Chris Selley: Astonishing nonsense from the Liberals amid surge of asylum-seekers
2017/08/25 2 Comments
Good column by Selley. Love the first para on the party differences.
His recommendation for more resources to speed up the determination process makes sense as the best feedback loop to discourage border crossings are quick determinations and removals as warranted:
When Conservative Canadian governments deport failed asylum-seekers and try to prevent them from arriving in the first place, they tend to boast about it. When Liberal Canadian governments deport failed asylum-seekers and try to prevent them from arriving in the first place, they tend to pretend it’s simply not happening. On migration policy, this is one of the key differences between our two natural governing parties. It basically boils down to branding.
The Trudeau government has taken traditional Liberal messaging considerably further, though. In March, amidst a global refugee crisis, having recently dropped the tourist visa requirement for Mexican citizens and with a surge of northbound border-crossers arriving concurrently (if not because of) the Trump presidency — and with hundreds of thousands of undocumented people in the U.S. who could theoretically join that surge — Prime Minister Justin Trudeau tweeted out this now-legendary piece of reckless, insincere nonsense: “Regardless of who you are or where you come from, there’s always a place for you in Canada.”
Spoiler alert: there isn’t.
In a press conference on Wednesday, Conservative immigration critic Michelle Rempel tried to frame the northbound exodus as a direct result of Trudeau’s shameless virtue signalling. Asked what her government had done or would do differently, she responded, essentially, that her government wouldn’t have all-but-explicitly encouraged people to give Canada a college try.
It’s a stretch; this is mostly about circumstances beyond any government’s control. But the extent to which this government refuses to speak in plain English is truly remarkable.
On Sunday, in a visit to the border region in Quebec, Transport Minister Marc Garneau said Canadian consulates in the U.S. would try to warn people thinking of heading north to claim asylum that their chances of success were far from assured. That’s a very good idea. Many of the current border-crossers are Haitians whose asylum claims failed in the United States. A temporary post-earthquake moratorium on removals having expired, they now face deportation. Reports suggest they are being sold garbage advice — in some cases literally — that Canada is a sure thing. To preserve Canada’s already stretched border resources, to maintain whatever public trust remains in the system’s integrity, and to save vulnerable people from extortion and financial ruin, the government should be warning people away in no uncertain terms.
Here’s what Garneau put on Twitter: “We are continuing to engage with diaspora communities in the U.S.A. — everyone deserves to know the facts about what it means to come to Canada.”
And on Wednesday, here’s what Trudeau put on Twitter: “We’re … reaching out to folks in the U.S. to make sure people who want to come to Canada understand the proper procedures to do so.”
For the love of God, man, there is no “proper procedure” with a snowball’s chance in Port-au-Prince via which a failed Haitian asylum-seeker in the United States can come “properly” to Canada. What you mean is “don’t come. We’ll probably deport you anyway.” So say it.
There’s no guarantee a blunt message would get the job done, mind you. No matter how often the Conservatives called asylum-seekers from European Union countries “bogus refugees,” the Immigration and Refugee Board kept recognizing their claims at a reasonable clip — 2,500 from Hungary alone over the last decade, for a roughly 18 per cent success rate.
Unlike Hungary, the now-famous unofficial border crossing in Quebec is just a Greyhound and a cab away from anywhere in the contiguous 48 states. If Canada’s consulates are indeed distributing “the facts,” then Haitians will know Canada has accepted nearly 50 per cent of claims from their fellow citizens over the last 10 years. Many claims that failed in the U.S. might well fail in Canada too — but it’s a safe bet quite a few would succeed. (The U.S. accepts a significantly lower percentage of claimants.)
If my options were (a) deportation to Haiti, where I have nothing, or (b) a $200 trip to the border, a longish stay in Canada during which I can legally work and make some money, a long-shot chance at permanent residency and then, at worst, deportation to Haiti anyway, I know exactly which one I would pick.
What can the government do about this? Without straying dramatically from traditional policy options, not a hell of a lot. But it could stray from traditional Liberal policy and not let a massive backlog build up. On Wednesday, citing a UNHCR official, Global News reported asylum-seekers arriving today won’t even get preliminary eligibility hearings until January. The longer a hopeless claim takes to be resolved, the greater the incentive to give it a whirl. The government could hire more people to deal with these claimants expeditiously, which the Liberals have said they will, thus reducing that incentive. But most radically, as off-brand as it would be, the Liberals might consider saying what they bloody well mean.
Source: National Post

I have to disagree that this is “good column”. Does Chris Selley have any empirical evidence that most of those crossing the border from the U.S. applied for asylum there and were denied? I have not heard or read that. Why is the true message, “don’t come. We’ll probably deport you anyway.”? I think that the actual messages being communicated are more in line with the Government’s intent and Canada’s laws. Do we mean to discourage a significant number of persons genuinely in need of protection from applying because others will not get protected person status?
The “traditional Liberal policy” of letting a backlog build up is not particularly or specifically Liberal. Backlogs have long been a hallmark of immigration and refugee processing both in Canada and abroad. The backlog that existed (and, to a lesser extent, still exists in the form of “Legacy” cases) was a joint Conservative/Liberal effort and is dwarfed by the backlog of asylum cases in the U.S. (attributable to both Republican and Democratic administrations). The Conservative contribution to backlog management – in addition to adding timelines for refugee claim processing and creating front-end controls for intake of permanent residence applications – has been the shameful cull of more than a quarter million permanent residence applications. This was after Ministers, including Jason Kenney, had repeatedly admonished “bogus refugees” for being “queue jumpers” only to turn on those who had done exactly what the government it professed aspiring immigrants to Canada should do.
Where I do agree with Selley (and you) is that it is imperative to process claims quickly (and fairly) – though not as fast as the hasty timelines created by the last administration.
Thanks David for taking the time to comment.
I think the reason for the government’s shift in messaging reflects political and public concerns about irregular arrivals. What I liked about Selley’s column is that he cut through some of the language used to focus on the intent of the message which was, precisely, to discourage people from entering Canada outside regular border crossings.
Your second para both reinforces the similarities between Liberal and Conservative governments as well as pointing out some significant differences. I have no issue with measures to manage or control the general level of Permanent Residents applications given the operational implications of having none. I find it more interesting to look at the specific preferences in granting permanent residency. I have no sympathy for some of the ‘bogus’ refugee language of the previous government.