Carney government introduces bill to beef up border security

2025/06/05 1 Comment

Predictable criticism from refugee and immigration advocates who invariably either cannot ackowledge abuses of the system or come up with possible measures to deal with the same, beyond calling for more resources.

One nugget that should improve processing and service for citizenship is:

“Make it easier for IRCC to share client information between different IRCC programs (e.g. using permanent residence application data to process citizenship applications).”

My sense is that the immigration and asylum provisions will likely be supported by the Conservative opposition but there will likely be tensions within the Liberal caucus:

…The bill was immediately met with concerns about privacy, refugee rights and its omnibus aspect.

NDP MP Jenny Kwan said the bill should be “alarming” to Canadians and risks breaching their civil liberties, particularly for its changes on immigration.

“They are trying to create this illusion that Canada’s border is more secure in some way, but however, a lot of the components within the bill targets Canada’s own immigration policies and processes that has nothing to do with the United States,” she said, questioning why there were no measures specifically targeting illegal guns coming from the U.S., for example.

“There are lots of pieces that I think should be concerning to Canadians.”

Anandasangaree, a former human rights lawyer, defended seeking those new powers Tuesday.

“I worked my entire life in the protection of human rights and civil liberties. That’s a marquee part of the work that I’ve done before politics, in politics,” he told reporters.

“In order for me to bring forward legislation, it needed to have the safeguards in place, it needed to be in line with the values of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and I fundamentally believe that we have striked the balance that, while expanding powers in certain instances, does have the safeguards and the protections in place to protect individual freedoms and rights.”

Those safeguards include not allowing information on immigration to be shared with other countries unless permitted by the minister, as well as judicial oversight that would require a warrant except in “exigent” circumstances. 

The proposed legislation, which will require the support of another party to pass in the minority Parliament, is meant to address the surge of asylum-seekers and the ballooning backlogs in refugee applications. Anyone who first arrived Canada after June 24, 2020 would not be allowed to make a refugee claim after one year, regardless of whether they left the country and returned; irregular migrants who enter Canada from the U.S. between land ports of entry would also be denied the rights to asylum.

“They’re coming up with all of these various ways to basically turn the tap off, to actually make it a more restrictive process,” said Queen’s University immigration and refugee law professor Sharry Aiken.

“That will harm vulnerable people and deny some groups of claimants their right to accessing a fair hearing” by the independent Immigration and Refugee Board, Aiken said.

Canada has seen the number of asylum-seekers triple in less than a decade, from 50,365 in 2017 to 171,845 last year. As of April, the refugee tribunal has 284,715 claims awaiting a decision.

More international students, visitors and foreign workers are seeking asylum to prolong their stays in Canada after Ottawa clamped down on the runaway growth of temporary residents and reduced permanent resident admissions amid concerns of the housing and affordability crisis.

The Canadian Council for Refugees said the proposed asylum changes mirror the American approach, where borders are militarized and securitized as refugees and migrants are viewed as a security threat.

“Under international law, there is no time frame on the right to seek protection. Where we do find this precedent is in the U.S.,” said Gauri Sreenivasan, the council’s co-executive director.

Anandasangaree said those who are affected by proposed ineligibility rules for asylum could ask for an assessment by immigration officials to ensure they would not face harm if sent back to their country.

However, critics said that process is less robust than a full hearing by the refugee board, and this would simply pass the administrative burden to the already strained Immigration Department and the Federal Court.

“It could force many people who have no choice because they are under threat in their country or in the U.S. to live underground without status,” Sreenivasan warned.

Source: Carney government introduces bill to beef up border security

And Althia Raj questions who pressed for these changes (likely under development for some time by IRCC officials given the numbers and abuses):

….Those who work with refugees are also alarmed.

Prime Minister Mark Carney’s first piece of legislation pulls away the welcome mat for asylum seekers. It makes it nearly impossible for those who have been in Canada for more than a year, either as students, permanent residents, or temporary workers, and those who’ve snuck into Canada between land border crossings and have been here for more than two weeks, from having their asylum cases heard.

“A lot of people are going to get rejected because they’re not going to have an opportunity to explain for themselves why they would be in danger when they go back (home),” said Adam Sadinsky, an immigration and refugee lawyer with Silcoff Shacter in Toronto.

On Parliament Hill, the NDP’s Jenny Kwan described the law as “violating people’s due process and taking away people’s basic rights,” and also noted that it will drive people underground.

A problem that could be fixed by beefing up the immigration system — staffing and resources — will instead encourage those who are in Canada, and fear being deported to their home country, to stay here illegally. It will make it much more difficult for federal, provincial and municipal authorities to know who is living here, where they are, and what services they need. And it may simply move staffing and resource pressures away from the Immigration and Refugee Board toward the federal court, who will now hear more requests for stays to remain in Canada and for judicial review of unfavourable decisions.

On CBC, Anandasangaree said his “comprehensive bill” was directly linked with what is happening at the Canada-U.S. border, but it also “responds to … the mandate (Canadians) gave us on April the 28th.”

Does it? Are these the values that Canadians voted to uphold?…

Source: Opinion | Border bill primed to give Mark Carney’s government sweeping new powers. Who asked for this?

Filed under Immigration, Multiculturalism, Refugees Tagged with , , , , ,

American transgender woman files asylum claim in Canada after Trump’s edict on gender

2025/06/04 Leave a comment

To watch:

An American transgender woman has lodged an asylum claim in Canada, in what her lawyers say is a test case of whether U.S. President Donald Trump’s edicts on gender and other recent measures restricting equality rights constitute persecution.

Hannah Kreager, from Arizona, on Monday lodged an asylum claim with the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada on the grounds that she has a well-founded fear of persecution in the U.S.

“This case is about safety. It’s about whether Canada will recognize the threat Hannah faces in the U.S.,” her lawyer Yameena Ansari said.

She said Canada considers the U.S. as a safe country to live in, but this is no longer true if you are transgender.

Ms. Ansari added Mr. Trump has singled out transgender people through executive orders, including one saying the federal government recognizes two sexes only – male and female. She said this has trickled down into a wider erosion of their rights and protections across the U.S.

She said the case is “precedent-setting on the basis of it not being safe in the U.S. for being trans.”

Source: American transgender woman files asylum claim in Canada after Trump’s edict on gender

Filed under gender, Refugees Tagged with ,

Tremblay | Et si la question des réfugiés devenait l’enjeu principal des élections?

2025/04/11 Leave a comment

Likely not going to happen, as is the case with so many non-Trump tariff etc issues:

…Rappelons qu’en plus des Haïtiens, un très grand nombre de Vénézuéliens et de migrants latino-américains seraient également dans la mire des États-Unis. Le président américain estime le nombre total des « illégaux » à 8 millions. Combien le Canada peut-il en accueillir ? Bien malin celui qui peut répondre à cette question.

Pierre Poilievre a répondu que le Canada devait accueillir les « vrais demandeurs d’asile ». Le Bloc exige, lui, une meilleure répartition de ces réfugiés à travers le pays. Mark Carney affirme impérativement qu’il les renverrait d’où ils arrivent, c’est-à-dire aux États-Unis. Rappelons que l’Entente sur les tiers pays sûrs permet de refouler les demandeurs d’asile qui proviennent des États-Unis. Mais nos voisins sont-ils encore un pays sûr ?

Voici une belle occasion pour les conservateurs et pour le Bloc québécois. Une bonne réponse à la crise migratoire pourrait déterminer l’issue des élections, autant sinon plus que la réponse aux menaces tarifaires. Pierre Poilievre pourrait ici regagner tous les précieux points perdus depuis l’arrivée de Mark Carney en se montrant ferme dans cette crise humanitaire et en rappelant que la crise migratoire est véritablement une crise de la vision libérale de ce pays que Justin Trudeau qualifiait, il n’y a pas si longtemps, de « premier État postnational de la planète ». Le chef conservateur pourrait même s’imposer comme l’homme fort capable à la fois de protéger le Canada et de résister à Trump.

Le Bloc a de son côté l’occasion de revenir dans la mêlée pour défendre les intérêts du Québec qui ont été particulièrement malmenés par la gestion migratoire du gouvernement Trudeau. Quant à Mark Carney, il faut se poser cette question à plusieurs dizaines, voire à plusieurs centaines, de milliards de dollars : pourra-t-il continuer à cacher le bilan libéral, surtout en matière d’immigration et de logement, alors qu’une nouvelle crise migratoire s’annonce ? Quelle crédibilité auront les libéraux pour nous convaincre qu’ils seront les meilleurs pour freiner l’afflux de réfugiés après des années de déni et de laxisme éhontés en la matière ?

Qui a dit que la campagne électorale était déjà terminée ?

Source: Idées | Et si la question des réfugiés devenait l’enjeu principal des élections?

… Recall that in addition to Haitians, a very large number of Venezuelans and Latin American migrants would also be in the sights of the United States. The American president estimates the total number of “illegals” at 8 million. How many can Canada accommodate? Very smart who can answer this question.

Pierre Poilievre replied that Canada should welcome the “real asylum seekers”. The Bloc demands a better distribution of these refugees across the country. Mark Carney imperatively states that he would send them back to where they arrive, that is, to the United States. Recall that the Agreement on Safe Third Countries makes it possible to push back asylum seekers who come from the United States. But are our neighbors still a safe country?

This is a great opportunity for the Conservatives and for the Bloc Québécois. A good response to the migration crisis could determine the outcome of the elections, as much if not more than the response to tariff threats. Pierre Poilievre could here regain all the precious points lost since the arrival of Mark Carney by being firm in this humanitarian crisis and recalling that the migration crisis is truly a crisis of the liberal vision of this country that Justin Trudeau described, not so long ago, as “the first post-national state on the planet”. The conservative leader could even establish himself as the strong man capable of both protecting Canada and resisting Trump.

The Bloc, for its part, has the opportunity to return to the fray to defend Quebec’s interests, which have been particularly mistreated by the Trudeau government’s migration management. As for Mark Carney, we must ask himself this question at several tens, even several hundred, of billions of dollars: will he be able to continue to hide the liberal balance sheet, especially in terms of immigration and housing, while a new migration crisis is announced? What credibility will the Liberals have to convince us that they will be the best at curbing the influx of refugees after years of shameless denial and laxity in this area?

Who said the election campaign was already over?

Filed under Immigration, Refugees Tagged with , ,

Venezuelans facing deportation in the U.S. seeking routes to Canada, including by illegal crossings 

2025/04/10 Leave a comment

Something going on with IRCC and CBSA as monthly stats on asylum claimants from IRCC date from December 2014 and irregular arrivals from RCMP/CBSA date from January (former generally issued in about 5 weeks, latter generally a week or two). Impact of cuts on important data given articles like this:

Venezuelans facing deportation from the United States under President Donald Trump’s immigration clampdown are seeking routes to Canada, including illegal crossings, according to Canadian immigration consultants.

They say some Venezuelans have already crossed into Canada – both at regular border posts and by slipping across – with others preparing to come here to escape being detained and deported from the U.S.

Hundreds of Venezuelans are facing deportation after Mr. Trump announced plans to end Venezuelans’ special protected status, introduced by the Biden administration, shielding them from deportation. Some with alleged links to gangs have already been detained and deported.

Immigration experts working with the Venezuelan community said Canada is viewed as a top destination for those who do not want to be returned.

The Canadian government does not deport Venezuelans to their home country, which is beset by violent crime.

Annie Beaudoin, a Canadian immigration consultant based in California, said “the end of the U.S. Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for thousands of Venezuelans, Haitians, and other foreign nationals, has translated into an increase in illegal crossings into Canada.”

She said some Venezuelans, including health and construction workers, attempting to come through illegal crossings might qualify for visas to come to Canada….

Source: Venezuelans facing deportation in the U.S. seeking routes to Canada, including by illegal crossings

Filed under Immigration, Refugees Tagged with ,

UK to reject ‘dangerous journey’ refugees citizenship

2025/02/13 Leave a comment

Not sure how that will withstand legal challenges but we shall see:

The government has toughened up rules making it almost impossible for a refugee who arrives in the UK on a small boat to become a British citizen.

New guidance states that anyone who enters the UK illegally having made a dangerous journey, which could be via boat, but also by means such as hiding in a vehicle, will normally be refused citizenship, regardless of the time that has passed.

In a statement, the Home Office said the strengthened measures made it clear that anyone who entered the UK illegally would face having a British citizenship application refused.

But, the change has been condemned by the Refugee Council and some Labour MPs – including Stella Creasy who said the change “meant refugees would forever remain second class citizens”.

Changes, first disclosed by the Free Movement blog, were introduced to guidance for visa and immigration staff on Monday.

The changes mean that anyone deemed to have entered the country illegally – including those already here – will not be able to apply for citizenship.

Described as a “clarification” to case worker guidance when assessing if a claimant is of “good character’, it says: “Any person applying for citizenship from 10 February 2025, who previously entered the UK illegally will normally be refused, regardless of the time that has passed since the illegal entry took place.”

Another new entry to the same guidance says: “A person who applies for citizenship from 10 February 2025 who has previously arrived without a required valid entry clearance or electronic travel authorisation, having made a dangerous journey will normally be refused citizenship.

“A dangerous journey includes, but is not limited to, travelling by small boat or concealed in a vehicle or other conveyance.”

Previously, refugees who had arrived by irregular routes would need to wait ten years before being considered.

Under international law, people are allowed to seek asylum, but the government’s move to strengthen its border control and laws on entry, will prevent some people from doing so.

It comes after Labour’s new border security bill, which scraps the Conservatives’ Rwanda plan and boosts police powers against people smugglers, cleared its first vote in the House of Commons on Monday.

The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill sets out Labour’s plan to treat people smugglers like terrorists, and creates a new crime of endangering another person during an illegal crossing in the Channel.

The Home Office also published footage of enforcement teams raiding 828 premises, including nail bars, car washes, and restaurants, as part of a UK-wide crackdown on illegal working earlier this week.

The Refugee Council estimates the guidance will prevent at least 71,000 refugees from obtaining British citizenship.

Enver Solomon, CEO of the charity, said the government’s move “flies in the face of reason”.

“The British public want refugees who have been given safety in our country to integrate into and contribute to their new communities, so it makes no sense for the government to erect more barriers.

“We know that men women and children who are refugees want to feel part of the country that has given them a home, and support to rebuild their lives.

“We urge ministers to urgently reconsider.”

Meanwhile, immigration barrister Colin Yeo claimed on social media that it is a “clear breach of the refugee convention”.

Although the Conservatives have yet to respond to the government’s decision, Tory leader Kemi Badenoch told the BBC last week that she believes the right to citizenship and permanent residency “should only go to those who have demonstrated a real commitment to the UK”.

Badenoch spoke about her proposals to toughen up citizenship rules by making it more difficult for new immigrants to be able to permanently settle in the UK.

Citizenship applications will continue to be considered on a case-by-case basis, it is understood.

A Home Office spokesperson said: “There are already rules that can prevent those arriving illegally from gaining citizenship.

“This guidance further strengthens measures to make it clear that anyone who enters the UK illegally, including small boat arrivals, faces having a British citizenship application refused.”

Source: UK to reject ‘dangerous journey’ refugees citizenship

Filed under Citizenship, Immigration, Refugees Tagged with

Michael Barutciski: With Trump’s deportations underway, what will Canada’s asylum policy look like? 

2025/01/30 Leave a comment

Useful reminder of limits. But Trump policies undermine the principles underlying the STCA:

In light of the Trump administration’s early moves to deport migrants without legal status in the U.S., there’s been heightened debate here in Canada about how we may (or may not) be positioned to handle a surge of claimants seeking refuge. Beyond the logistical capacity issues of handling high volumes of cases at our border, there are outstanding questions about Canada’s legal obligations to claimants and what, if any, policy and legal scope we have to manage the potential influx. The truth is it is greater than is often understood.

A key source of the confusion is that for years many in Canada have held a false assumption about the legal constraints imposed on our asylum procedures through a landmark Supreme Court decision in 1985, Singh v. Canada. The Globe and Mail’s editorial board recently repeated this mistake, asserting that Canada’s top court decided the Charter guarantees asylum seekers the right to a hearing as soon as they set foot in the country. This misreading of Singh has a real effect on our immigration predicament.

The Supreme Court did establish an important general rule in Singh: all persons who arrive at the border are covered by the Charter, regardless of their immigration status. Yet establishing that the Charter applies is not the same as interpreting the content of these Charter rights in various contexts.

In terms of refugee status determination procedures, the Supreme Court noted in Singh that the claimants, all Sikhs, were going to be sent by Canadian authorities back to their home country. For six of the seven claimants, this meant being returned to India, a country the Court considered dangerous for them given the violent internal tensions at the time. (The other claimant was to be returned to Guyana.)

However, the Supreme Court never generalized by saying that all claimants always have a right to a hearing. That is the exaggerated interpretation encouraged for years by activists and wishful-thinking academics. If claimants come to Canada via a safe third country, such as the U.S., then they can be returned to that country. This is the basic principle at the heart of the Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA), which the Court accepted last year when it refused to declare the agreement unconstitutional (as activists and academics have been demanding for years).

In other words, dealing with asylum claimants coming from the U.S. is a different situation than the one addressed in Singh and the legal constraints are not the same. This nuance is recognized in both the 1951 Refugee Convention and Canadian legislation. The convention does not even mention anything about hearings. Its most basic protection is the principle of “non-refoulement,” which stipulates that refugees cannot be returned to a country where their “life of freedom would be threatened.” It allows claimants to be returned to safe countries, which is why the adoption of the STCA was possible in the first place.

Section 101 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act specifically includes eligibility clauses that should suggest caution to anyone who believes automatic access to a hearing is part of Canada’s system. There is an initial determination as to whether the migrant is eligible to make a claim, including various security-related grounds of inadmissibility.

Moreover, there is also a clause rendering claimants ineligible when they come “directly or indirectly to Canada from a country designated by the regulations.” This is the legislative provision that enables return to the U.S. Even a cursory reading of the act should make clear that an automatic right to a refugee hearing was never intended or established by Parliament.

Despite these legal provisions, the Liberals have spent years reinforcing the confusion regarding Singh, constantly asserting that asylum seekers trying to enter “irregularly” at Roxham Road had the right to a hearing. When the government’s inaction regarding the illegal crossings led to record numbers of asylum claimants and public anxiety over the lack of border control, the government eventually negotiated an amendment to the STCA that essentially closed Roxham Road. Nobody seemed to notice that the supposed right to a hearing in Canada disappeared.

It is ironic that Prime Minister Trudeau recently acknowledged in the French version of a YouTube video that asylum seekers at Roxham Road were actually abusing the system. This incoherent and unserious approach was again revealed when Immigration Minister Marc Miller repeated the false argument about a supposed unqualified right to a hearing during a press conference explaining the reimposition of visas on Mexican nationals (who he claimed were abusing the asylum system).

After many years of lax asylum policies, followed more recently by continual controversies, there now appears to be an attempt to debate the country’s genuine asylum dilemmas with the Globe’s editorial board suggesting “new thinking is needed.” Most reasonable Canadians realize that tightening the current asylum system in a manner that treats claimants fairly is sufficiently challenging; we do not need to make it even more difficult by inventing legal constraints.

Singh established that asylum seekers in Canada who risk being returned to a dangerous country benefit from a right to a hearing if they claim protection. The corollary is equally important if we are to explore creative solutions to Canada’s asylum problems: there cannot be a Charter violation if asylum seekers are sent to a safe country. Although it will disappoint activists, the future of a sustainable asylum system will inevitably involve extraterritorial procedures and an extension of the safe third-country idea. We need to properly grasp basic legal constraints to make sure these procedures are as fair and humane as possible.

Source: Michael Barutciski: With Trump’s deportations underway, what will Canada’s asylum policy look like?

Filed under Immigration, Refugees Tagged with , , ,

Ottawa planning processing centre for asylum seekers in Quebec near U.S. border

2025/01/27 Leave a comment

Of note:

Canadian authorities are planning to open a processing centre for asylum seekers near the United States border in Quebec in case there is a sharp rise in the number of would-be refugees entering Canada.

Earlier this week, the federal government published a notice seeking office space it could lease to accommodate reception and meal distribution areas as well as a waiting room for up to 200 people at a time.

In an e-mail, the Canada Border Services Agency says the planned processing centre is part of its contingency plans “in the event of an influx of asylum seekers.”

The notice from Public Services and Procurement Canada says the building must be located within a 15-kilometre radius of the official border crossing area in St-Bernard-de-Lacolle, Que., south of Montreal.

The notice follows Ottawa’s $1.3-billion announcement in December to beef up border security in response to U.S. President Donald Trump’s threats to impose steep tariffs unless Canada reduces the flow of migrants and drugs across the border….

Source: Ottawa planning processing centre for asylum seekers in Quebec near U.S. border

Filed under Immigration, Refugees Tagged with , ,

Jamie Sarkonak: Immigration needs to work for Canadians, not rule-breakers from abroad

2025/01/06 Leave a comment

Two minds on this decision. On the one hand, the judge was emphasizing the welfare of children, on the other hand, clearly fraudulent refugee case. And will the family be actually deported once the school year is over?

…Ministers have the power to step in and block deportations — I have no problem with that — but the government shouldn’t be obligated to carry out lengthy procedures designed to give those here illegally every shot at staying. In a country with supposedly fixed borders and social supports, it shouldn’t take this much state capacity to remove those who aren’t cleared to be here.

On the criminal front, it’s just as bad. Due to court precedent, Canadian judges are obligated to consider “immigration consequences” when sentencing non-citizen offenders. In some cases, it results in a sentence discount: nightclub gropers and drunken burglars from abroad have received lighter sentences under this rule to give them a greater shot at remaining in Canada.

There are plenty more legitimate refugees, and otherwise law-abiding non-citizen newcomers who are eager to adapt to Canadian life and get on the path to citizenship. Let state resources go to supporting them, and not people who abuse our rules to harm others and extend their already illegal stays.

Canadians deserve a system that works for them, not outsiders. Let that be a change that graces us in 2025.

Source: Jamie Sarkonak: Immigration needs to work for Canadians, not rule-breakers from abroad

Filed under Immigration, Refugees Tagged with , , ,

Globe editorial: The refugee crisis needs a new approach, not just more money 

2024/12/13 Leave a comment

Nice shout out to Rob Vineberg and his recommendation:

….Part of that new thinking must be abandoning the rigid rule that cases are heard in the order in which they are filed. That first-in-first-out approach combined with the soaring volumes creates the incentive for false claims. Much better, then, to hear new claims first and reduce that incentive.

Similarly, the conceit that the IRB must hear all refugee claims needs to end. Claims cannot be ignored, of course. But Robert Vineberg, a former director general of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, has made the eminently sensible suggestion that the Department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship should first examine cases, approving those claims that are clearly genuine. Only those that were borderline or headed for rejection would proceed on to the IRB.

That would fulfill the obligations laid down in the Singh judgment, since any rejected claimant would have the benefit of an oral hearing. And no claimant would protest about an expedited approval.

Ottawa must act to reduce the claims backlog before today’s crisis becomes tomorrow’s collapse. Otherwise, a future government may find its only option is the even more radical step of using the notwithstanding clause to suspend the effects of the Singh ruling. That would be a stunning epitaph for the Liberals’ mismanagement of the immigration system.

Source: On the Brink: The refugee crisis needs a new approach, not just more money

Filed under Immigration, Refugees Tagged with , , ,

Tasha Kheiriddin: Marc Miller ignores potential threat from Syrian refugees

2024/12/12 Leave a comment

Does not appear that Kheiriddin has read the government evaluation (Syrian Outcomes Report) that shows, by and large, that Syrian refugees have integrated reasonably well. Certainly, seeing the happy Syrians celebrating the fall of the Assad regime reinforces that assessment.

However, she is right to worry about former supporters and officials from the Assad regime finding their way to Canada, as we have seen with some Iranian refugees who are former members of the Iranian regime:

..And then there’s Canada. On Tuesday, Immigration Minister Marc Miller said that Ottawa will continue to process Syrian refugee claims but will “monitor” the situation. “We don’t face that flow in Canada, I don’t know what rank they (Syrian refugees) occupy in terms of source countries for asylum seekers, but it’s pretty low,” Miller said. Canada has just shy of 1,600 pending refugee claims from Syria as of Sept. 30, while Germany has over 47,000.

The government’s response is predictable — and misguided. Canada took in 45,000 Syrian refugees between 2015 and 2020. The influx was highly politicized: in the 2015 election campaign, the image of Syrian refugee child Aylan Kurdi dead on a Turkish beach broke the internet and the hearts of Canadian voters. The Liberals accused Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper of dragging his feet on additional refugee admissions and promised to bring in 25,000. Following his election, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made a great show of greeting Syrian refugees at airports — and spending a lot of money to support them.

To date, Canada has spent $1 billion on humanitarian support for Syria, on top of the supports we provided government-sponsored refugees in Canada. Private Canadian sponsors also opened their hearts and homes to the newcomers, raising funds to give 18,000 a new life here, which wasn’t easy. Syrians had a tougher time than other communities: many spoke neither English or French and had difficulty finding housing for large families.

In short, we’ve done a lot. But Canada should now follow the lead of our European counterparts and end refugee applications from Syria. It’s not just about people who are already here, but there is concern that supporters of the Assad regime, including “terrorist fighters,” could now seek to escape. And while Syria’s transitional government, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, promises to treat minorities humanely, it could provoke another wave of refugees — at a time where Canada is already bracing for a tsunami of illegal migrants from the U.S., and our government is already preparing to spend a billion dollars to secure our borders.

Canada is a humanitarian country, but we must ask ourselves hard questions — and make some hard decisions — about our refugee policy. We must ensure that we act humanely, but also respect the interests of our own citizens, and our ability to provide social services for both newcomers and citizens alike. And we also need to avoid politicizing the issue, as this government has done in the past — and as Canada cannot afford to do in the future.

Source: Tasha Kheiriddin: Marc Miller ignores potential threat from Syrian refugees

Filed under Immigration, Refugees Tagged with ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →