Ottawa to eliminate rule used to crack down on marriage fraud

Good range of commentary on the Government’s recent announcement on its planned removal of the two-year delay on spousal permanent residency:

One Vancouver immigration lawyer said Monday that anecdotal evidence (the government has yet to make public the official data) suggests that the 2012 measures have been effective.The two-year delay has had “the desired effect of discouraging this kind of behaviour. So if you eliminate that, I wouldn’t be surprised if (marriage fraud) went back up again,” said Andrew Wlodyka, a former assistant deputy chair with the appeal division of the Immigration and Refugee Board.

“But the government has made this decision, and they’re going to have to live with the consequences.”

Geeta Ghardwaj, a settlement worker for Punjabi immigrants at Abbotsford Community Services, said she noticed a “significant” reduction in marriage fraud cases as a result of the 2012 policy changes.

But other immigration specialists praised the pending move, saying the two-year delay had unintended consequences that put new immigrants, especially women, in a vulnerable position.

Marriage fraud “was a problem, there is no question about that,” said Vancouver immigration lawyer Alex Stojicevic, past-chairman of the Canadian Bar Association’s immigration section and an adjunct professor at the University of B.C.

But the policy “caused more problems than it solved (by creating) incentives (for sponsored spouses) to stay in abusive and bad relationships simply to keep their status.”

He said the separate prohibition on a second spousal sponsorship less than five years after an initial marriage should be an effective deterrent.

Stojicevic noted that Citizenship and Immigration Canada has also developed sophisticated tools in recent years to detect marriage fraud, making a “Draconian” measure like the two-year delay unnecessary.

Vancouver immigration lawyer Richard Kurland said there are other tools to discourage fraud, like a mid-2015 regulation that excluded “proxy” marriages executed via telephone, fax or the Internet.

But he said the government should maintain the two-year ban as a discretionary option for visa officers when they have suspicions about a spousal sponsorship, but want to give the couple a conditional benefit of the doubt rather than reject their application outright.

The Conservatives brought in both the two-year and five-year provisions in 2012 after Jason Kenney, the immigration minister at the time, told of “thousands” of victims who had their hearts broken by marriage fraudsters.

A year later, CBSA documents obtained by Kurland indicated that roughly a third of spousal immigration applications from China and India were fraudulent.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/ottawa+eliminate+rule+used+crack+down+marriage+fraud/11753186/story.html#ixzz41gdoS5Rn

Douglas Todd: Divorce, Shariah and gold coins

 I always find Todd’s articles of interest and this one is no exception:

Lawyer Zahra Jenab often comes face to face with couples embroiled in acidic disputes over a small fortune in gold.The West Vancouver family lawyer, who was born in Iran and raised in Canada, works frequently with ex-partners wrangling over thousands of gold coins, which may or may not have been given by the husband in a dowry under Islamic Shariah law.

Canadian courts are increasingly being called upon to rule on religious laws of the Middle East and Asia. But they’re finding it tricky to distribute family property across nations and in an era when dowries contain symbolic promises of Qur’ans along with valuable coins.

Jenab has made her way through hundreds of trans-national divorces in which Canadian family law clashes with traditions from Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, East Africa and East Asia, and her desk is piled with yellow case files.

When separating immigrant women and men ask her why their divorces can’t follow the rules of their old country, Jenab has to tell them: “Because we’re in Canada, now.”

Estranged couples can be devastated when they discover the religious laws of their homelands don’t apply in Canada.

“My heart often breaks for the suffering couple,” Jenab said. “But the driving issue is Shariah property law.”

As trans-national divorce increasingly falls under the scrutiny of Canadian judges, the decisions they’re making about what Shariah says about the distribution of property are “all over the map,” Jenab said.

Unfortunately, an expert witness on Shariah has not emerged to guide Canada’s courts.

The focus of many trans-national divorces in Canada is the often-considerable dowry, sometimes known as a mahr or meher, which is customary in most countries containing the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims.

“The dowry is financial security for the female. It is the man’s promise to provide finances, often in gold. It can be claimed by her at any time.”

When discord tears apart the bonds of matrimony, as it often does in all cultures, conflicts over often-unwritten promises about dowries can become intense.

In some countries where Shariah is enshrined, Jenab says, men can be arrested for not providing the dowry when the wife demands it.

…Property rights are also often not equal in many Muslim countries, where males are favoured.

Trans-national divorces, as a result, are often complicated when spouses work, or hold property, in their country of origin. “That makes the fair division of property hard to enforce.”

Many of Jenab’s clients, women and men, end up wanting both the benefits of Canada’s relatively equal family law and the advantages of their traditional religious culture.

They’re often stunned or angry, she said, when they learn Canadian family law — including the ideal of parents sharing joint custody of children — doesn’t line up with their religious customs.

“It’s difficult to see families struggle as they move out of their marriages, especially the children,” Jenab said. “That’s why I try to talk everyone down from taking a scorched-earth approach.”

http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas+todd+clash+cultures+divorce+shariah+gold/11753275/story.html

Cities of Migration and Metropolis Conferences this week

Will be busy at the conferences so little blogging for the balance of the week. I will post the deck presentations I will be making on the 2015 Elections and Visible Minorities and on Citizenship: Finding the New Balance later this week.

Merkel’s approach to the migrant crisis is a battle for Germany’s soul

Alan Freeman on Germany and refugees:

Yet while Chancellor Merkel is keenly aware that the flow must slow down and is enacting measures to screen out non-Syrian and non-Iraqi migrants, she continues to insist that Germany cannot and should not follow its neighbours and simply shut its borders. In a weekend TV interview, she dismissed the idea of a rigid limit on the number of new migrants. “There is no point in believing that I can solve the problem through the unilateral closure of borders.”“I have no Plan B,” Merkel said bravely, although she added that Germany will continue to work on solving the problem at its root, in the Syrian conflict, and will try to get her EU colleagues to accept some redistribution of the migrants. Aside from Sweden, nobody else has stepped to the plate in the same way as Germany.

Why is Merkel doing this? Her reasons actually have as much to do with Germany’s past and future as they do with its present.

When I lived in Berlin in the late 1990s, I was struck by the burden of history that ordinary Germans bear. The Nazi past is around every street corner, with museums, memorials and plaques recalling the horror of those dozen years. Added to this unfortunate heritage was the weight of four decades of totalitarian rule in the old German Democratic Republic. Can a nation have too much history?

Aware of how their forebears were the source of so much displacement, hatred and death in the Second World War, contemporary Germans like Merkel have vowed they will never again close their doors to those in need. They also see their national identity as being as part of something bigger — which explains in large part why they continue to be the major backers of the European ideal.

“If Germany can’t show a friendly face in an emergency situation, then it’s not my country,” Merkel has said.

She picked up the same line in her weekend interview. “There is so much violence and hardship on our doorstep,” she said. “What is right for Germany in the long term? I think it is to keep Europe together and to show humanity.”

There’s also a practical, down-to-earth reason for opening Germany’s doors to migrants. Germany’s population is stagnating and on the verge of major decline, as the birth rate continues to fall and the proportion of the elderly rises. Over the next 15 years, it could mean a loss of 6 million of the workers needed to power the German economy. If nothing is done, the population will drop to 67 million by 2060.

Japan, facing a similar demographic crisis, already has seen its population fall by 1 million over the past five years to 127 million. Japan is on track to losing 40 per cent of its population by the end of the century. But Japan won’t even consider mass immigration as an alternative, dooming itself to increasing irrelevance.

The idea of a shrinking Germany is obviously anathema to Chancellor Merkel. So she is willing to take the risk of opening up the country to masses of migrants, hopeful that they can be successfully integrated into a strong economy and become Germans. It’s a huge gamble.

Germans may not be yet convinced — but neither are they rejecting her vision of the future either. A poll conducted for Focus magazine at the end of January showed that 39.9 per cent of those surveyed believed Merkel should resign because of her handling of the refugee crisis. But a surprisingly strong plurality of 45.2 per cent said she should stay on.

And her Christian Democratic Party still leads handily against its rivals. It would be foolish to count Merkel out.

http://ipolitics.ca/2016/02/29/merkels-approach-to-the-migrant-crisis-is-a-battle-to-save-germanys-soul/ 

ICYMI: Douglas Todd: Lest we overlook the ‘Asian Holocaust’

Good piece by Todd:

Nazi Germany’s invasions and the Holocaust have been thoroughly exposed through an avalanche of books and movies. Germany’s leaders have repeatedly apologized and offered redress. And the German people, including the young, carry the guilt of their forebears’ atrocities.

That’s not the case when it comes to Japan’s war crimes.

Eugene Sledge, a U.S. professor and veteran who advised Ken Burns on his documentary, War, has said: “The best kept secret about World War II is the truth about the Japanese atrocities.”

The full horror of Japanese aggression began manifesting itself first in 1937, when Japanese soldiers launched a brutal, sexually sadistic invasion of the Chinese city of Nanking.

Peter Li, an historian at Rutgers University, continues to think Canada and the U.S. have to be held responsible for Japanese internment camps. But he also doesn’t want the world to turn a blind eye to the devastation wrought by Japan.

“As Auschwitz has become a symbol of the Jewish Holocaust and Nazi atrocities in World War II, the ‘Rape of Nanking’ has become the symbol of the Japanese military’s monstrous and savage cruelty in the Asia Pacific War from 1931 to 1945,” Li says.

“But in comparison to the Jewish Holocaust, relatively little has been written about the atrocities perpetrated by the Japanese military in China, Korea, the Philippines, Singapore and Indonesia, where close to 50 million people died at the hands of Japanese aggression. In China alone, an estimated 30 million people lost their lives.”

Given the hot spotlight on Nazi Germany, it’s little wonder those who want to shift the attention of resistant Westerners to Japan’s war crimes often use the term, “the Asian Holocaust.”

Why have Japan’s war outrages lacked the scrutiny directed at Germany?

The University of Victoria’s John Price is among those who argue one reason for the silence has been U.S. strategy since the war. After Japan surrendered in 1945, the U.S. occupied the country and turned it into an ally in its conflicts with Communist China, Korea and elsewhere. Needing a “friend” in Asia, the U.S. and other Western powers, Price suggests, have not found it in their interest to rub Japan’s nose in its iniquities.

The second reason lies in Western guilt over dropping atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Those explosions helped force Japan to surrender, but at the cost of roughly 100,000 civilian lives.

As a result, in East Asia, controversy burns openly over whether Japan should more fully apologize for starting the war. But in Canada the question rarely comes up.

That’s despite Canada sending thousands of young soldiers to the Asian war, where many were killed or injured or suffered torture and mistreatment.

A person needs a strong stomach to read even a basic Wikipedia page about “Japanese war atrocities.”

Japanese military leaders often ordered troops to “Kill all captives,” says Li, editor of Japanese War Crimes: The Search for Justice. Japanese troops were routinely ordered to decapitate, rape or pour gasoline on citizens and prisoners of war.

When Japan’s soldiers weren’t burying humans alive, they were told to build their courage by plunging 15-inch bayonets into unarmed people. “Killing was a form of entertainment,” says Li. The indignities performed on corpses of victims of rape are too gruesome to cite.

Grassroots efforts to draw attention to the need for fuller Japanese apologies and redress have faced a mountain of obfuscation and denial.

Unlike in Germany, Japan’s responsibility for the war “is not clearly established in the minds of many Japanese today,” says Li. “The Japanese people have introduced the notion of ‘a good defeat’ … and they rarely invoke an enemy, or hatred for the enemy. Somehow the war has become an ‘enemy-less’ conflict.”

Last year, on the 70th anniversary of the war, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe expressed his “profound grief” for his country’s actions.

But Abe continues to send mixed messages, since he has also visited the Yasukani Shrine, which contains graves of Japan’s worst war criminals. And accounts of war atrocities remain slim to non-existent in Japanese textbooks.

Source: Douglas Todd: Lest we overlook the ‘Asian Holocaust’

Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy, Oscar winner, says Canada informs her work

Nice Canadian connection:

Pakistani-Canadian filmmaker Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy, who won the Academy Award for documentary short, credits her time in Canada for helping inform her powerful storytelling.

“When you live in a country like Canada, you begin to realize how right things can be,” Obaid-Chinoy told CBC inside the Oscars press room after her win. “Then when you travel back to Pakistan and to other countries which are in conflict, you can see what’s going wrong.”

Her winning documentary short, A Girl in the River: The Price of Forgiveness, is about honour killings, told through the eyes of Saba Qaiser.

“She wanted her story told,” said Obaid-Chinoy. “The impact of her story is tremendous, because it is going to change lives, and it’s going to save lives, and there can be no greater reward than that.”

Qaiser, 18, fell in love with a man against her family’s wishes. Shortly after they eloped, her father and uncle shot her in the head and left her for dead. Her survival led her to become a rare voice for women in similar situations and the one needed for Obaid-Chinoy to tell the story.

AWARDS-OSCARS/

Pakistani-Canadian journalist and filmmaker Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy accepts the award for Best Documentary Short Subject Film for A Girl in the River: The Price of Forgiveness at the 88th Academy Awards in Hollywood, California Feb. 28. (Mario Anzuoni/Reuters)

“I think it’s important to see what what human beings are capable of,” said the filmmaker.

Obaid-Chinoy, who now lives in Pakistan but has spent a lot of time going between Toronto and her home country, said her work has prompted difficult conversations that often risked her life but that there is “payback” in doing so.

The filmmaker and journalist also won an Academy Award for her 2012 documentary Saving Face, about women in Pakistan searching for justice after suffering acid attacks.

That win made her the first Pakistani to capture an Oscar.

“The power of being nominated for an Academy Award really does mean for a country like Pakistan that you can change laws.”

Source: Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy, Oscar winner, says Canada informs her work – Arts & Entertainment – CBC News

Spouses of Canadians to get permanent residency immediately

Another platform commitment being implemented, reflecting a preference to reduce the risk of spouses being trapped in abusive situations compared to the previous government’s preference for reducing marriage fraud and marriages of convenience:

Immigration Minister John McCallum says he’s planning on introducing changes in the “next couple of months” that will grant permanent resident status to the sponsored spouses of Canadians, immediately, upon arriving in Canada.

“When spouses come in now, they don’t immediately become permanent residents; there’s a two-year period where they are not yet permanent residents,” Mr. McCallum (Markham-Thornhill, Ont.) said in an interview with The Hill Times. “We said in our platform that we will end that so that they will become permanent residents on arrival.”

Currently, sponsored spouses of Canadians receive conditional permanent residency upon arrival in Canada and have to wait for two years to obtain permanent-resident status. If the relationship breaks down, the sponsored spouse’s permanent residency can be revoked. Spouses holding conditional permanent resident status enjoy the same rights and benefits as any other permanent resident.

The Conservatives introduced the conditional permanent-resident provision in 2012 to address the issue of marriage fraud.

Since becoming the immigration minister in November, a number of Liberal MPs in ridings with large visible-minority populations have been asking Mr. McCallum (Markham-Thornhill, Ont.) to take immediate measures to make the application processing time of family sponsorship applications faster. Most MPs representing major urban centres from all parties say that issues related to immigration, refugees and citizenship account for 70 to 80 per cent of their constituency work.

Mr. McCallum, whose riding has the third-highest percentage of visible minority population at 82 per cent, said that he finds it “abominable” that it takes almost two years for the spousal immigration applications to be processed, and after arriving in Canada, another two years to receive permanent-resident status. He said that his department is working on coming up with plans to speed up the application processing times. Mr. McCallum did not offer a specific target timeframe for reducing the application processing times, but said that it will be brought down “radically.”

Source: Spouses of Canadians to get permanent residency immediately: McCallum | hilltimes.com

Is Ottawa treating all refugees fairly?

The pressures are almost infinite, and the question of how many, and how to select becomes harder and harder.

We will see what the Government proposes in terms of overall immigration levels and for the different classes when it tables its immigration plan expected March 9:

Close to 59.5 million people worldwide are currently displaced by war and conflict, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Some would like to make their way to Canada and have family and sponsors here eager to help out. But it’s not that easy.

The problem for Teclehaimanot and others who would like to sponsor refugees who aren’t from Syria stems from a number of changes in immigration department procedures. A cap imposed on Canadian visa offices in Nairobi, Cairo, Pretoria, Dar es Salaam and Islamabad by Ottawa in 2011 has limited the number of refugees who can come to Canada, said Janet Dench, executive director of the Canadian Council for Refugees.

Similarly, she said, a cap on sponsorship agreement holders and the number of refugees they can sponsor also limits the flow of refugees to Canada.

Those restrictions, coupled with a backlog of 27,959 privately sponsored refugees, deep financial cuts to the department instituted by the former Conservative government and long processing times of up to 70 months for refugees from some countries, have made it difficult for those from many other regions.

Immigration spokesperson Lariviere said it would be “inappropriate to comment” on the issue of caps — either on Canadian visa offices or for sponsorship agreement holders — before the 2016 Immigration Levels Plan has been tabled in the House of Commons. That announcement is expected in coming weeks.

Teclehaimanot’s experience isn’t unusual. Every month, Canadians who want to sponsor family or friends in other parts of the world are turned away or told they have to wait.

“We have people here waiting year after year,” said Azaria Wolday, manager of the private sponsorship program for Northwood Neighbourhood Community Services. “We have at least 300 families in our books. We are not putting any more people on our waiting list.”

Last year, as many as 800 people approached Northwood about sponsoring Ethiopian, Eritrean, Sudanese and Afghan refugees. Wolday had to say no to most.

With that in mind he believes the federal government should take the lessons learned from dealing with Syrian refugees and apply them to other groups. “It is a matter of political will,” he said.

Similarly, at the refugee office for the Catholic Archdiocese of Toronto, organizers have turned away requests for sponsorship of refugees from Africa since September. There simply is no room to bring them in.

“Until 2011 we didn’t have any caps. In one year we backed 700 sponsorships. Next year we only did 200 because of the allocation given to us,” said Dr. Martin Mark, director of the Office for Refugees at the Archdiocese of Toronto.

“When we talk about refugees, half of the world’s refugee population in need of resettlement is in Africa,” said Mark. “We should have a significant number of spots for sub-Saharan Africans.”

To show the inequity, Mark says his organization was allowed 200 refugee spots through the Canadian visa office in Nairobi — but that covered refugee applications from not just Kenya but several other African countries.

He says his office has 200 African refugee submissions ready to go if spots become available. In contrast, he has unlimited spots for Syrians thanks to the government’s Syrian refugee program, he said.

He also believes processing of other refugee applications is slowing down because officers are concentrating on Syrian refugees.

It’s all tantamount to a kind of refugee roulette, with the winners coming from places like Syria and others being ignored or placed on a very long waiting list, said Teclehaimanot. “All applicants, all sponsors are complaining about the backlog,” he said. “The government knows there is a backlog. They need to spend money. They need to invest.”

Source: Is Ottawa treating all refugees fairly? | Toronto Star

Terrorist scumbag doesn’t deserve citizenship | Candace Malcolm | Toronto Sun

Expressed more simply but using the same strand of arguments as in John Ibbitson’s Dual nationals convicted of terrorism, high treason or spying don’t deserve to keep Canadian citizenship:

Now, the Liberal government is not only saying this man can stay in Canada, but they are also honouring him with citizenship.

Does the Trudeau government plan to send a citizenship judge into Amara’s prison cell to host a citizenship ceremony? Will he be asked to utter the oath of citizenship, and pledge allegiance to Canada and the Queen? Maybe Trudeau will show up for a selfie.

This is an absolute mockery of our citizenship. This scumbag does not deserve the privilege of being Canadian.

And yet, the Trudeau government is going out of its way to grant citizenship to a person who, judging by his actions, has a hatred for Canadians. We are bestowing the privilege and honour of Canadian citizenship upon a radicalized self-confessed Islamic terrorist who conspired to wage war against Canada.

Immigration minister John McCallum justified the move by saying, “Canadian citizens are equal under the law.”

That’s just not the case. In Canada, much like every other Western country, a person convicted of an indictable offence loses many of the rights and privileges that come along with citizenship. Serious criminals are no longer equal under the law.

Amara committed the modern day equivalent of high treason. He should not be treated equally to law-abiding Canadian citizens.

When Amara is released from prison, we should be showing him the door, not handing him Canadian citizenship papers.

Source: Terrorist scumbag doesn’t deserve citizenship | Malcolm | Columnists | Opinion |