Barutciski: Has Canada’s asylum system fallen victim to ideology?

Valid question, with focus on two major contributors to the increase, the removal of visas on Mexicans and tightening recently relaxed visa restrictions. And it is true that the majority of academics covering immigration and related issues tend to be on the left side of the spectrum and border on activist perspectives:

According to recent statistics, around 15,000 to 16,000 migrants have claimed asylum in Canada in each of the last three months. There will likely be more than 140,000 claims for 2023, a number several times higher than the old record before the Liberals formed government in 2015.

As the European country with the most asylum seekers, Germany is receiving similar numbers per capita — and its leaders speak openly of a crisis. Prominent progressive leaders from U.S. Democrats to Germany’s coalition Social Democrat and Green partners are realizing that current approaches to asylum are undermining our democracies and encouraging anti-immigrant rhetoric. Justin Trudeau’s Liberals appear distinctly as a global outlier.

Until a decade ago, Canada was receiving on average less than 25,000 asylum claims per year. To suggest the recent increase is related to a global displacement crisis, as repeated by the federal government and others trying to downplay the situation, is to ignore the distinct demographics of the Canadian inflow.

The global statistics reflect mostly displaced people who remain within their countries of origin, along with specific conflict situations (e.g. Syria, Afghanistan, Ukraine); these are not the migrants claiming asylum in Canada.

Mexico remains the top source country for asylum claims in Canada, yet the federal government continues to allow Mexicans to enter the country without visas. Along with several thousand claims from Indian citizens, the unusual situation has been highlighted by Quebec media, which have reported that many international students are claiming asylum.

The boom in temporary residents includes migrants who intend to stay permanently, so it should be expected that the inevitable failure of many to secure permanent status will lead to visa overstaying and even abusive asylum claims. As asylum seekers overwhelm homeless shelters or sleep on the streets, their overall number clearly contributes to population growth. which affects the housing crisis.

To avoid the perception of a broken asylum system, the government could take relatively quick action. Imposing visas on Mexicans. and tightening recently relaxed visitor visa issuance, are measures any responsible government would take if it realized public confidence was being undermined. Likewise, the immigration department’s “client-focused” attitude is misplaced for any bureaucratic service involved in border control.

The only logical explanation for not trying to limit the inflow is ideological: The Trudeau Liberals believe that Canada should take an abstract “fair share” and that their progressive, university-educated constituencies are onboard.

This is partly related to the longstanding politicization of universities. By overcompensating in their attempts not to appear anti-immigrant, Canada’s political and media class are reinforcing the failure of the country’s universities to promote a diversity of analysis concerning asylum dilemmas. Unfortunately, the actual study of this issue is dedicated to a political agenda focused on social engineering. The legitimacy of borders is routinely questioned and there is dogmatic refusal to accept tight enforcement via removals to maintain the system’s integrity.

It is not by chance that Canada’s responsibility-sharing treaty with the U.S., the Safe Third Country Agreement, was uniformly denounced in law journals and academic publications. It took our Supreme Court to clarify earlier this year that our continental partner is indeed safe for asylum seekers. Publicly funded university research should not be so one-sided in addressing complex border issues that otherwise attract a healthy diversity of non-academic views. The limited analytical abilities learned by students will show in how they perform their jobs after graduation, whether in public service, media, etc.

Asylum as a modern humanist notion traditionally relied on strict principles relating to individualized persecution. It cannot be a gateway for “toute la misère du monde,” as recently stated by French President Emmanuel Macron. By pushing a well-intentioned but overly generous approach, inspired by post-national ideology promoted on campuses, the current government threatens the integrity of Canada’s immigration system.

The Liberals originally came to power partly because of the upbeat humanitarian spirit they displayed while the Syrian refugee crisis destabilized allies. Similar asylum issues may ironically contribute to their downfall by illustrating their tendency to jeopardize basic state functions with ideology and incompetence. The important historical concept of asylum is the latest example that leaves the impression some Canadian institutions are approaching a breaking point.

Michael Barutciski teaches at York University’s Glendon College.

Source: Barutciski: Has Canada’s asylum system fallen victim to ideology?

Barutciski: Roxham Road is closed. So why are asylum claims still on the rise?

Another example of the need to have more honest discussions on immigration and illustration of the conceit that Canada has a “managed immigration system”:

In March, Washington and Ottawa agreed to close Roxham Road, the small alley in Quebec through which thousands of asylum seekers have entered Canada from the United States, bypassing customs. Nearly 40,000 people entered Canada through Roxham Road in 2022; there were a record 91,710 claimants last year.

So despite the closing, why has Canada already processed more than 80,000 applications from asylum seekers so far this year?

Part of the answer, it appears, is that the international airports in Montreal and Toronto have become magnets for asylum claimants. According to Radio-Canada, immigration authorities quietly implemented a new policy to expedite temporary visa processing, including removing the need for proof that applicants will leave Canada at the end of their stay. This has reportedly made it easier for people who would normally have difficulty obtaining tourist visas to enter and then claim asylum upon arrival. This contrasts with decades-long policy characterized by restrictive visa rules and airline sanctions for travellers boarding with false documents.

Recently published statistics also show that immigration offices in Ontario and Quebec are receiving many inland claimants: migrants who entered Canada either legally or illegally, and then only afterward applied for asylum. This had already been happening when Roxham Road was open; in 2022, Canada received another 50,000 asylum claims from migrants who were already within the country. So far this year, the situation is similar.

The problem is that the government has not been forthcoming about these numbers or the policy that potentially led to them. There is no public data showing how many overstayed their visa-prescribed visits, or how many circumvented the recently tightened Safe Third Country Agreement with the United States. And this lack of transparency could leave Canadians to wonder if Ottawa is hiding that it has shifted to a relatively open-border approach.

Asylum seekers want to come to Canada because it is a rich country that offers unparalleled treatment, including generous benefits and almost-guaranteed citizenship for those granted protection; in many other regions, they often barely receive adequate food and shelter, and exist precariously at the whim of host governments. But interestingly, the influx of claimants in Canada is not necessarily related to global trends. Even though Syria, Ukraine and Afghanistan are the top source countriesfor migrants in need of international protection, Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Board reports that our top source this year is Mexico; India is our fifth-highest source.

Unlike the U.S., Canada has not required visas for Mexicans since 2016, though we are well beyond the numbers that previously triggered the reimposition of visa requirements; Washington has asked Ottawa to reinstate them, to prevent entry to the U.S. from its northern border. And despite current diplomatic tensions with India, it has been our top source country for accepted permanent residents and temporary students – so it is odd that it is also a leading country of origin for asylum claimants.

Neither Mexico nor India is embroiled in political upheaval or armed conflict. So why are these among our top source countries?

A distinct vision of asylum policy appears to be emerging from the Trudeau Liberals: one that is generous, in allowing people from less privileged countries to enter Canada legally as a way of regularizing migration. The approach could also be seen as practical, in that it contributes to our demographic expansion by welcoming particularly determined individuals who would otherwise not be admitted under standard immigration streams. And it is politically attractive for humanitarian self-promotion.

But it remains to be seen whether an anxious public is ready to normalize yearly asylum claims that could number in the six digits. While reasonable people can disagree on the appropriate response to record numbers of asylum claims, a healthy liberal democracy will try to balance the basic dignity of asylum seekers and the legitimate interests of the host population. But it has become difficult in Canada to have honest discussions about our commitments. If the federal government is implementing policy changes on visa issuance, then it needs to be upfront about it, given the implications for resource planning, including at the provincial and municipal levels as well as among grassroots refugee organizations.

Canada’s immigration system has worked to date because it is highly controlled and focused on selecting migrants that advance the country’s needs. It is not intended to promote an ideological world view that believes there is global injustice resulting from a supposed birthright lottery that limits poor migrants from travelling freely. To maintain the country’s pro-immigration consensus in the real world, however, our leaders cannot view asylum in such a blue-sky way. But at the very minimum, they need to give us the information we need to have a real debate.

Michael Barutciski is a faculty member of York University’s Glendon College. He teaches law and policy with a focus on migration issues.

Source: Roxham Road is closed. So why are asylum claims still on the rise?