You decided to hinge on the last bit, which was actually a small additive statement and not the whole point of my assertion. Reading back, I understand that I w

You decided to hinge on the last bit, which was actually a small additive statement and not the whole point of my assertion. Reading back, I understand that I worded that last sentence extremely incorrectly in haste to finish up typing a long monologue. I'm not painting all Canadian Sikhs as gangsters and mafiosos. What I said was that, compared to other places such as Australia and the UK, Canada has a lower barrier to entry for someone claiming to be a refugee. A Khalistani Sikh cannot obtain refugee status in either Australia or the UK, simply because the bar for claiming refugee status is much higher, and it's very difficult to show "oppression" in a country where the former Prime Minister was a Sikh. In Canada, the barrier is much lower and the existing Sikh community was connected enough, so you have all sorts of people passing through, including many of the gang leaders and members involved in the drug mafia. They find safe refuge in Canada, simply because they find a lower barrier to entry compared to the US or the other commonwealth countries. This situation is effectively the exact same one as Pakistan harboring Osama bin Laden, then USA killing him on Pakistani soil, in spite of the two of them being "allies". Replace Pakistan and USA with Canada and India respectively.