathian Basin. (4)

If that wasn't impressive enough, Orbán also announced the establishment of a research institute that will serve to better Hungary's spiritual and intellectual competitiveness, and good policy planning. The institute will become an international think tank that will, as Orbán put it, "...[P]rovide sufficient knowledge and intellectual munition to help and support families, laying the philosophical foundations for our family policy, and enabling accurate understanding of the situation in Europe and the world." (4)

Using the analogy of a ship sailing into the wind Orbán pointed out that obstacles do exist, but no matter what those obstacles are, with perseverance, courage and the backing of like-minded allies, together Hungary and Europe, just like a ship that knows what port it is aiming for, will reach its destination.

The brave, responsible, and intelligent leadership of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has proven itself for seven straight years, and there is every reason to believe that Hungary's progress and growth will continue for many years to come: the Hungarian model is working and it shows!

Such is the kind of leadership that other countries should be seeking if they are serious about: a major demographic turnaround; protecting and strengthening the family; securing their borders; and guarding against all threats to their Christian identity, heritage, and culture.

God bless Prime Minister Viktor Orbán for continuing to demonstrate the kind of leadership that is so desperately needed in many countries in Europe, in Canada, and throughout the world.

May 2018, be a great year for the families!

Why I am Voting for Kellie Leitch

My Conservative Party of Canada leadership race ballot with Kellie Leitch as my only choice.

When I think about why I am voting for Kellie Leitch, many things come to mind: her toughness, courage, certitude, intelligence, stamina, and many other character strengths; a platform that consists of bold, common-sense policy proposals that are the much needed solutions to many of Canada's problems; her impressive performances at each leadership debate; her effective use of social media to make her platform and campaign better known and understood; her outreach to Canadians across the country; and the overall successful execution of a well thought-out and planned campaign.

Above all else, what stands out about Kellie Leitch is her patriotism: a common thread that runs through her entire campaign. It is expressed in a most identifiable way through her unwavering determination to protect and promote our Canadian identity with her Screening For Canadian Values policy proposal, which has resonated very well with me right from the start.

No other candidate can compare to Kellie's character strengths; nor, have any been able to match her policy proposals!

I vividly recall from my initial discovery of the candidates' platforms that none of them had impressed me except for Kellie Leitch's. Her platform was detailed and available on line from day one of her campaign launch, and it was presented in a very clear, complete, and forthcoming manner. How refreshing is that to see in a candidate?

Leitch's campaign has excited and given new hope to millions of Canadians; two-thirds of which share and support Kellie's vision for the future of Canada.

Part of that excitement stems from another impressive aspect about Kellie Leitch: she has been the only candidate unafraid to challenge the status quo and the political correctness that the mainstream media and elites continue to impose upon Canadians.

My own excitement and enthusiasm for Kellie's campaign has been funnelled through a dedicated blogging and social media effort. Today's blog post is the sixth in a series of blog posts that I have written since January of this year, in support of Kellie's candidacy for the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada.

I firmly believe that it is important to not only vote, but to get involved in the political process, if you are really serious about making a difference and affecting a long lasting, positive change in society.

The remainder of this post expands upon getting involved in the political process; elaborates on Kellie's tough immigration stance including her important message of February 2; details Kellie's response to the illegal border crossings at Emerson, Manitoba; includes a brief note on Kellie's strength of character; and concludes with my encouragement to all those who remain undecided about choosing Kellie as their first pick on the ballot.

Getting Involved in the Political Process

When one thinks of a political campaign it doesn't necessarily conjure up a sense of excitement, enthusiasm and intrigue. Given the growing distrust and disappointment of Canadians with our current Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the Liberal Party of Canada, it is certainly understandable why many remain skeptical and frustrated about politics.

I share those frustrations, but rather than give into them, I decided many months ago to turn those frustrations into something positive, by getting involved and actively seeking to help Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) leadership candidate, Kellie Leitch.

My decision to do so was in large part the result of the Trump-effect in Canada, taking to heart what I wrote about in my post-election blog post, Donald Trump's Election: A Call to Christians to Get Back Into The Political Arena. 

In that post I included a dedicated section on Christian Evangelist Franklin Graham who went from coast to coast, during his Decision America Tour, and spoke at each state's capital getting the message out to the American people to do three fundamental things: pray, vote, and engage in the political process.

In addition, I also wrote about Saint Pope John Paul II's post-synodal apostolic exhortation, Christifideles Laici (Christ's Faithful People) on the vocation and mission of the lay faithful in the Church and in the world. It is a document that is known for St. Pope John Paul II's directive, "It is not permissible for anyone to remain idle," which referred to the need of the laity to get actively involved in social, economic, political, and cultural life.

Among the many things that I learned from President Trump during the American election experience is that social media is an effective way to bypass the nonsense of fake news and skewed statistics from mainstream media—or to quote Pamela Geller, the "enemedia"—to obtain and share the truth.

Much in the same way that President Trump broke with precedent and presented a campaign platform with bold policy proposals that addressed the needs and concerns of the American people, so too has Kellie Leitch done likewise with the current CPC leadership race. If there a common ground between both individuals that serves to potentially bring both countries together in a united effort, it is their respective tough stances on immigration and protecting borders.

Kellie Leitch is Canada's compliment to President Trump, so necessary not only for a united, stronger North America, but even more so for Canada as "the" candidate who will undo the neglectful, irresponsible, and reckless policies of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Leitch's Tough Immigration Stance

What initially attracted me to Leitch's campaign was her tough stance on immigration; so urgently needed to address our growing demographic problems.

I was alerted to that tough stance, ironically through mainstream media television, where I saw Kellie holding up Vic Satzewich's book, Points of Entry: How Canada's Immigration Officers Decide Who Gets In. It was soon thereafter that I began to look into who Kellie Leitch was and discovered her platform at her web site, https://kellieworks.ca.

Kellie Leitch during the Conservative Party of Canada leadership debate in Saskatoon on November 9, 2016.
Photo: National Post/John Ivison

It wasn't long before I homed in on Kellie's Screening For Canadian Values policy proposal, which not only promotes our Canadian identity and shared historic values, but seeks to protect it by ensuring that those who seek to come to Canada—be they immigrants, visitors, or refugees—receive a face-to-face interview by a trained immigration officer.

Interviews are the only way that immigration officers can accurately and thoroughly assess credibility and risk, and in the process identify those who are genuine applicants from those who are not.

Sadly, our immigration officers conduct very few interviews which is a symptom of an even bigger problem: the lack of nation building in Canada's immigration system. Kellie has identified this from day one of her campaign launch in mid-October 2016:

...I will continue to argue that Canadians want to protect our nation, our way of life – our Canadian values, our Canadian identity, a Canadian identity that so many people have fought and died for. 

Now the question turns to: Why should we screen? And, what are we screening for? The discussion of immigration and screening seems to focus heavily on questions of security and keeping out undesirables. 

When it doesn’t focus on these items it tends to focus on economic matters. 

But there is another aspect of the immigration system that is being over-looked which, applies what I have been talking about with thousands of Canadians over the last 8 months. 

That is the concept of immigration as an act of nation-building. A process that strengthens our country, the fabric of who we are, and what we will be in the future. 

This is reflected in the objectives of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act which states that the purpose of the act is to enrich the social and cultural fabric of our nation. 

I believe the significant decline of face to face interviews detracts from the concept of nation-building. (4)

Kellie's campaign launch speech is available in both a pdf document and on YouTube.

Kellie has consistently communicated the importance of protecting and promoting our Canadian identity based on shared historic values throughout her campaign. Most noteworthy was her detailed email of February 2, An Important Message From Kellie Leitch. In that email Kellie talked about many aspects of her tough stance on immigration that is worth mentioning.

An Important Message From Kellie Leitch

Vic Satewich's book and the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence report

I recall when seeing Kellie's February 2, email in my inbox folder that the title had intrigued me somewhat: it was for good reason. Kellie presented her plan to screen all immigrants, refugees, and visitors to Canada for Canadian values with face-to-face interviews with a trained immigration officer.

It is an impressive email in which Kellie detailed her plan that included taking the screening process to the next level by checking the social media posts of all applicants. She also hit back at the criticisms of her tough immigration stance. Noteworthy was the substantiation of her immigration concerns and screening proposal by citing from Satzewich's book and the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence's report, Vigilance, Accountability and Security at Canada's Borders.

One of the more salient points that Kellie made was with respect to the important decisions that we as Canadians will have to make regarding our future; part of which includes not taking our free and prosperous society for granted. To ensure that we don't will require the conscious effort of Canadians to build and protect our society, and under no circumstances should we relax and fall under the assumption that as Kellie put it, "...[A] free, prosperous, and tolerant Canada will take care of itself."

The relevance of that most salient point can be best understood when it comes to decisions made about immigration. Many people want to come and live in Canada, but as Kellie so aptly pointed out, "...[I]s our immigration system doing the best it can?" The answer to that question is: no! 

As to the details of why that is, Kellie cited from Satzewich's book and the aforementioned senate report which made abundantly clear that thorough screening is not taking place at Canada's immigration offices, which points to an even bigger problem: the lack of nation building within Canada's immigration system. Here is what Kellie stated:

Immigration officers meet only a handful of the people whose applications they process. The result is the loss of "opportunities to assess credibility and risk" (page 216). 

Testimony before the Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence tells us that "only between nine and fifteen percent of immigrants receive an interview with a visa officer before they come to Canada" (page 14). 

That means that, in a year like last year, when more than 300,000 immigrants were admitted to Canada, only about 30,000 people were interviewed by a trained immigration official.

The reason for the lack of interviews is the focus on achieving predetermined quotas. The immigration bureaucracy, led by immigration ministers of different stripes, has put greater importance on the number of people who are admitted to Canada each year, rather than ensuring that those who are admitted will integrate well into our communities.

What has further impressed me about Kellie's tough immigration stance was the "second part of her plan," which would require all immigrants, refugees, and visitors to Canada, to not only understand, but agree with our Canadian values: hard work, generosity, freedom, tolerance, equality of individuals, and equality of opportunity.

Taking the screening process one step further to ensure that application dossiers are complete, Kellie's proposal insists upon each immigration officer's review of each applicant's social media posts, and other relevant information to, as Kellie put it, "...[E]nsure that we have a complete picture of those who are applying to come to Canada."

Kellie's toughness was on further display in this email when she defended her proposal against all criticism. Leitch made it crystal clear that in no way is her policy "racist," but applies equally to everyone regardless of where they were born. She went on to elaborate, "...As a nation we are as interested in keeping out white supremacists as we are in keeping out those who believe women are property."

In defence of those who claim such an approach is costly, Leitch made it clear that the costs of thorough interviews will be borne by the applicants, except those who are refugees which the government will incur. 

As for those who consider these screening procedures evasive, Leitch fired back by stating that the procedures are no more evasive or offensive than those used in other government departments. Moreover Leitch stressed that these are some of the most important decisions we will be making as a nation, that "...[W]e must make sure we make them with as much information as possible."

Some have argued that Leitch's proposal will easily result in application refusals. While this is true, it also means that genuine applicants will be accepted: those who are who they claim to be; those who meet the eligibility criteria for the visa; and those who are not inadmissible to Canada for reasons of public safety, security, or health conditions.

With regard to Leitch's response that immigration will be slowed down, this is only a natural result of a thorough screening process. Those who are fixated on quotas (visa issuance approvals) fail to understand what Kellie made abundantly clear, "...[O]ur immigration system is too important to get hung up numbers and quotas. That is the error of past governments."

Kellie is adamant about protecting our Canadian identity based on our shared historic values. Her Screening For Canadian Values policy proposal has been based on her travels across the country listening to the needs and concerns of Canadians. The result of which has seen two-thirds of Canadians share and support Kellie's vision for the future of Canada. As Kellie noted in the beginning of her email, "Everywhere I go, I hear the same message: Canadians are proud of their country. They are proud of our unified identity and they are proud of shared historic values."

No other candidate will defend Canadian identity and shared historic values as Kellie will. As I noted from the beginning of this blog post, Kellie has been clear and forthcoming about her detailed policy proposal from day one of her campaign launch.

This is in stark contrast to the other candidates, some of whom had a vague or ambiguous immigration policy to begin with, and over the course of the campaign developed what amounted to be nothing more than poorly worded bombast: a desperate attempt to appear to address the concerns of Canadians.

Others have had little or nothing to say about Canada's growing demographic problems, which speaks volumes about their respective candidacies: status-quo candidates who seek to please their betters, of which Maxime Bernier is at the top of that list!

Kellie's Position on Illegal Border Crossings

Kellie Leitch meeting with local officials in Emerson, Manitoba on April 21, 2017. Photo: Facebook/Kellie Leitch

They say that "actions speak louder than words!" Well, Kellie has certainly demonstrated this in a most admirable way with her fairly recent visit to Emerson, Manitoba; a location that has become a hub for border crossers and "asylum shoppers." Kellie spent a few days in Manitoba speaking with residents and local officials, which can be viewed at her Facebook page, beginning with her release of April 21: her arrival in Emerson. Kellie also visited residents in Altona and Morris.

Emerson is just one of a handful of preferred border crossing locations by illegals; there are others in Saskatchewan and Quebec as well. The border crossers are primarily individual men in their prime, who have been living in the United States for quite some time or recently arrived to make the trip to Emerson and other locations.

If you are somewhat new to this or have not seen much footage of it, here is a video report, FAKE NEWS: Border Crisis Not Trump’s Fault, by Faith Goldy of The Rebel. It exposes Canada's border crossing crisis that is sure to increase as the warmer weather approaches.

Make no mistake about it, Kellie is adamantly opposed to these illegal border crossings and firmly believes that a plan is needed to deal with it.

During the CPC Edmonton debate, candidates were asked how they would deal with the illegal border crossings from the United States. Here is how Kellie responded:

These people have entered our country illegally. They should be detained, questioned, and sent back to the United States immediately. Let me be very clear, I have been talking about this serious issue of immigration since the beginning of the campaign. Other candidates on this stage are now twisting themselves into pretzels to talk about it as well. I will implement what I talk about whether that's detaining these individuals now or whether it be interviewing every immigrant, refugee, and visitor to Canada, I will make sure that we protect our Canadian values. Let's be very clear this is important to our nation, this is a serious issue that individuals and democracies around the globe are talking about, but we have a government with their head in the sand and many candidates as well. Thank you.

Kellie's certitude and unapologetic delivery of this message is worth watching on YouTube. It is a display of leadership qualities in action, what one hopes for in a candidate: a real, sincere desire to protect our Canadian borders!

Kellie's visit to Manitoba further highlights how she has successfully distinguished herself from the other candidates, none of whom went to Manitoba; which speaks volumes about their concerns regarding Canada's open borders. 

Sadly, not even our Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has gone to Mantioba or the other border crossing hubs which, in and of itself, is an indictment on Trudeau's "leadership."

Kellie's Strength of Character

Kellie Leitch's campaign has attracted me in large part due to Kellie's strength of character, which has come shining through in the way that she has handled a multitude of challenges and personal attacks.

It takes fortitude, certitude, and courage to embark on a campaign as Kellie has, knowing full well it would be met with sharp criticism and a planned effort by her opponents, the mainstream media, and the elites to shut her down. Those efforts have been primarily channeled through the mainstream media, to which I have dedicated a separate blog post, The Trump-effect in Canada and the Enemedia's Attempt to Stop Kellie Leitch.

Kellie has done an exceptional job of ignoring the hate and focussed on delivering the message that most Canadians have been desperate to hear. One need not look further than to the onslaught of fake news and skewed poll statistics that have been part of an ongoing effort to derail her campaign and stop it altogether. Such efforts have been a complete and total failure; they have in no way negatively impacted Kellie or her campaign. 

The failure of poll after poll after poll to create a narrative that suited Kellie's opponents and enemies, has been in large part due to the fact that Kellie's support has never been a function of polls, but based on her common-sense policy proposals that 74% of Canadians share and support. This is fundamental to understanding Kellie's campaign to which I dedicated another separate blog post, Kellie Leitch's Support is Not a Function of Polls But Based on Common-Sense Policy Proposals. 

To run for the leadership of the CPC also requires intelligence, toughness, stamina, and a tireless work ethic which Kellie has displayed in a variety of ways: her continued travels across the country; her well prepared and impressive debate performances; the consistent and effective use of social media, especially her Facebook releases and YouTube videos, and numerous email updates.

This has served Kellie well in her efforts to not only refute so much of the nonsense from her opponents and enemies, but to better inform supporters of her policies, latest efforts, and campaign developments; all of which has contributed to the execution of a well thought-out and planned campaign.

It is Kellie's strength of character that has played a big role in the successful effort to distinguish herself and her campaign from the other candidates.

My Encouragement to all Those Who Remain Undecided

With so many candidates in this leadership race, it can be quite the challenge to determine who your first choice will be. This especially holds true if you haven't had the time to navigate each candidate's web site, follow their social media posts, and compare their respective platforms.

I hope that today's post has helped undecided members to consider Kellie Leitch as their first choice, and perhaps their only choice!

Consider the fact that we are at the crossroads of either losing our country to leftists and foreign interests—who have developed a partnership with the Liberal Party of Canada—or taking our country back through the leadership of Kellie Leitch.

Make no mistake about it, Kellie Leitch is a patriot whose many common-sense policy proposals are the answer to Canada's future. Kellie is adamant about protecting and promoting Canadian identity and she is the only candidate with a policy proposal that is clear about how she will go about doing this.

To my fellow undecided members of the Conservative Party of Canada, I ask you to join me in making Kellie Leitch the new leader of the Conservative Party and the next Prime Minister of Canada.


God Bless Canada

 

Points of Entry: How Canada's Immigration Officers Decide Who Gets In

Vic Satzewich's book, Points of Entry
Image: Amazon.ca

Today's blog post is about a book of the same title, written by Vic Satzewich, professor of sociology at McMaster University, and author of numerous articles and books.

Although immigration is not one of the most fascinating topics to read about, it is increasingly becoming an important one to understand given the fact that immigration (visa) officers are not thoroughly vetting all immigrants, visitors, and refugees, which is a symptom of an even bigger problem: the lack of nation building within Canada's immigration system.

Satzewich details why this is and in the process provides an immense amount of information on the intricacies of Canada's immigration system, making this book one of "the" sources on how Canada's immigration officers decide who gets in and the influential factors that impact their decisions.

Reading this book was my first foray into the inner-workings of Canada's immigration offices; a shared journey with the author who had admitted in the Introduction, that prior to beginning the research for this book he had, at best, a "sketchy understanding" of the decision-making process for visa issuance. 

Points of Entry breaks open what was once a subject matter clouded in secrecy. Satzewich accomplished this through his determination, diligence, and a drive that, from July 2010 to January 2012, saw him visit eleven Canadian visa offices abroad: one in each of Europe, the Middle East, the Carribbean, the United States, and South America; two in Africa; and four in Asia. His time in each office varied according to size of the office and the respective manager's schedule. In most cases, his observations lasted for approximately two to four days. In total he spent 220 hours at various offices, interviewed 128 people involved in immigration, and had the opportunity to observe forty-two face-to-face interviews that visa officers conducted with various types of applicants.

I consider this book to be a very timely publication given the fact that Canada has one of the most open immigration policies in the world, the dangers of which could—and I would argue, already have—negatively impact Canada's identity, heritage, and culture. One could easily point to: the increased threats of terrorism; violence perpetrated against Canadians; Motion 103 (M103) and all other threats to the freedom of speech including current and future legislation; fraud in its most simplest and sophisticated forms; "jumpers" (those who after arriving in Canada with a visitor visa, make a claim for refugee status); asylum shoppers; economic migrants and so-called "refugees"; the exploitation of our failed immigration policies and procedures, and our open borders by organized crime; and the entry into Canada by those who have no intention of assimilating into Canadian society, but instead wish to live according to their own culture and customs with Canadian standards of living.

In addition to the Introduction, Conclusion, Appendix, a detailed Notes and extensive References section, and an Index, Points of Entry's 291 pages are organized into nine chapters: Stated and Hidden Agendas, Delegated Discretion, Immigration Policy, Visa Offices and Officers, Approval and Refusal Rates, Spousal and Partnership Sponsorships, Federal Skilled Workers, Visitor Visas, and The Interview.

Amongst all the challenges that Canada's immigration system is faced with, what I found most disturbing was the lack of contact between immigration offices and applicants, and the fact that visa officers conduct very few face-to-face interviews with applicants.

This became a reality in large part due to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (2002), budgetary constraints, the use of outsourced private sector Visa Application Centers (VACs), and the "guidance" of various ministers from Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC), that all together imposed unreasonable quotas and time pressures upon immigration officers. The result of which has compromised the effectiveness of the screening process, and substantially reduced visa officers' role as "gatekeepers" of the nation.

Add to this the CIC's modernization agenda (driven by a need to "do more with less") in which many features of the application process were designed to minimize interaction with applicants.

These developments over the past few years have significantly diminished, and for some visa officers altogether removed, the sense of nation building.

The Importance and Necessity of Face-to-Face Interviews

In the Introduction, Satzewich alerts the reader to the necessity of face-to-face interviews by including a visa officer's interview of a Guatemalan woman, Maria, who together with her Guatemalan husband (not present at the interview, but living in Canada as a permanent resident), applied for a spousal sponsorship.

The case not only exemplified the importance of face-to-face interviews in the screening process, but set the tone for the remainder of the book; that is, there is cause for concern that visa applicants are not thoroughly screened at Canada's immigration offices.

Immediately into Maria's case, Satzewich pointed out that the visa officer, prior to the interview, had already reviewed the file and only requested an interview because the couple's story "did not add up." Sadly, this has become standard protocol at immigration offices, which has reduced the screening process to a paper-based exercise: the visa officer reviews a file for a few minutes and only requests an interview if during the triaged-analysis, a "flag" is raised.

The shortcomings of this approach is that visa officers are deprived of going through due process to assess credibility and risk, much of which can only be accurately identified and understood through face-to-face interviews.

This only begs the question, "Why are visa officers bypassing the proper protocol in such an important job, one in which visa officers are in essence, the "gatekeepers" of Canada's borders?" It is a valid question that Satzewich answers and elaborates on:

The bureaucratic environment in which officers work also imposes its own set of pressures. All workplaces have expectations regarding staff productivity, and visa offices are no different in this respect. They and their offices must meet certain processing targets and client service expectations, and those too help mould officer decisions to dig more deeply into certain files. In the context of scarce resources, time constraints, and a heavily back-logged system, offices and officers must triage applications, deciding which ones warrant further probing and which ones can simply be approved...They also rely on locally engaged staff members who are familiar with local conditions, customs, and contexts to help them address issues of credibility and risk. (17) 

Targets (visa issuance quotas) and the time pressures created by them, originate from Ottawa and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, who announces the targets the year before in Parliament.

If a visa officer fails to meet his/her target, it reflects negatively upon the entire respective immigration office, including the immigration program manager. Citizenship and Immigration euphemistically refer to unreviewed files as "inventory," which as Satzewich points out is code word for "backlog." (2) If no other immigration office fills the gap of another office's failure to meet its target, then that failure works its way up to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, who will be held accountable by the Opposition. 

Satzewich noted that in 2011, the Auditor General of Canada had the number of processed permanent or temporary visas at 1.36 million at Canadian overseas visa offices in 2010 alone. (6) Satzewich also noted that in 2010, there was a backlog of approximately 1 million applications awaiting to be processed. (121)

As for the interview with Maria, it ended after one hour at which time the visa officer (Brenda) informed Maria that she was not satisfied that the relationship was genuine, and suspected that the purpose of Maria's application was to obtain permanent residency status.

Brenda determined this through detailed questioning, that probed deeper into Maria's relationship, putting Maria to task to explain certain things that she was unable to do. Throughout Brenda also assessed Maria's facial expression and body language, demeanour, responses to questions, and overall behaviour, which in most, if not all, cases is telling about whether an applicant is genuine or not. This is precisely what visa officers must do on a daily basis: separate genuine from non-genuine applicants.

The fraudulent nature of spousal sponsorship applications is something that Satzewich elaborated on in chapter six, Spousal and Partner Sponsorships, which apparently is so "plentiful," that it impacts the wider circle of applicants in "particular application streams." At the subheading, Client Behaviours: Fraud, Satzewich goes on to explain the fraud:

In several visa offices, and without any prompting from me, nearly every officer whom I interviewed immediately mentioned that "we have a lot of fraud here." Some was purely individual in nature: applicants may lie about their marital status, the existence of dependent children, or the biological parentage of children, or they may simply embellish certain aspects of their biography. Other types of fraud are organized and systemic, and they take various forms. Some arise from immigration lawyers and consultants who counsel their clients to invent stories about their relationship to satisfy the expectations of a visa officer. As one officer suggested, "In some cases, people have sold everything they own only to pay for a crooked agent, who cheats them out of their money by promising them something he cannot provide. People here often get cheated by agents." (147)

Although Satzewich did not explicitly include the outcome of the visa officer's conclusion, he did ask the rhetorical question, "In the end, what decision do you think Brenda made?"(6) The answer is rather obvious: no visa was issued!

What Satzewich did include was how visa officers make use of their discretion to determine whether to approve or reject an application. Discretion plays an important role in the screening process. Although laws and procedures do provide guidelines and specifics on how to assess each applicant, they by no means cover every scenario that immigration officers are confronted with. As such, immigration officers must utilize their knowledge, experience, and judgement when employing their discretion to properly assess each applicant.

To further elaborate, part of the bureaucratic environment in which officers and staff must work includes certain guidelines: the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which spells out the general principles of Canadian immigration policy; the Immigration Regulations, which specifies the criteria to be used in assessing applications; and detailed processing manuals that explain how they should conduct and document investigations. In spite of all this as Satzewich points out, "...[T]he decision to issue or refuse a visa is ultimately a matter of discretion. An officer must be "satisfied" that applicants are who they claim to be, that they meet the eligibility criteria for the visa, and that they are not inadmissible to Canada for reasons of public safety, security, or health conditions. (6)

Although the Guatemalan case did demonstrate that visa officers are able to identify problematic cases, it only begs the question, "How many have they missed?" A thorough screening of an applicant can only occur through interviews, where quota and time pressures are removed from the process and visa officers can properly assess an applicant's file. The fact that this is not the norm sets off alarm bells that the screening process at Canada's immigration offices are not driven by nation building.

The Negative Consequences of Quotas and Time Pressures

At chapter five, Approval and Refusal Rates, Satzewich identified one of the many consequences from the lack of interviews: immigration officers tend develop negative attitudes about the application pool as a direct result of conducting interviews only for "problematic cases." Applications that "qualify" as problematic are those cases where there is a concern about credibility or the risk of making a wrong decision is high.

In that same chapter Satzewich noted, in a conversation with program manager, how time pressures had negatively impacted application processing since the introduction of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Here is the quote from the program manager:

There are so many things we miss. We only interview if we are leaning towards a refusal. We don't interview good applicants. This can make an officer sour. We don't get the sense of nation building that we use to have. It cuts into job satisfaction. There is no way of talking to clients, we don't counsel them any more. In face-to-face circumstances, we are only dealing with likely refusals. This can lead to the development of a negative mindset. (135)

Further to this Satzewich highlighted how target-driven time pressures work in favour the client (applicants). He went on to note how several officers informed him that if there weren't such high demands placed upon officers, the refusal rate would be much higher. One officer stated, "...If I had enough time, I would at least triple my refusal rate." (136) Another Canada-based officer was quoted as saying:

In some cases, you are 'feeding the target beast.' The big buzzword is 'risk management.' You just can't take the time to verify every document. Sometimes you have to overlook things to get the program numbers. That is why quality assurance exercises are very important. Risk management means closing your eyes. (136)

In chapter eight, Visitor Visas, under the subheading, Time Pressures, Satzewich further revealed how quotas for visa issuance have forced immigration officers to make swift decisions about each application. He went on to note that once visa officers opened a file, the expectation is that they approve or refuse an application within a few minutes. 

Satzewich cited a few examples. In one of Canada's Asian offices, an immigration officer, who dealt exclusively with visitor visas, revealed to Satzewich that she was expected to make seventy-five decisions per day. (196) This translates into a few minutes per file, not including the time needed to write notes in the database. (196) Another officer from that same Asian office was quoted as follows, "I spend about five to seven minutes per file...this office is ridiculous." (196) Satzewich also noted similar experiences from other visa officers as well. 

Most noteworthy was Satzewich's concluding statement about the Asian office experience, that in my view perfectly sums it all up, "As elsewhere in the system, time and productivity pressures provided the overarching context for decision making. A Canada-based officer remarked, "There's so much pressure. They want the numbers. They don't want waiting times...It's always about the numbers." (196)

The imposed quotas and time pressures are not conducive to nation building!

The Problem With Visa Application Centers

Another reason why contact between immigration offices and applicants has been reduced substantially is due to Citizenship and Immigration Canada's (CIC) outsourcing part of the application process to VFS Global; an international corporation that processes temporary visa applications including study and work permits, as well as travel documents for permanent residents of Canada. This is not done at CIC's offices, but at Visa Application Centers (VACs); private sector offices, most of which are in the same city as the visa office, but some are in other cities or regions.

VFS Global web site for applications in Poland. Image: VFS Global/Apply for Visa to Canada in Poland

Satzewich goes on to point out that the use of VACs is a cost-saving measure that is intended to alleviate much of the expense of interacting with applicants. The rationale is that VACs eliminate routine and time consuming aspects of receiving a properly completed application, allowing for visa offices to focus on assessing credibility and risk.

What the use of VACs spotlights is the failure of CIC to recognize the importance of contact between its visa offices and applicants.

The fact that CIC uses a third-party, private sector company does not bode well with me at all. Although Satzewich states that VACs, "...[P]lay no role in the decision-making process and are expressly forbidden to provide any visa related advice to applicants," (193) I am not convinced that the integrity of Canada's immigration system won't be compromised, if it hasn't been already! In my view CIC should keep all processing in-house irrespective of the costs and time to properly screen all those who seek to come to Canada.

The Importance of Contact Between Visa Offices and Applicants

At the time when Satzewich conducted his fieldwork for the writing of his book, many visa offices still permitted individuals to personally drop off their applications. This changed in 2013, after which applicants were required to send their applications to the VACs for processing.

In chapter nine, The Interview, Satzewich clearly demonstrates how detrimental the use of VACs has been with regard to the ability of visa offices to assess credibility and risk. Regarding the change in 2013, he stated, "This measure may have conserved departmental resources, but it also came at a cost for the assessment of credibility. In shifting the task to Visa Application Centres, Citizenship and Immigration sacrificed the opportunity to assess credibility and risk as people submitted their applications." (222)

Satzewich elaborates on how things used to be done, highlighting in the process how the shift to processing applications at VACs has removed the ever so important contact between visa offices—including program assistants, receptionists, and security personnel—and applicants. Here is what he stated:

Before 2013, when paperwork was dropped off in person, locally engaged staff, typically a program assistant or receptionist, ensured that the application was complete and that the necessary supporting documentation was present. If this were not the case, staff encouraged people not to submit their application, because they knew that a visa officer was unlikely to approve it. Thus, applicants would have paid the non-refundable visa-processing fee for nothing. In counselling individuals to hold back their applications, staff saw themselves as doing them a favour. (222)

Program assistants and receptionists played an important role in the triaging of applications. They were the first to come into direct contact with applicants, which afforded them the opportunity to begin a sort of pre-screening process, assessing whether cases were simple and straightforward or whether officers in the Temporary Resident Unit might be confronted with a problematic case.

Highlighting the importance of the "pre-screening" process, Satzewich pointed out that triage at the application submission stage also involved assessing demeanour. Here is what he wrote about applicants as they approached visa offices:

As they walked down the street to the embassy or entered the reception area to hand in their paperwork, most people had no idea that their mannerisms, behaviour, and body language were being scrutinized for anomalies that could reroute their application to the "problematic" folder. For example, if they were a "little bit too friendly," receptionists might intuit that they had something to hide and could alert the visa officer to this potential concern. (225)

Triaging applicants at the "pre-screening" stage also involved security guards. Having access to the offices, guards also kept a careful watch on applicants and relayed their observations to receptionists, who would provide this information, along with their own impressions of applicants to visa officers. This was a much needed collaborative effort that greatly aided visa officers giving them a "heads-up" on certain cases.

Full Marks to Kellie Leitch

Kellie Leitch during the Conservative Party of Canada leadership debate in Saskatoon on November 9, 2016.
Photo: National Post/John Ivison

It would be very remiss of me not to mention Conservative Party of Canada leadership candidate, Kellie Leitch, in a post about Points of Entry, as it was through her campaign that I first discovered the book.

Throughout her campaign, whether it was at the Saskatoon leadership debate (above photo)—where she has been captured in many photos actually holding up Satzewich's book—mentioning it on televison and radio, disseminating it through campaign email updates, or through social media, Kellie has consistently encouraged Canadians to read this book and discover some of the major issues surrounding Canada's immigration system.

I took that encouragement to heart, purchased a copy, and read it. Since my initial discovery, I have eagerly shared this book with others.

It has been quite the rewarding experience gaining knowledge about the intricacies of how immigration officers decide who gets into Canada and the factors that negatively impact the screening process.

It became abundantly clear earlier on in the campaign and even more so now, why the thrust of Kellie's campaign has been to spotlight Canada's failed immigration policies, procedures, and border security issues: they are real, serious, and need to be urgently addressed!

Leitch has done more than to just identify a problem, she has provided a solution: her Screening For Canadian Values policy proposal, which she detailed and provided on line at her web site, from day one of her campaign launch.

In addition, Kellie has made it crystal clear, at the Conservative Party of Canada leadership debate in Edmonton, that as Prime Minister of Canada, she will not be tolerating illegal border crossings, (like what we are witnessing in Emerson, Manitoba) which will entail the detainment, questioning and return to the United States of those illegals who have already come to Canada.

For those who are concerned about Canada's immigration problems, I hope that today's post has encouraged you to seriously consider purchasing a copy of Points of Entry: reading it will be time well spent.

To Kellie Leitch, full marks for making this book known to Canadians!