Inkless Wells

Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW
He also offers his thoughtful perspective of Stephen Harper’s last 10 years in his recent eBook, The Harper Decade.

Checking visas

by Paul Wells on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 12:47pm - 57 Comments

Where’s that story I wanted to comment on? Oh yes, here it is. What a bunch of xenophobic mouthbreathers:

Canada reinstated visa restrictions on the Czech Republic this week in hopes of discouraging immigration by Czech Gypsies, or Roma, after more than 1,200 arrived this year seeking protection as refugees.

Spurred by a positive television documentary about Canada, the Roma have asked for refugee status, claiming they were beaten up by skinheads and discriminated against by their government.

Most came in the last two months, straining social services in the Toronto area and taxing relations between Ottawa and Prague. Immigration Minister Lucienne Robillard said in a statement earlier …

Wait a minute. “Immigration Minister Lucienne Robillard“? Yes indeed. For this story comes to us from 1997, the first time Canada reversed itself on the Czech visa question.

Jason Kenney’s decision to slap visa requirements on Mexican visitors is an important decision that’s causing an uproar, and I don’t want to minimize it. But on Czech visas, Kenney has only done what his Liberal predecessors did more than a decade ago: remove visa requirements, hope for the best, and then reinstate visa requirements when optimism turned out to be misplaced. And on the broader question of visa requirements Europe-wide, it’s simply a fact that right now, today, Kenney and the Conservative government continue to run a far more liberal visa regime, so to speak, than the Liberals ever did. When Paul Martin became prime minister, Canada required visas from visiting Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians. Today that’s no longer the case (except for Poles and Slovaks who don’t have the most recent biometric passports).

I argued, in a 2005 column we can’t find because that’s just how Rogers rolls, that after the European Union enlargement of 2004 it was asinine for Canada to impose visas on some visitors from EU countries and not others. And I specifically argued that a government that rolled back visa requirements would reap electoral benefit for doing it, because those tens of millions of Europeans who’d benefit had millions of Canadian relatives who’d notice and appreciate the change. I even told readers to cut that page out of the magazine and mail it to their MP to encourage Parliament to make the change. Hundreds of readers did. It sure got noticed on Parliament Hill. And yet Joe Volpe didn’t lift a finger to relax visa requirements. Neither did Monte Solberg while he was immigration minister. Only Jason Kenney preferred action to inertia. And even today, it is easier for most Eastern and Central Europeans to visit Canada than it was before he got his job. Worth remembering.

Bookmark and Share
  • stw

    I dont understand the purpose of this post.
    Are you taking blame for the wrongheaded reversal of visa requirements in 07' and causing this minor diplomatic rift?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

      Yes, that's precisely what I'm doing. Just call me the prime minister of the Czech Republic, Einstein.

      • stw

        you really ought to have a sense of humor about the power you have to direct public policy into a force for illusive short-term political gains, at the risk of destabilizing the refugee system

  • Andrew

    I'm not sure how much trade Canada does with the Czech Republic, but I'll bet it's not as much as with our NAFTA partner Mexico. Weren't we just complaining that the USA is choking off trade by making us all go to the trouble of getting passports and submitting to border checks beyond a wink and a nudge? Hypocrisy?

    • Two Hats

      Actually, the far bigger complaint is that Americans have to get travel documents in order to return home, dissuading them from coming in the first place…. So yeah, it's slightly different. Plus the quantitative difference in traffic between Canada and US compared to Canada and any other country is so large as to be qualitative.

  • D-R

    So you're taking credit for this stupid policy that Kenney has had to reverse?

    Just because the EU has poor standards doesn't mean we should.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

    Wow, it's raining brains today.

    • D-R

      Yes Paul, everyone is an idiot but you. (and your temporary conbot cheering section)

      I didn't see Clownsella's stupid post, and happily still haven't. Is that what you really care about?
      The only part of this post that registered with me was the final paragraph of bragging about your influence like a Macleans From The Editors piece.

      The idea that we should remove visa restrictions just because of what the EU did is just as silly as keeping them because the US does.

  • john g

    Perhaps Wells might have included the link to a certain Liberal war roomer's blog to show where his "xenophobic mouthbreather" comment was coming from.

    Do you people have a rule about not linking to or refering to certain Liberal war room volunteers? Kady also referenced a particularly disgusting use of the Barrie gang rape for political points (along with the equally disgusting usage by a Conservative MP, so don't think I'm taking partisan shots here) but also didn't refer to the Liberal war roomer in question by name and didn't link to his website. The reader was left to find out for themselves who was being referred to.

    Two in two days…What gives? Is the press being silenced by the potential of a lawsuit? I sincerely hope not…

    • scf

      That particular Liberal has a tendency to sue anything that moves, including ants and gusts of wind.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/robert_mccl6309 Robert McClelland

    Wouldn't this line of thought be similar to saying something like this: Over the past century Canada has extended voting rights to women, aboriginals, Jews and minorities so keep that in mind as they're revoked for Blacks.

  • Riley Hennessey

    Raining brains hahaha. Damn Wells is a genius even at comebacks.

    Kinsella's quote was obvious and I don't know what is difficult to understand about this post. Wells once again points out the hypocrisy of loud-mouths.

    Well, except I don't understand what "mouthbreathers" are. Is it an insult in some culture to breath through your mouth?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Be_rad Be_rad

      It connotes a lack of intelligence, but might be considered politically incorrect. It is typically caused by a simple birth defect or from other factors where the individual breathes primrily through their mouth and not their nasal passage. It renders the indivdual slack-jawed and dim witted as a result, regardless of actual IQ.

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/robert_mccl6309 Robert McClelland

    Wouldn't this line of thought be similar to saying something like this: Over the past century Canada has extended voting rights to women, aboriginals, Jews and minorities so keep that in mind as they're revoked for Muslims.

    • Jonathan

      Absolutely. Visa restrictions for immigrants based on country of origin is completely the same as internal voting restrictions based on race and gender.

      Apples and oranges, Robert.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/robert_mccl6309 Robert McClelland

        As Wells would say, "it's raining brains today." The analogy didn't compare that, it compared the sentiment behind it. In other words, it's "worth remembering" that Kenney took two steps forward before taking one step back is compared to my statement that it would be "worth remembering" that Canada took many steps forward on voting rights if they were to take one step back.

  • Two Hats

    Re: "Today that’s no longer the case (except for Poles and Slovaks who don’t have the most recent biometric passports)."
    Canada doesn't issue biometric passports either (AFAIK), so does anybody know what the rationale is for this restriction?

  • Mulletaur

    I quote from Chapter 4, Canada's Broken Refugee Policy System from the report Immigration Policy and the Terrorist Threat in Canada and the United States by the Fraser Institute :

    However, in Canada, there is an absence of political and partisan debate on the issue of abuse of the refugee system. In fact, there is an absence of political and partisan debate on immigration policy in general. The reason for this lack of debate is connected to Canada’s self-image of multiculturalism, openness, and tolerance, which is used by partisan actors to gain electoral advantage. In this way, political actors can avoid the migration debate and remain unwilling to implement and sustain effective migration management instruments. Meanwhile, well-funded and well-organized advocacy and special interest groups connected to the immigration field work tirelessly to ensure that the government lives up to its pro-immigration rhetoric. The result is a maze of migration policies that merely regularizes the bulk of the irregular migrant influx. This has the political benefit of avoiding the contentious and difficult process of deporting large numbers of illegal immigrants."

    So when is Jason Kenney going to prove the Fraser Institute wrong and start "deporting large numbers of illegal immigrants" ?

  • Orson Bean

    Re: the references to one W. Kinsella's website — I just figured out the one thing that is useful about WK's website: it serves as a daily reminder of what is loathsome about hard-core political partisans.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/SamDavies SamDavies

      By my own admission, I've only recently once again started paying attention to Canadian politics.
      I had no idea who Kinsella was until Jarrid kept repeatedly flogging the dead horse with his Kinsella rants.
      Since then, I've subscribed to Kinsella's RSS feed, to check things out on my own.
      I am a political whore – my loyalties shift on issues, and for several reasons, I've been feeling Liberal lately.
      But man – when I read Kinsella's posts, it's like I'm forced to rethink my position.
      Some of his posts just make me sick to my stomach….

  • Catherine

    Is Paul Wells supporting the actions of Jason Kenney or Jason Kenney, the personality that enjoys advocating for nannies that are employed at the Dhalla house-hold….

  • sbt

    Can't they simply make it more difficult to claim refugee status in Canada if you entered the country from somewhere that doesn't require a visa? It may not be nice, but that's basically the problem isn't it?

    • Mulletaur

      It doesn't matter what country you try to enter from, it matters what country you are a citizen of and what documents you have to back that up. For example, a Czech would not need a Canadian visa to fly to Paris for a connecting flight to Toronto, but the airline won't allow them on the plane in Paris if they don't have a visa for Canada (because the airline pays for the immigration removal if they're not allowed in).

      • sbt

        Yes, and we were allowing Czech citizens into the country without a visa (Looking back, I didn't write it very clearly). Presumably, that gives Czech citizens a far greater advantage in seeking refugee claims compared to countries where we would not allow them in because they would require a visa. Perhaps a more delicate solution (rather than require every Czech citizen to get a visa) would be to reform how we process refugee claimants inside Canada. Especially citizens of countries for which we don't require a visa.

    • Kevin

      That's exactly the fix that's needed, but you have that pesky Supreme Court decision from 1985 to consider.

  • Anon

    Is it possible that it was the Mexicans that Kenney was really after, but had to toss in the Czechs so as to whiten it up a bit?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

    (rolls eyes)

    • john g

      I would, but my eyes don't even move.

      Hey wait a minute…neither do yours.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

        Sure they do! Just click on my avatar.

  • Mulletaur

    "Is it because the Americans also impose visa restrictions on the same seven countries? So what? Canada is still a sovereign country. It expresses that sovereignty by letting Mexicans and Bahamians and citizens of many other countries into ours without visas, even though the Americans require them."

    If Canada has no visa on any particular country and the US does, it will be 'raining illegals' – from Canadian clouds onto unhappy US border states. A bit of post 9-11 realism, please.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/PoliticalPundit PoliticalPundit

      Precisely, Canada is a bit player in a very big, nasty world.
      Our political leaders need to stop acting so naive and to start looking after the interests of Canada and its citizens.
      To do otherwise will only undermine our country and devalue our citizenship and everything that this precious, hard earned status stands for.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/robert_mccl6309 Robert McClelland

    Let me rephrase that just for you. Wells appears to be saying we should overlook the step backward simply because it was preceded by two steps forward.

    • Jason

      Or is he saying something about casting the first xenophobic mouthbreathing stone?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

    I know it's not possible but I believe CS Lewis wrote "… but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." with WK in mind.

    It certainly takes a lot of chutzpah to write about 'xenophobic mouth-breather' when WK started his own international incident with his chinese food/cat comment earlier this year. And as you point out, Wells, it is same/similar policy as the Chretien admin that WK was part of.

    But I was glad to learn that Toronto needs a mayor.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/robert_mccl6309 Robert McClelland

    The Czechs were tossed in but only as cover for the real target; Gypsies.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

      You're joking, right?

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/robert_mccl6309 Robert McClelland

        No. It's obvious that the government isn't concerned about Czechs filing for refugee status but a smaller subset of Czechs; the Roma, aka Gypsies. The article Wells cites in his post from `97 is considerably clearer on this being the case. Since Kenney couldn't very well just slap the visa requirements on the Roma all Czechs were targeted.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

          Robert is correct, I believe. The overwhelming majority of Czech refugee claimants are Roma. I have read conflicting reports, however, as to the legitimacy of the claims of persecution. There may be a lot of them (claimants), but some accounts (maybe self-serving, maybe not) depict life as pretty awful over there.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

            And indeed it is so. How odd. This appears to have run two years after I wrote it. But then, the Estonian expat community is a smallish pond.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/robert_mccl6309 Robert McClelland

    Not in the last part.
    And even today, it is easier for most Eastern and Central Europeans to visit Canada than it was before he got his job. Worth remembering.

  • Three Cents

    There is something clearly deficient with the current asylum system. Hell, I'm an immigrant and even I can see that. But the debate this latest series of events has sparked has lead to confusion about the differences between asylum seekers, refugees and immigrants.

    The Conservatives, who have been the governing party for three and a half years, have been criticized by some for failing to fill vacant IRB positions in a timely manner, increasing backlogs in the system. Yes, the system was broken before they ran the shop, but they haven't done very much to improve matters since taking over, save for Diane Finley's ideas about queue jumping for some categories of immigration applicants. Mr. Wells fairly points out their positive actions on refugee admissions. As for asylum seekers, the government seems now to have engaged in a blunt force policy tactic, and will backfill with substantive process changes sometime after the fact?

    My greatest concern is for the tourism industry, which employs 660,000 Canadians and generates $74 billion. It would have benefited from a less dramatic and better planned response from the government. The 250,000 Mexicans coming to Canada each year (some are seasonal workers, most are just tourists) provides one of the few bright spots for Canadian tourism.

    If this is some kind of warning shot in advance of the 2010 games, then things may get a lot messier in the tourism sector, and that will cost Canada far more than any influx of asylum seekers would.

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/PoliticalPundit PoliticalPundit

    I deleted this earlier version! Sorry

  • Alex

    Paul, I was wondering if you could elaborate on this sentence from your 2005 column:

    "In 20 years when these countries are among the most influential in the world, Canada will be paying for its short-sightedness."

    What is it that will make Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic the most influential in the world?

    Thanks.

    • Stewart Smith

      Paul is simply the only one brilliant enough to realize that all those billions of people in China, India and Brazil are not really going to influential. Forfet military power too. It will access to perogies and kaldunies that will sway the world.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

        Of course I bow to the wisdom of the guy who can't figure out how to spell "forfeit."

        It's simple: Poland, which has a larger population than Canada, and the others, which are smaller individually but have considerable populations taken together, are members of the European Union. They have a couple decades' growth ahead of them before they catch up, but they certainly will — as did Spain, once one of the poorest countries in the North, now assuming its clout within the EU. When that happens they'll have economic clout to match the voting clout they already have within the EU. The government ministers of France and Germany, who frequently visit Bangalore but also Lodz and Silesia, have this all figured out. Stewart Smith doesn't get it, but then he's an appalling xenophobic cretin, as his reference to perogies suggests.

        • Alex

          Cool, thanks for the insight. Definitely makes sense. I think I missed the "among" when I was reading the sentence, and thought you meant they were going to be quite influential as individual states, as opposed to key players within the EU.

  • Roger

    If I could change Canada's refugee laws, I would declare the whole European Union a safe third country zone where refugee applicants would be required to apply for refugee status from Europe or another third country. If the Roma face persecution by the state or private citizens in the Czech Repubic, they can always move to another EU country. If they wish to apply for refugee status to Canada, they Roma can apply from Europe. Canada should eliminate the visas for Czech citizens. If a Czech applies for refugee status inside Canada, we can always send the Czech applicant back the the Czech Republic or another EU country to complete the application. We can always set up oversized detention centres in Canada where we can house some refugee applicants. They can always volunteer to go back to their countries at any time. C'au!

  • http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com bigcitylib

    I guess my question would be, when the Liberals did this, did they spark an international incident with the Czechs and wreck tourism for those areas of the country (probably not the Alberta uplands) where middle class Mexicans would actually choose to spend a vacation?

From Macleans