SILVA: Rebuilding the Immigration System with Freedom in Mind

The so-called immigration “crisis” is a manufactured myth — a tool used by governments and media to stoke fear, rally political support, and pass sweeping regulations that erode freedom. However, before we address this fear-mongering, we need to clarify what is actually being referred to as a "crisis."

Across democratic countries, one myth persists above all: “Immigration increases crime and terrorism.”

This claim is false. Meta-analyses from countries including Canada, the U.S., Germany, and the U.K. find no consistent or significant link between higher immigration levels and increased crime or terrorism. In many cases, immigrant populations are less likely to commit crimes than native-born citizens.

Another persistent myth is: “Immigrants take jobs from citizens,” or “Mass immigration pushes wages down and hurts the working class.”

These are talking points used by populists like Donald Trump, Nigel Farage, and their global counterparts. But the economic evidence tells a different story. According to dozens of peer-reviewed studies:

Immigrants tend to fill labour shortages, not displace native workers — especially in agriculture, healthcare, and construction. No major long-term impact on native wages has been found. If there are any wage effects, they are small, localized, and usually temporary — often affecting only low-skilled workers in crowded markets. Immigration expands the economy. It boosts entrepreneurship, consumer demand, productivity, and innovation. Immigrants are more likely to start businesses than native-born citizens.

So if the data debunks these myths — why do anti-immigrant views persist?

The Answer: Political Scapegoating and Government Propaganda

Let’s be honest: fear sells. Immigration is an easy scapegoat. When politicians or governments fail to address economic anxiety, housing shortages, or systemic inequality, they often blame immigrants — not automation, bad policy, or global shifts. Consider these examples:

United States (2018–2020): Donald Trump and right-wing media described migrant caravans from Central America as an “invasion.” Although these were mostly families fleeing violence and seeking asylum, media outlets repeated claims that they were gang members, rapists, or terrorists. Words like “flood,” “surge,” and “open borders” dominated headlines, helping to stoke fear and justify harsh policies.

United Kingdom (Brexit Campaign): During the 2016 campaign, Nigel Farage warned of “millions” of Muslims and Turks entering the U.K. and “overwhelming” public services. These claims were false — Turkey was not joining the EU — but they were used to sway public opinion. Tabloids like the Daily Mail and Daily Express ran hundreds of anti-immigration front pages in the months leading up to the vote.

These are not isolated cases — the pattern is global and deliberate.

Why Governments Scapegoat Immigrants?

Here’s the breakdown of how and why immigration becomes a political punching bag:

Political Gain &  Cultural Anxiety

Immigration serves as a convenient “wedge issue.” Politicians use it to appeal to nationalist, authoritarian, or “law and order” instincts. It energizes a base, divides opposition, and distracts from policy failures. People fear cultural change — even when no threat exists. Unfamiliar languages, religions, or customs can trigger deep psychological biases about “outsiders.” These fears are easy to exploit, especially during social or economic uncertainty.

Typically, those who hold these far-right views identify as Christians — except they often do not truly understand their own faith, as shown in these Bible verses that speak positively about immigrants.

Media Sensationalism

Partisan media outlets amplify anti-immigrant narratives because fear and outrage generate clicks. Headlines about “immigrant crime,” “border invasions,” or “draining public services” often ignore context, distort data, or highlight extreme exceptions.

Economic Diversion & Simplified Narratives

Rather than confronting the complex causes of economic pain — such as automation, trade policy, or corporate consolidation — governments often blame immigrants. It's easier than fixing broken tax codes, investing in housing, or reworking regulations. Immigration gives people an easy villain. It turns structural issues into a digestible moral panic. The result: policy built on myths, not evidence.

Canada's far-right activism:

As much as we may not notice it in our daily lives, many organizations, clubs, and individuals are actively working to promote this harmful narrative through what they call “mass remigration,” claiming they are being somehow “replaced.” This is clearly a white supremacist viewpoint, and it extends far beyond immigration alone. What they fail to recognize is that Canada was the first country to officially adopt multiculturalism as national policy in the 1970s, according to the federal government.

In short, their calls for remigration and for a so-called “white-only” country have no factual foundation — only prejudice, white supremacy, and racism.

Let us explore these viewpoints on the largest free-speech platform, X (formerly known as Twitter), where such hateful ideas are often shared openly. (Note: The blame lies with the individuals spreading these harmful views, not the platform itself.)

First, we can examine the Dominion Society, a group whose members are openly racist and advocate for “mass remigration.” I have selected a few of their posts to illustrate their views — though these represent only a small portion of the many hateful messages they share. It is also worth noting that this group has more than 15,000 followers, not including those who pay for membership to be part of the society.

As we have previously discussed, the term “immigration” is being replaced with “invasion.” Whenever you ask them what this supposed “invasion” is about, they cannot explain it — except by making remarks about wanting a “white-only” society.

The next example is their claim that Canada only recently became multicultural, arguing that different cultures are “not compatible.” As we have already shown, this is completely false. Canada officially became the first multicultural country in the 1970s, according to the government. This clearly shows that they do not understand the history of the very country they claim to defend, using patriotism as a vague excuse for hate.

Third, they argue that immigrants “steal jobs,” when in fact the opposite is true. Immigrants create more employment opportunities through the spontaneous order of the economy — entrepreneurship, demand, and innovation all expand because of immigration.

Lastly, their call for “remigration” would cause a massive economic crisis. It would lead to severe shortages of goods and services, including food, harming the very people they claim to protect. Ultimately, their only argument is a belief in their supposed cultural and racial superiority — a baseless and ignorant ideology.

Here we can clearly see how they use fear-mongering to manipulate people’s thinking. The word “our” is used strategically to make viewers feel as if they are part of this movement. They exploit public anger over failed policies — policies they themselves support — and redirect that frustration toward immigrants, who are hardworking individuals. This is pure discrimination based on birthplace. And again, when they talk about “the people” and “homelands,” they ignore the fact that Canada is a multicultural society. At this point, they are trying to rewrite history for their own financial and political gain.

Here we have another revealing post. They claim that multiculturalism has “divided Canadians, eroded our common identity, and fueled social fragmentation.” The funny part is that this division exists only in their minds. The people who agree with them are the ones actually creating a problem that doesn’t exist. They are the ones dividing Canadians into two groups — “Nationalists,” who support their far-right view of remigration of legal immigrants, permanent residents, and even citizens, and “Traitors,” which includes anyone who disagrees with them, even slightly. You might wonder why they include citizens in their vision of “remigration.” The answer is simple: it’s discrimination based on birthplace. In the end, they are the living embodiment of the tu quoque fallacy — accusing others of division while practicing it themselves.

They also claim that Canadians can only be Europeans and Christians. This is one of the most hypocritical statements imaginable. Canada existed long before Europeans arrived, through the Indigenous peoples, such as the Inuit and the First Nations. Not only were they here first, but they helped build the country. For instance, the founder of Manitoba, Louis Riel, a Métis leader, played a key role in forming Canada’s first territorial treaty. By their own standards, people like him would not even count as Canadian.

Furthermore, many Chinese workers helped build the Canadian Pacific Railway — especially in the most dangerous parts of British Columbia, where many Europeans refused to work. This explains the higher Chinese population in the region today. Yet, according to their ideology, those who risked their lives to build the country would not be considered Canadian.

The same applies to soldiers of Southeast Asian origin who fought alongside Canadians in World War I and World War II, defending this nation. Still, under these extremists’ definition, their descendants would not be considered Canadian — even though their ancestors helped protect it.

When they talk about spreading “Canadian values,” what they really mean is enforcing a white-only ideology through indoctrination by decree. They want to impose their version of “values” in schools and the media, from television to movies and series, controlling what people learn and see. This is not education; it’s manipulation. Such actions reflect the early stages of authoritarian regimes, where the state dictates culture to control the masses. Their weapon is baseless racism, used to divide Canadians and weaken our society from within.

This is the last post I chose to analyze, and I selected it carefully. As a free-market economist, I find it extremely troubling when these groups try to justify their ideas by invoking “basic economics” — when in reality, they have no understanding of the subject. They claim that “mass immigration” increases the labor supply, which is true in a purely mechanical sense, but they completely ignore the rest of the equation. Immigration does not drive wages down because of the principle of spontaneous order: immigrants also create demand. Their consumption generates new markets, businesses, and jobs, which deepen the division of labor and ultimately raise overall wages. To illustrate this, I have included a diagram from the Hoover Institution.

This is a standard supply-and-demand graph, illustrating the average labor market. Now, here is the mistake made by the Dominion Society.

This is what they think will happen. You can clearly see that they only added the increase in labor supply, but they completely ignored the corresponding growth in demand — as shown in the image below.

People will be able to produce the same amount of goods and services in less time than they would without immigration. By working more efficiently, they generate more value, which naturally leads to higher wages.

Now there is another “organization” called Second Sons Canada. Their ideals are very similar to those of the Dominion Society, but what is most notable is that in every single picture of their members, faces are either censored or covered with clothing.

Now, this may not be their stated intention, but it gives the impression that they could be ready to commit to anything to achieve their goals. I am not claiming this just because I disagree with them, but historically, groups that hide their faces are often more likely to engage in violent or illegal actions. Examples include Antifa worldwide, the Ku Klux Klan in the United States, and even organizations like ICE, which can carry out harmful actions through bureaucratic procedures that make it difficult to trace responsibility. The concealment of identity appears to serve that same purpose here.

Lastly, we will examine individual accounts:

This example is incredibly ridiculous. Anita Anand, Minister of Foreign Affairs, is showing respect to the victims of Typhoon Kalmaegi in the Philippines. Now, you may not agree with Anand — I personally do not agree with some of her policies — but claiming that she is not a Canadian citizen would be outright false. Furthermore, she was elected by her riding; while she may not speak for all Canadians, she represents everyone who voted for the Liberals, whether you agree with them or not. This clearly demonstrates that these individuals have no factual arguments to support their claims, relying solely on racism. If you thought this was bad, get ready for the next one:

In Calgary, a Sikh organization is helping people in need. Any regular person would see this as an act of kindness, but not this individual. He outright claimed that the group is “a criminal gun operation, involved in fentanyl and human smuggling.” His “evidence?” The fact that a mafia in the 1930s also gave out free food. By that logic, he is essentially saying that every time someone gives free food, they must be covering up some criminal operation — an utterly ridiculous argument.

Not only that, he specifically targets “Sikhs,” showing that even when people of a different culture or religion do something good, he frames it as a problem that doesn’t exist. I wonder if he would say the same if Christians were doing the same thing.

Lastly, Daniel Tyrie is the founder of the Dominion Society, and here we can clearly see that he does not consider people who are not white to be truly Canadian. Ironically, his father is an immigrant from the Caribbean — by his own organization’s standards, he would be deported. This perfectly illustrates the hypocrisy of this far-right movement.

What can we do with this information:

Now that we are aware of how the political right uses immigrants as scapegoats for their failing policies, we must also act to combat this disinformation through multiple means.

First, we must speak up whenever a politician spreads such lies. We should respond with evidence that disproves their claims and use it to persuade voters who are open to reason. It’s not enough to act only when politicians spread harmful rhetoric — we must also be proactive. The faster we educate people about these tactics, the stronger the outcome. By doing so, we can prevent new figures like Nigel Farage (UK), Donald Trump (USA), André Ventura (Portugal), Maxime Bernier (Canada), Alice Weidel (Germany), Viktor Orbán (Hungary), and many more from gaining a platform. The list is long — but if we succeed, such individuals will lose influence.

When media outlets like the Daily Express spread disinformation, we should respond as activists did during the civil rights movement — by boycotting these outlets and creating new, competitive media platforms. Through free-market mechanisms, this can pressure them to abandon harmful narratives. We must also remain vigilant about lobbying — whether media lobby politicians or vice versa — that promotes these divisive policies. Such relationships should be seen as unethical, if not outright corrupt.

Lastly, we must elect the right people to public office — those who will never violate the rights of any human being, including immigrants. Beyond elections, we need to cultivate the next generation by teaching essential subjects such as civics, economics, and law, so they understand how to uphold liberty and justice.

Once we can stop these right-wing views, we can focus on reforms. The most effective approach would be to revise the immigration system to make it more straightforward, similar to the Ellis Island model. The most important criteria should be as follows: newcomers with contagious diseases that pose public health risks, such as Ebola, should not be allowed entry. Additionally, newcomers must not have harmed the society they came from — for instance, fleeing their country to escape justice for serious crimes or terrorism (except in clear cases of state abuse, such as punishment for peaceful protest, as seen in China).

After entering the country, if a newcomer commits a crime or causes harm, deportation should be the most reasonable solution if they still hold a temporary visa. Permanent residents or citizens, however, should face regular legal consequences. To qualify for permanent residency, newcomers should have lived in Canada for at least five years, and citizenship should be granted after three years of permanent residence.

This policy should apply to both current and future immigrants. Illegal immigrants under today’s system should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine whether they meet these three main criteria, allowing them to obtain legal status without punishing them for exercising their right to movement.

If we truly want a freer, more prosperous society, we must reject populist scapegoating and rebuild immigration systems rooted in freedom, opportunity, and evidence — not fear.

The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of The Provincial Times or Left Lane Media Group. Read our Content Policy here.