« January 2008 | Main | March 2008 »
Effective until December 31, 2008 1 person (the sponsor) $21,202 2 persons $26,396 3 persons $32,450 4 persons $39,399 5 persons $44,686 6 persons $50,397 7 persons $56,110 More than 7 persons, for each additional person, add $5,713
A critical article in the Economist regarding Canada and its 'lax' and 'dysfunctional' immigration and refugee policy. The article points at Canadian refugee claimant Ahmed Ressam and the current backlog of 50,000 individuals against whom removal orders are pending:
...all kinds of undesirables are getting into Canada under the country's dysfunctional “refugee” system. While doing little to save genuine refugees in camps abroad, it has opened the door to queue-jumping economic migrants, big-time crooks and terrorists, as documented in numerous reports (notably from the federal government's security service and auditor-general) over more than 20 years.
...
Canada is the easiest country in the developed world in which to obtain refugee status. Most countries accept no more than around 15% of all applicants, whereas Canada accepts more than half. Attracted by an entitlement to the same legal rights and social benefits as for Canadian citizens, some 25,000 asylum-seekers make their way to Canada every year.
...
Once in Canada, they know they will be able to stay—and work—there for at least four years, while pursuing their appeals through the courts.
...
The article blames the problems on Canada's national political parties - which need to pander to the immigrant heavy votes in key cities such as Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto..and then ends on an ominous note:
... Although the polls suggest that ordinary Canadians want the abuse to end, there is no political will. As James Bissett, former head of the Canadian immigration service, says: “It might take a bomb going off here to change this system.”
Liberal MP Jim Karygiannis, using information obtained through the Access to Information Act, has revealed great disparities in how immigrants are processed from country to country. While he naturally criticizes the Conservative government, it should be noted that it was under the Liberal aegis that the immigrant backlog increased from 50,000 to 800,000.
Link here.
These are however, not good signs for a country that needs to attract the best and the brightest - and of course expeditiously and fairly reunite Canadian families.
Is it time to allow those individuals who have been residing illegally in Canada to become legal residents - or to allow them some pathway to legal status? At present, other than a limited recourse under ‘humanitarian and compassionate’ considerations – an application that takes over 2 years, there is no amnesty provision for anyone in Canada.
Remember, there are thousands of failed refugee claimants, thousands of ‘visitors’ that have overstayed and many other illegal denizens of Canada (remember the hundreds of Portuguese deported from Canada in 2006?). I would imagine that, among many (if not the majority) of the thousands of temporary foreign workers that have arrived in the last months there would be a great reluctance to return to their countries of origin at the end of their contractual/indentured obligation (indeed another emerging issue is the widespread exploitation of these temporary foreign workers touted as the panacea to our labour woes - and what, if any, our obligation to them is).
I know that Canadians of all stripes view illegal immigrants that have jumped the queue with disfavor, but lets face facts. As long as there are global wealth disparities, Canada will continue to attract immigrants - both legal and illegal. As it stands, current Canadian citizenship policy is encouraging illegal immigration because legal immigration to Canada is simply too difficult - many highly skilled workers have to wait 5 years or more to come to Canada. Even when an immigrant (illegal or not) already in Canada has a Canadian spouse, a 'in-Canada' sponsorship exceeds 18 months.
Everyone knows there is a severe labour shortage in Canada which is especially acute in Alberta. What sense does it make to deport law abiding individuals who may not be refugees in the strictest sense of the definition, but have been contributing members of society nonetheless? Why would we turn away welders, electricians, other skilled trades and valuable labour? Why go to the difficulty and expense of recruiting individuals from abroad when we have a pool of workers (albeit without status) in our backyard?
Obviously we would target those 'illegals' who are healthy, have demonstrated positive employment history, proficiency in an official language, community involvement, ties to the country (such as children) and no criminal record. Safeguards such as: background checks in Canada and their home countries'; an increased period of time before eligibility for citizenship; higher administrative fees and a requirement to pay back any outstanding taxes on income earned in Canada will ensure that 'legal' immigrants continue to enjoy certain advantages over this new queue jumping/'amnesty immigrant class'.
The limited amnesty I propose however, should be combined with significant reforms to our current immigration regime, so that the requirement for amnesty is reduced over time. Legal immigration should be easier and faster, with a clear path to legal status for foreign students. Refugee reform should be a priority – with fair and quick decisions -- a failed refugee should not be in Canada for close to a decade before he or she is removed. And the provinces should have more say over immigration because it’s clear that the federal government has clearly dropped the ball.
I'm sure that critics will continue to argue that such a proposal rewards lawbreakers. They would be correct in such a characterization. However, that characterization does not negate the necessity to address the dual problems of our labour shortage and the issue of fairness to the poor souls that have come here for a better life and want to live here so very much.
Paula Simons writes on a violent refugee, Samuel Martin Luin, who after completing his sentence for raping a woman in Edmonton, was released from detention by Immigration Division Member Paul Kyba. It would appear that the CBSA failed to apply for a danger opinion which would have allowed his removal from Canada:
This July, the Immigration and Refugee Board convened a deportation hearing, where Luin was ordered deported. But deporting a refugee isn't simple. Ethically, it's tricky to send someone who's been granted asylum back into a war zone. And most of Luin's family are now in Ethiopia. To deport Luin, the minister of immigration,Diane Finley, would have to sign a document called a danger opinion, effectively ruling that the danger Luin poses to the Canadian public outweighs the danger he'd face in Sudan.
The process of getting a danger opinion is long and cumbersome. First, Canada Border Services has to complete the research and paperwork to support deportation. Then, the person facing deportation has the chance to put together a legal rebuttal. Then, the paperwork goes to Ottawa for ministerial consideration. It can take anywhere from six months to two years to get a ministerial decision.
Yet even though Luin was due to be released on Nov. 23, Canada Border Services didn't file an application for a danger opinion until Nov. 13, 10 days before Luin was to hit the streets.
And so, on Dec. 3, the Immigration and Refugee Board released Luin from detention, ruling he was neither a flight risk nor a public danger.
It was unfair and unconstitutional to hold him indefinitely, said the IRB, just because Stockwell Day's Department of Public Safety failed to do its job.
"The minister is about 16 months behind in doing what the minister ought to have started ... a year and four months ago," said Paul Kyba of the Immigration and Refugee Board. "... I see no excuse, I see no valid reason why the minister chose to delay this process. This is not vigilance by the minister."
However, even given the failure on the part of the CBSA to act on the necessary paperwork to remove Samuel Martin Luin, it is somewhat disturbing that the ID released Luin without even the posting of a cash bond. Luin was subject to report to immigration once a month -- perhaps not surprisingly, Luin failed to report and went underground.
Here's an article that discusses his guilty plea - defence counsel had argued that Luin's past - growing up in war ravaged Sudan should be taken into account for sentencing.
Luin has now been taken into custody by the Edmonton police acting on tips from the public.
** Update - it appears that the long awaited danger opinion has been prepared. Article here. Excerpt:
Citizenship and Immigration Canada has signed a "danger opinion" order on convicted rapist Samuel Martin Luin, which means he is thought to pose more of a danger to the Canadian public than he would face in Sudan.
The notice effectively gives the Canadian Border Services Agency permission to deport Luin. As soon as his travel documents are arranged, Luin, 23, will be put on plane back home. "We basically have a green light to go ahead with his removal," said Lisa White, spokeswoman for the Canadian Border Services Agency. "We will make every effort to remove him from Canada as soon as possible."
This poor lawyer gets punched in the face by his client - more surprising is his Gandhian ahimsa reaction captured on camera:
