Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW

Categories: Capital Read, Inkless Wells

The times, they are a changin'

by Paul Wells on Thursday, July 16, 2009 4:00pm - 67 Comments

Windsor Star, Sept. 24, 2007:

With at least 25 new arrivals from Florida’s illegal immigrant population claiming refugee status at the Windsor/Detroit border over the weekend, local politicians are stepping up the campaign to have the federal government take action to stem the flow.

Federal New Democrat MPs and local Liberal members of the provincial legislature have added their voices to a chorus led by Mayor Eddie Francis, demanding the Conservative government do something about the sudden influx of hundreds of Mexicans claiming refugee status here….

MPs Joe Comartin (NDP — Windsor-Tecumseh) and Brian Masse (NDP — Windsor West) have written a letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, federal Minister of Immigration Dianne Finley and Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier, asking that the government take action to help the city with the financial strain of hosting the claimants.

In addition, they are requesting the Department of Foreign Affairs meet with U.S. authorities to demand action be taken to discourage the northern migration, through a public information, advertising and media blitz aimed at correcting misleading information among illegal aliens in the U.S. that Canada is open to them.

“We’re supposed to be good neighbours,” said Comartin, referring to apparent U.S. indifference to the situation. “They scream about us being lax about security on our side. It’s hypocritical to not try and prevent people from leaving the U.S. with no rights to status in Canada.”

NDP communiqué, today:

OTTAWA – The number of Mexican tourists visiting Canada in May dropped by 25 percent from a year earlier, an alarming decline that will only accelerate because of the new visa requirements imposed this week, said New Democrat Industry and Border Critic Brian Masse.

“Mexicans spend over $300 million a year in Canada, and yet this government chose the height of tourist season to impose new rules on Mexican visitors,” said Mr. Masse. “Mexico one of the top six countries whose residents vacation in Canada. This is yet another example of how the Harper Conservatives have failed to help the struggling tourism industry in Canada.”

Masse and Comartin’s 2007 letter to the prime minister, which was provided to me by a government source, said the influx of “hundreds and potentially thousands of Mexican nationals” making refugee claims “has the potential to become a nation-wide problem at all border crossings.” Masse and Comartin said it was “crucial that in cooperation with American authorities that the Canadian goverment conveys the message that Mexican economic refugees will not be allowed to stay in Canada.” It did not call for visa requirements for all Mexican visitors. Still, the tone — outrage in every circumstance — is familiar.

Tags: Brian Masse, Joe Comartin, le flip le flop, Mexican visas

More by Paul Wells

http://intensedebate.com/people/SisyphusThis SisyphusThis

Let's consult the experts.

Call Lou Dobbs.

We'll all feel better.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

It seems bizarre that we would be considering refugee claims from a nation with which we have a major trade treaty. Aren't such claimants dismissed out of hand? There's no doubt that many Mexicans have a very hard life, between terrible working conditions and unfettered crimelords, but I wasn't aware that conditions were such as to make any Mexican qualify as a refugee.

Mulletaur

"Aren't such claimants dismissed out of hand ?"

No, they are not. All claims are presently processed the full way. Immigration officers used to be able to stop 'manifestly unfounded' claims at the border (like from a state from which no visa is required) and send them back immediately, but a Charter case (or at least the federal government's interpretation of it) stopped this. As a result, Canada is not following UNHCR policy on processing refugee claims. We should be booting the manifestly unfounded ones at the border and processing the others quickly.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

Yes, that is what I thought as well. If it isn't the case it probably should be.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

I've seen a figure of 11% acceptance rate for refugee claims from Mexico. Which is lower than some countries: about 75% of Columbian refugee claims are accepted. But then, we're seeking a trade agreement with Columbia too.
Steve M

Seconded. Refugees should only be accepted from "one o' dem loser countries" (to quote Moe the Bartender). There should be a "don't even bother trying" list of countries at Immigration, starting with all Western democracies.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Halo_Override Halo_Override

Sitting in Opposition should not automatically mean sitting in opposition, alas/but hey, such is the way of modern discourse. I blame the invention of debating societies — like leaving a gun in a daycare, that one was.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

75% of Columbian claimants are accepted?? Sweet Jesus. Well, I suppose as long as there are people who scream "racism!" (as per the top of this thread) if one even mentions the fact that our refugee system is completely out of whack, no party will touch the issue. And so it goes . . .
Orson Bean

Unfortunately there's the very real possibility that a lot of recommended solutions are ultimately just peeing into the wind. I think it was Jeffrey Simpson who mentioned the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in the Singh case back in the 1980s as the ultimate cause of a lot of our problems in coming up with a workable refugee policy. I could not agree more. The Singh decision, while it makes a lot of refugee advocates feel all warm and fuzzy all over, is without a doubt one of the stupidest decisions ever handed down by our Supreme Court. A classic example of judicial decision-making in the complete absence of regard for reality. And that decision explains why anyone who puts their little toe down on Canadian soil gets due process up the ying-yang and rights of appeal ad infinitum.

Personally, I think the only way to really fix the system would be to invoke the notwithstanding clause in the Charter (to get around the problems that the SCC imposed via the Singh decision).. But I realize that that would be political poison in a lot of people's eyes, would be misinterpreted and misunderstood and, of course, would give the immmigration bar/industry fits of the vapours etc.

Mulletaur

Notwithstanding is not necessary, there are other ways around it. No doubt Kenney has his officials working on it right now.

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

Why should a trade treaty negate claiming refugee status especially when the trade treaty is causing some of the problems that precipitate the need to do so.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

I would have thought that we would not have major trade treaties with nations that oppress their citizenry to the point of forcing some of them to become refugees. That's more a pious hope than a reality, perhaps; but your link goes to show that the poor Mexican claimants are likely to be economic refugees, such as I thought did not qualify for refugee status here. I don't say NAFTA isn't to blame for many of Mexico's problems, but it does not follow that its victims are politically or religiously persecuted; and though the crime may be huge and systemic, it's hardly a war zone like Somalia.

PolJunkie

"I would have thought that we would not have major trade treaties with nations that oppress their citizenry to the point of forcing some of them to become refugees. "

Correct me if I'm wrong but we do have trade deals with China, yes? And Harper is trying to push through a trade agreement with Colombia through Parliament.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

I agree about the Singh case and the need to override it, but actually the immigration lawyers I've talked to are the first to tell you that the system is badly, badly broken.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

I've never understood the whole "economic refugee" concept. Is extreme poverty sufficient to claim refugee status?

http://intensedebate.com/people/SisyphusThis SisyphusThis

I don't know about the " economic refugee " bit either.

Could someone check to see if the 50-odd US claimants
are all from Harlan County , y'all ?

Orson Bean

Yet they're the ones launching a zillion appeals on behalf of their clients, courtesy of the asinine system that we have as a result of Singh. I guess that's what they call irony.

http://intensedebate.com/people/NotStephen Not Stephen Colbert

I think it's more appropriately called "doing their jobs".

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

Perhaps they are trying to heighten the contradictions.
http://intensedebate.com/people/SisyphusThis SisyphusThis

We could probably plead Columbia as a special case in view of the sad fact that people are
truly being killed there as part of the "political " process. Caught in the grind between government
troops / sponsored militias and insurgent groups, a lot of people have reason to fear. Labour
leader is an especially high risk occupation … not that they are having a lot of fun in Canada these
days but the degree of difficulty is meaningful.
And I just know that Mr. Kenny's minions would look kindly on Columbian labour leaders, eh.
RayK

The government is changing the policy to require tourism visas–rather than just a passport–if even if you're only traveling to Canada for a short period of time. So, yes, this is about tourism.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

No, it's about trying to keep our immigration system from being overwhelmed and abused by those who enter the country under false pretenses. Genuine tourists will still make an international trip if a visa is required (I don't think visiting Canada from Mexico is quite the same thing as nipping over to Niagara Falls from Buffalo on a whim.)

It will doubtlessly curb tourism somewhat, but the overt reason for doing this has nothing to do with tourism – it's all about stemming the flow of those entering the country to attempt permanent residence.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

That's a very good point. Yes, civil war, so 75% isn't surprising. I withdraw my surprise retrospectively.

Mulletaur

Don't mean to pile on here, Jack, but 'elected official' or 'journalist' are also dangerous enough occupations in Columbia.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

It's really too bad, eh? Such a beautiful country, they say. I guess I was imagining refugees from the Colombia of my imagination rather than from the wretched reality.

Mulletaur

Well, well, well, lookee here – suddenly the Mexican 'justice' system is taking some action in the Ianiero case.

Isn't. That. Interesting.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

I say we let them all in (barring criminal history etc.) but restrict welfare eligibility to people who've been here legally for at least five years. As long as they come with the intent of supporting themselves I don't see the problem. We could use such an influx.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

I say we let them all in (barring criminal history etc.) but restrict welfare eligibility to people who've been here legally for at least five years. As long as they come with the intent of supporting themselves I don't see the problem. We would benefit from such an influx.
http://www.TennisVagabond.com Big Dave S

Are you blind Wells? He's black on the left side!
Mea Culpa

Just out of curiosity Inkless, when did you receive this letter? Is it something that you have held onto for sometime or did you receive it today? And is this normal for Ottawa?

I just find that tidbit interesting. The fact that a politician/party is talking out both sides of their mouth… not so much. I guess i just expect it as par for the course now.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

What the hell do you have against Colombians?

And thank you all for mistaking Colombians with Columbians, we BC'ers appreciate your familiarity.

..then again, maybe Paul forgot that BC was actually in Canada, and mistook the figure for BC refugees.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

I — uh — what? I love both Colombians and Columbians and — ah — are we negotiating a trade treaty with the Columbians? Perhaps as long as there was an STV provision . . .
Orson Bean

As I understand it, no. However, 2 things: #1 (just in response to Jack Mitchell's post) we long ago moved beyond "politically or religiously persecuted" as the sole available grounds for claiming refugee status, and #2, related to that, refugee lawyers are always and constantly pushing the envelope looking for new grounds for claiming refugee status.

One example is gays & lesbians making claims based on the fact that they live in a homophobic society (which may be persecution but is not political or religious persecution per se), another is female genital mutilation — which is not religious persecution in the classic sense, because the state in such a case is not saying to the woman "we hate you because you're a member of a particular religion"; rather, she is being forced (usually) by non-state actors to do something that all female members of that sect/religion/culture are expected to do.