Raj Sharma's Canadian Immigration Blog

Blacklisted - World Tamil Movement

Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day has announced that the World Tamil Movement is the newest addition to Canada's blacklist of terrorist organizations. The WTM is accused of being a front, or raising funds for the LTTE, aka the Tamil Tigers who have been fighting for an independant state in Sri Lanka since 1983.

The fight for independance in Sri Lanka, combined with the extensive funds provided by expats now living in Canada is another example of a challenge to Canada's multiculturalism. It seems that notwithstanding their new ties to a new country, individuals and groups remain committed to their country of origin, such commitment including perpetrating acts of violence and terrorism.

A Toronto Sun article indicates that the Canadian Tamil Congress has indicated that it is "disturbed" and "saddened" by the governments' actions.

The Toronto Star on the other hand, indicated the positive response to the announcement by the GTA Tamil population:

Yesterday's announcement brought quiet joy and relief to many of the GTA's Tamil population, although few dared celebrate, said Lenin Benedict, secretary of the Canadian Democratic Tamil Cultural Association.

The organization promotes pluralism in Ontario's Tamil community and a peaceful resolution to the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka.

"Everybody is happy inside, but most people will not come out, frankly, out of fear (of retribution)," he said, noting people's concerns for family members here and abroad, or for their businesses.

Devil's Advocate

Devil's Advocate

If immigration is of a 'small benefit' to the United Kingdom could the same be true of Canada?

A recent influential committee of the House of Lords indicates that immigration has had little or no economic benefit of Britons and that competition from immigrants has had a negative impact on lower salaried employees and has contributed to high house prices. The peers want limits on immigration levels.

A 2005 Fraser Institute publication - "Immigration and the Welfare State in Canada" made a similar claim and concluded that Canada's "welfare system" which relies on progressive taxation and provision of universal government benefits results in "substantial net transfers of taxpayers' money" from "Canadians to the recent immigrants."

Even if the Fraser Institute report is derided as partisan and biased, the question of the appropriateness of current immigration levels is still relevant given the foreshadow of the issues of multiculturalism and immigration from across the pond.

Expressing a sentiment that could, in any way, be construed as anti-immigrant would be political anathema in this country. The Conservatives are already shut out of the immigrant rich cities of Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal.

In 1969, the iconic Lord Denning, in the British Schmidt case insisted that 'no alien has the right to enter this country [UK] except by leave of the Crown: and the Crown can refuse leave without giving any reason'.

Well, both the UK and Canada have come some way from Denning's almost laconic characterization of immigration law. Current immigration law requires the immigration department to consider every application submitted. Principles of fairness, with roots in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, require procedural fairness to be meted to every applicant.

The Conservatives' recent attempts to address the massive backlog (developed almost exclusively under the Liberals) by way of changes to the strained system giving greater flexibility to the department is of sufficient import to contribute to a possible summer election. Dion has already been warned by immigrant activists who are opposed to the recently announced immigration reforms - a failure to vote against the proposed changes could result in a loss of political support from new Canadians.

Some immigrants still remember the (failed) attempt by the Diefenbaker government to cap immigration applications during the 1950s. The present Conservative government will have to step very gingerly to avoid being labeled anti-immigrant - a designation that they've more or less inherited from their Reform ancestry.

Should economic concerns alone drive immigration policy? Is it time to lower targets or otherwise cap immigration? Can we have an an honest discussion of immigration policy in this country without labels like racism or discrimination thrown around?

My personal views are that immigration has contributed immensely to the fabric of this society, and that Canada as a whole has benefited. It is however, important to review and reappraise our policy from time to time and ask the difficult questions to ensure that immigration continues to benefit Canadian businesses and communities.

Updated: Segregation/Balkanization vs. The Canadian Mosaic

Just read a great article in the Toronto Star discussing Trevor Phillips, the 'controversial' leader of Britain's Commission on Equality and Human Rights - who believes 'too much tolerance of diversity' could lead to the [diasaster] of segregation:

Phillips thinks it's [multiculturalism] become a counterproductive ideology, at least in the UK. If the aim was to soften differences and promote shared views and values, that's not how multiculturalism has played out. "What started as a straightforward recognition of diversity," he says, "has become a system which prizes racial and ethnic difference above all other values, and there lies the problem."

I must say that I'm quite intrigued with Phillips' view of integration vs. multiculturalism.

Another interesting article by Scott Young.

He argues that the official policy of multiculturalism - that immigrants/minorities can retain their cultural heritage is coming at the expense of integration, resulting in the 'balkanization' of Canada:

Unfortunately, attempting to reveal the perils of segregation is usually buried in simplistic accusations of racism (Remember Bruce Allen?) Canadians revel in the romanticism of Trudeau's multiculturalism, but fail to realize its role in creating ethnic ghettoes.

Jack Granatstein stated: "The [Canadian] state should spend its limited funds on helping newcomers adapt to Canadian society by teaching them the basic knowledge, the symbols, and the ideas that literate, culturally aware Canadians understand . . . . To do anything else condemns immigrants to isolation, to low-paying jobs, to the expanding ghetto of the ill-paid and uneducated."

Robert Putnam, author of Bowling Alone, recently lamented that social capital is weakest where diversity is strongest. He noted that while "the task of becoming comfortable with diversity will not be easy or quick . . . it will be speeded by our collective efforts and in the end well worth the effort."

Putnam cited real benefits of diversity, including higher creative capacities and more rapid economic growth. Diversity is a good thing, but immigrants and Canadians naively fear that integration equals the loss of their individual heritages.

That fear has paralysed Canadian social growth.

Until we acknowledge that our self-imposed mosaic is not a perfect system, we'll never construct a mature, cohesive national identity.

Without a national identity, it remains extraordinarily presumptuous for us to claim to be the world's first modern multicultural society.

Another article, on MSNBC, indicates similar concerns regarding the lack of singular identity and resultant vulnerability to Islamic fundamentalism in the multicultural United Kingdom:

...multicultural Britain is an easy target for attacks by militant Islamists because its aims, values and political identity are divided.

...

The [July 2005] attacks sparked a debate on whether Britain’s policy of avoiding imposing a single British identity and instead promoting a multicultural society had led to segregation of ethnic minorities.

...

“Islamist terrorism is where people tend to begin. The United Kingdom presents itself as a target, as a fragmenting, post-Christian society, increasingly divided about interpretations of its history, about its national aims, its values and in its political identity,” the RUSI report said.

“That fragmentation is worsened by the firm self-image of those elements within it who refuse to integrate.”

Are the concerns voiced 'across the pond' a foreshadow of strife in Canada?

Is Canada vulnerable to Islamic (or other) implacable fundamentalist ideology because of our weak (or nonexistent) national identity. Are we a greater or more susceptible target to such radical groups because of our official policy of multiculturalism? What role has or will Canada's immigration policy play in this developing issue?

These difficult questions need to be address given our similarities to the United Kingdom; our reliance on immigration; and the fact that we are importing hatred and conflict along with our new citizens and permanent residents.   

Time for an Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants in Canada?

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.

Updated: Air India and the Importation of Conflict

Canadian immigration policy has to recognize that new immigrants often carry with them the hatreds, prejudices and conflicts plaguing their country of origin.

It must then seek to identify those likely to continue to adhere to such belief systems and likely to act on them in Canada.

Despite the current identification of Islamists as fifth columnists, we only need to look at recent history in Canada to realize that they hold no monopoly on such internal threats -- more than 20 years ago, Sikh fundamentalists used terror to establish their homeland, Khalistan, in India.

Canada -- then and now a major destination country for Sikhs -- became a theatre for that conflict when Sikh fundamentalists placed a bomb on an Air India flight, killing 329 (mostly Canadians) and were likely behind the murder of Tara Singh Hayer, a prominent Indo-Canadian editor in Surrey, B.C., who spoke out against violence in the Sikh separatist movement.

The Air India inquiry continues and now confirms that there was advance knowledge of the threat -- revealing a massive failure on the part of Canada's security apparatus to act on that knowledge to prevent the deaths of those innocents.

In addition to Ontario Lt.-Gov. James Bartleman's shocking revelation of receiving (and passing on to the RCMP) a specific threat prior to the fateful day, documents filed at the inquiry show that the Toronto police were called by Air India indicating a sabotage threat for a specific flight; a July 1984 RCMP memo dealt with bomb attacks on Air India flights; and the Indian High Commission warned against security threats to Air India flights. (Note - Bartleman's testimony has been sharply criticized by Pierre Lacompte who testified before the inquiry on Thursday, December 2007. Link here.)

More than two decades ago, CSIS was unable to obtain a warrant to intercept communications on Talwinder Singh Parmar for five months. Parmar was already considered by CSIS to be the "most radical and potentially dangerous Sikh in the country." Parmar toured Canada denouncing the Indian government and spewed his vitriolic opinions at will. Parmar was quoted as telling audiences at Sikh temples that it was time to "unite, fight and kill," and that "50,000 Hindus" should die in retaliation for an Indian army attack on the Golden Temple, the holiest Sikh shrine in India.

Surprisingly, even after the security failure and debacle with respect to Air India, even now CSIS still takes between three and six months to get approval to intercept communications in "national security cases."

The difficulties in bringing justice to those responsible have been well documented in the criminal courts of Canada -- courts that have provided only one conviction (Inderjit Singh Reyat) in connection with the bombing. CSIS has revealed that even now, they face difficulties in expeditiously intercepting communications that are a threat to national security.

Religious fundamentalists like Parmar in Canada, Abu Qatada in the United Kingdom and Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman in the U.S., each presented a unique problem to their respective law enforcement authorities.

Qatada faces deportation to Jordan and Abdel-Rahman is in custody. Parmar was never prosecuted in Canada and died in a police shoot-out in India.

Undoubtedly, there will be others to take their places.

It's clear that preventing individuals who espouse violent beliefs from entering Canada is the best way to safeguard national security. Once here, monitoring of such individuals is vital to preventing another catastrophe such as the doomed Air India flight.

****

Please note the above article (minus the update in December 2007) was published in the Calgary Herald on May 10, 2007. Link here.

Terror charges dropped against Khadr

Omar Khadr - the sole Canadian in Guantanamo had some unexpected news when he showed up for his arraignment before an infamous Bush Administration military tribunal. The charges against him were dropped without prejudice. The fact that the charges were dropped is nothing significant, and is essentially an issue only of semantics - 'enemy combatant' vs. 'unlawful enemy combatant'. The US government will undoubtedly and quickly re-file the charges.

Michael Ignatieff, the deputy Liberal leader and Joe Comartin of the NDP quickly expressed that the Canadian government should essentially be doing more for a Canadian citizen like Omar. As an example of what could be done, is Australian David Hicks who was also incarcerated in Gitmo, but took advantage of a 'deal', pled guilty and has returned to Australia to serve his sentence (he'll probably be out of jail by the end of the year). Hicks was supported by his government who pressured the US for a repatriation agreement. Mr. Hicks even has a web site that advocated for his release. No such support seems likely for Omar given the apathy (or flat out antagonism) of the Canadian public towards Omar and the Conservative government has made no request for a repatriation arrangement.

Why is their so little support for Omar in Canada?

Amnesty International has stated that "To have held a 15-year-old boy in the harsh and lawless conditions of Guantanamo for five years has already been a travesty of justice - and to put him before an unfair 'military commission' trial simply adds to a disgraceful record in his case". Omar's Pentagon appointed lawyer (who has since been fired by his client) notes that the US would be the first country in modern history to try a war crimes suspect who was a minor at the time of the alleged incident(s). One of the charges is conspiracy and is apparently based on acts committed before Omar was 10.

While Omar's mother appealed to the sympathies of ordinary Canadians in a press conference a couple of years ago, little sympathy appears forthcoming. In a previous media interview, Omar's mother said that she'd rather see her sons at an al-Qaeda training camp than "be on drugs or having some homosexual relation" in Canada. On other occasions, other family members have admitted as to their "connections to al-Qaida" (Abdurahman Khadr) and the desire for martyrdom (Abdullah Khadr) and Omar's sister's indifferent reaction to the death of Sgt. 1st Class Christopher J. Speer (killed by a grenade allegedly thrown by Omar) was televised for the edification of all Canadians. The reason for the Canadian public's lack of support is quite clear: ordinary Canadians have little love for this Al-Qaeda family.

Does Canada's obligation towards its citizens mandate intervention on behalf of Omar to the US? More than a decade ago, former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien personally intervened to have Ahmed Said Khadr, the patriarch of the family and an Al-Qaeda financier, released from Pakistani detention (Ahmed Said was accused of bombing the Egyptian embassy in Pakistan, resulting in 15 deaths). Within weeks of that request, Ahmed Said Khadr was released. He was killed in 2003 when a Pakistani military helicopter shelled the residence he was staying in with senior al-Qaeda operatives. 

Omar was in Afghanistan, allegedly supporting a terrorist organization and also allegedly taking part in hostilities against American forces. He is now facing the consequences of those actions before a military tribunal (which will determine his guilt or innocence).  The Canadian government has provided some assistance to Omar, but pushing for a repatriation agreement would be a discretionary act by the government, and is not mandated by any legal obligation towards a citizen outside Canada engaging in hostile acts against the armed forces of an allied country. It's clear that Omar and his family have abdicated their right to such discretion not only by publicly espousing views that directly contradict Canadian values, but also by acting in support of Al-Qaeda, an organization that has announced its intentions to attack this country.

Zahid Hussain and Pakistan's Faultlines

Zahid Hussain’s “Frontline Pakistan: The Struggle with Militant Islam” makes for interesting reading these days. President Musharraf is the current dictator of Pakistan, and has delivered some success, and failed on other fronts (like nuclear proliferation) in the US ‘War Against Terror’. Both Hussain’s book and recent events indicate the precarious situation of Musharraf, the choices facing Pakistan, and the resulting consequences for the rest of the world.

Democracy and the rule of law have eluded Pakistan for most of its post-Independence existence.  This has been quite evident for the past 2 months since Musharraf’s arbitrary suspension of the former Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry of Pakistan’s Supreme Court. Here's a good article on the Judge vs. the General.

Karachi, Pakistan’s largest city, has now been witness to the massacre of Chaudhry’s supporters who were protesting Musharraf’s unilateral action, apparently by members of the pro-government ethnic based MQM (Mutahida Qaumi Movement) party while Pakistan’s security forces stood by and watched.

Hussain feels that that the “war against militancy and Islamic extremism can be best fought – and won – in a liberal democracy”. Musharraf’s proximity to the US and its unpopular policies in the region has resulted in (or exacerbated) deep fissures in Pakistan society, including deep enmity towards Musharraf from the Islamists within Pakistan. In addition, his authoritarian rule may now have turned the moderate Muslims – the majority of Pakistanis which essentially gave him a mandate to govern after his bloodless coup  in 1999 – against him as well.

Musharraf has been the target of more than one assassination attempt. Should the relatively pragmatic Musharraf fall, a more unpalatable option may present itself. Musharraf’s demise (notwithstanding the extreme security surrounding him) will result in either another army general stepping in, or worse. A coalition of conservative Islamic parties is disproportionately represented in Pakistan’s Parliament and Islamists have pushed for the adoption of sharia law, and made various other efforts to Talibanize the state. These efforts now include bomb threats against Pakistan’s tiny Christian minority in the almost lawless North West Frontier Province in an attempt to coerce them to convert to Islam. Pakistan may well descend into regional and ethnic chaos. Musharraf’s successor could be an Islamist, or a sympathizer. Such a result would be grim news to the current efforts towards reconciliation attempts between Pakistan and India over the disputed Kashmir territory.

Why should we care about the fate of Pakistan and its struggle towards democracy and the rule of law? Pakistan’s struggles with extremism have international repercussions. In this age of globalization, Pakistan’s faultlines of ethnic, political and religious strife will be Canada’s headache tomorrow. Pakistan is a major immigrant source country, and for many years was the number one source country for refugees to Canada. A significant number of those refugee claims involved individuals claiming to be persecuted as a result of their affiliation with the MQM party – considered by Citizenship & Immigration to be a “terrorist” organization.

One example of the repercussions of the extremism is Operation Crevice which involved the UK’s successful interdiction of a bomb plot involving a massive amount of fertilizer. Nine men of Pakistani heritage were arrested -- including Mohammed Momin Khawaja in Canada (who is also now linked to the July 7 public transit bombings that killed 53 people in London).

If Hussain is right, and liberal legal traditions and other institutions that Canadians take for granted are the necessary bulwark against extremism and fundamentalism in Pakistan then it is incumbent upon the United States and other nations to encourage the development of democracy in Pakistan. Realpolitik suggests that it’s in the US’ best interests to support the better-than-the-alternative Musharraf but also nudge Pakistan society into nascent democracy. The true test of this commitment will happen if (or when) conservative Islamic parties dominate Musharraf’s promised elections.

"Londonistan" no longer haven for terror cleric

It looks like Londonistan has acted (decisively) to remove a militant Islamic cleric. Abu Qatada claimed asylum in the UK after arriving using fraudulent documents in 1993 (as do many other in-land asylum seekers). He was granted status ... but apparently began preaching against his new 'homeland' from the moment he arrived.

The Telegraph's 'profile' on Qatada paints a chilling portrait:

Among those he influenced were Mohammed Atta, one of the ring-leaders of the September 11 hijackers, who had a number of Qatada’s videos in his Hamburg flat.

...he advised Rachid Ramda who is in jail in France for financing the bombing of the Paris Metro in 1995 and Djamel Beghal an Algerian in jail in France for plotting to blow up the American embassy in Paris.

...

In March 1995, Qatada issued an influential fatwa [religious ruling] which justified the killing of the wives and children of apostates in Algeria. In September 1998 he told his followers it was legitimate to break Western laws, steal and cheat "kaffirs" [non-believers] and take their women for sex or sale.

The following year he used his base at the Four Feathers Social Club in Baker Street, central London to issue a fatwa supporting killing Jews and Americans, whom he said were "no better than Jews."

In one sermon, apparently delivered in Britain, Qatada said Allah "looked well" on killing a non-believer for the sake if Islam and told a questioner that suicide bombings were acceptable if they were for the benefit of Islam.

Notwithstanding the above, civil libertarians take issue with the UK's planned deportation of Qatada.

Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said "paper promises" that there would be no ill-treatment were insufficient.

"Dodgy little 'assurances’ from regimes that practise torture convince few outside government," she added.

Of course, Amnesty International made it's obligatory pitch against the removal of Mr. Qatada to Jordan:

Tim Hancock, of Amnesty International UK, said it was of "profound concern" that Siac [Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Siac) which received assurances from Jordan about Qatada's treatment] had discounted evidence showing the risk of torture if Qatada was returned to Jordan. This included material documenting the "routine infliction of torture on 'security suspects’ in Jordan...a practice which continues with impunity".

Mr. Qatada's legal team, is of course, planning an appeal of the decision.

The removal of Qatada should be of interest to Canada, and specifically to Stockwell Day's Ministry - Canada's legislation on detaining foreign nationals on 'security certificates' was recently struck down (albeit stayed for one year) by the Supreme Court of Canada. However, my feeling is that the repugnance of secret trials by the SCOC should not be read as a blanket prohibition against the removal of foreign nationals from Canada (only that while they're here, certain enshrined rights must be preserved).

It's ironic that Mr. Qatada is trying (with his many court applications/appeals) so hard to remain within a country and society which he so obviously despises.

   

Telegraph link here and here. Guardian link here. A somewhat benign profile on BBC here. A transcript of Qatada and a CBC interviewer on the CBC site here.