After Canada dismantled its ‘investor visa program’ when it got some 46,000 Chinese applicants, it was only a matter of time before China’s wealthy and footloose found a new country where the air is clean, the visa laws lax, and the economy eager for injections of foreign cash. Chinese millionaires, meet Portugal and the “Golden Visa.”
Portugal has rolled out a fancy new visa program, offering residence to any international investor who can buy 500,000 euros worth of real estate, invest one million euros into a Portugese corporation, or create 30 jobs. So far 542 “Golden Visas” have been issued, with Chinese investors taking up 433 of those slots, or about 80%.
Last week, the South China Morning Post published an exclusive, reporting that the vast majority of applicants for Canada’s special residence visa program for investors were from the Chinese mainland.
Perhaps this news did not sit well with Canadian immigration authorities, who pulled the plug in the fast-track program earlier this week.
Canada has long offered a program similar to Australia’s ‘investor visa’ scheme, in which overseas applicants (mainly from China and Hong Kong) can apply for residency after investing a few million bucks in the nation’s economy. On Tuesday, however, the country’s finance minister announced that 46,000 Chinese applicants will get their visas denied and their application fees refunded.
So, it’s true. Money can’t buy you everything.
Ryan Lenz posted this on Hate Watch about four days ago,
Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg is spearheading a campaign to build support for immigration reform among mainstream conservatives by pointing out what his advocacy group calls the “shocking extremism” of the anti-immigrant movement.
Like many countries, Canada has a “fast-track” method to gain residency, open only to those with enough resources to invest in the Canadian economy.
Mainland Chinese are far and away the majority of applicants. So many wealthy Chinese applied in recent years that the Canadian government had to suspend the program until it could catch up with the backlog.
The Canadian consulate in Hong Kong had a backlog of more than 53,000 applications last year, according to the South China Morning Post.
Analysis of arrival data suggests that about 99 per cent of applications in Hong Kong were lodged by mainlanders. Under the scheme’s current limits, applicants worth at least C$1.6 million (HK$11.2 million) receive residency if they “invest” C$800,000 in the form of a five-year interest-free loan to Canada.
The applications in the Hong Kong consulate’s queue in January last year represented potential “investment” of C$7.5 billion.
The queue was revealed when Ottawa halted new applications to deal with the backlog in 2012.
What was not revealed was that the vast majority were applications by mainland Chinese which swamped a single consular office in Hong Kong.
Applications from Taiwan, Macau and Hong Kong made up the remaining 1% of applications from China.
It says a lot about a country when its richest citizens want to bail out.
The present Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) debate, as political debates tend to do, has produced much ugliness from the organized nativist movement, both anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim alike. While both rail on separate-but-not-mutually-exclusive talking points, the anti-Muslim sphere has begun focusing more and more prevalently on the issue of immigration.
While hocking baseless, packaged fears regarding how religious and ethnic demographics come to distort our national character beyond recognition, the players that comprise this anti-Muslim sphere of nativism are revealing a primary motivation for their work: the preservation of “the native” over the welcoming of “the new.” Such inclinations are regularly assigned to groups within the established anti-immigrant movement, but less regularly to their counterpart.
It’s not uncommon for anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim leaders to cross-contaminate, with many of their collaborations existing as poorly kept secrets. Clearly, core sentiments about “outsiders” contribute to their mutual toxicity.
Buzzfeed’s John Stanton today managed to get Republican lawmakers on record admitting that the movement to stop immigration report is at least party driven by racial animosity. One Southern Republican member of Congress, who requested anonymity, told Stanton outright that “part of it…it’s racial.” South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham put it a little more delicately, referring to “ugliness around the issue of immigration.”
While it’s unusual to have Republican members of Congress saying it aloud, it’s hardly a secret that today’s anti-immigrant movement was built by xenophobia and remains in a large part driven by it.
Overtly racist remarks by members of Congress like Steve King and Don Young or by fringe nativists like William Gheen or Judson Phillips could be written off as distractions if they were not part and parcel of this larger movement.
In a column claiming the Republican Party immigration plan is an act of political suicide, Ann Coulter blares the air raid siren:
As House Republicans prepare to sell out the country on immigration this week, Phyllis Schlafly has produced a stunning report on how immigration is changing the country. The report is still embargoed, but someone slipped me a copy, and it’s too important to wait.
Citing surveys from the Pew Research Center, the Pew Hispanic Center, Gallup, NBC News, Harris polling, the Annenberg Policy Center, Latino Decisions, the Center for Immigration Studies and the Hudson Institute, Schlafly’s report overwhelmingly demonstrates that merely continuing our current immigration policies spells doom for the Republican Party.
Immigrants — all immigrants — have always been the bulwark of the Democratic Party. For one thing, recent arrivals tend to be poor and in need of government assistance. Also, they’re coming from societies that are far more left-wing than our own. History shows that, rather than fleeing those policies, they bring their cultures with them. (Look at what New Yorkers did to Vermont.)
This is not a secret. For at least a century, there’s never been a period when a majority of immigrants weren’t Democrats.
Thanks to endless polling, we have a pretty good idea of what most immigrants believe.
According to a Harris poll, 81 percent of native-born citizens think the schools should teach students to be proud of being American. Only 50 percent of naturalized U.S. citizens do.
While 67 percent of native-born Americans believe our Constitution is a higher legal authority than international law, only 37 percent of naturalized citizens agree.
No wonder they vote 2-1 for the Democrats.
How are Republicans going to square that circle? It’s not their position on amnesty that immigrants don’t like; it’s Republicans’ support for small government, gun rights, patriotism, the Constitution and capitalism.
It would be one thing if the people with these views already lived here. Republicans would have no right to say, “You can’t vote.” But why on Earth are they bringing in people sworn to
their political(our) destruction? (Fixed another one for you, Ann).
Sorry, Americans. You lose.
Notice how Ann cites polling from Phyllis Schlafly, who last year voiced similar concerns, and urged the Republican Party to abandon any outreach to people of color, and Latinos in particular, and focus on more white voters:
But in an interview this week with conservative radio program Focus Today, Schlafly just came right out and said it. Calling the GOP’s need to reach out to Latinos a “great myth,” Schlafly said that “the people the Republicans should reach out to are the white votes, the white voters who didn’t vote in the last election.” Schlafly accused the Republican “establishment” of nominating “a series of losers…who don’t connect with the grassroots.”
“The propagandists are leading us down the wrong path,” she said. “There’s not any evidence at all that these Hispanics coming in from Mexico will vote Republican.”
Immigration rights advocates have launched a social media campaign to draw attention to what they say is a double standard in U.S. immigration policy. Following the arrest of Canadian pop star Justin Bieber, young immigrants have used the hashtag #undeportable to post selfies with fake blonde hair and blue eyes, sending the message that they believe preferential treatment is given to white immigrants and that anti-immigrant rhetoric is often against Latinos.
Some immigration advocates have argued that many non-white immigrants have been deported for issues less severe than the pop star’s recent arrest on charges of driving under the influence. According to University of California, Merced professor Tanya Golash-Boza, immigrants from Latin America and the Caribbean are more likely to be deported than Asian or European immigrants, a statistic many advocates say highlights racial biases in U.S. immigration policy.
Here’s an example of the meme that’s been developing on Twitter and Facebook:
Check out more at the link below. It’s pretty cool.
Two stories involving that racist idiot John Tanton posted on the same day.
As Congress returns to Washington, so does the anti-immigrant movement. Anti-immigrant groups have begun to continue their work from 2013 and earlier to obstruct any progress towards meaningful immigration reform. The most prominent of these organizations in opening days of the year has been the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS). So far this year, the organization has made headlines for several media gaffes and associations with extremists.Left, Center for Immigration Studies Executive Director Mark Krikorian; top right, CIS Fellow David North; bottom right, CIS Senior Policy Analyst, Stephen Steinlight
These include CIS fellow David North appearing on an anti-Semitic internet radio show and Senior Policy Analyst Stephen Steinlight claiming future immigration will be a “disaster” and result in the “unmaking of America.” These instances are simply the latest in a long history of extremist positions held by CIS and its employees while simultaneously working to attain the image of being a reputable authority on immigration policy.
In late December, North appeared on the vehemently anti-Semitic internet radio program titled “The Realist Report.” The program is hosted by John Friend, a regular contributor to the anti-Semite Willis Carto’s American Free Press. The hour-long discussion largely related to the immigration and visa allotment that North regularly writes about for CIS. Friend, however, was able to inject some of his conspiracy-laden anti-Semitism into the conversation towards the end of the program when he asked North whether he believed immigration policy was part of a Jewish agenda to “destroy the traditional ethnic makeup of the United States.” North, declined to discuss the matter, but should not have been surprised by the question. A quick glance at Friend’s website shows prominently-displayed quotes from individuals including Adolf Hitler, Joseph Goebbels, and Willis Carto. Additionally, just two weeks before North appeared on the program, Friend’s featured guest on The Realist Report was white nationalist internet personality Horus the Avenger