Americans top the list of ‘inadmissible’ migrants to Canada

2018/10/05 Leave a comment

A smaller proportion of the total number of visitors to Canada, about 50 percent compared to the two-thirds of all visitors who are American:

Almost 267,500 migrants were deemed to be inadmissible to Canada between 2007 to 2016, most of them due to criminal convictions, according to Canadian border officials.

The 267,449 foreign nationals included convicted criminals, human rights violators and terrorists identified by Canada Border Services Agency, which is tasked with getting them out of the country afterwards.

These individuals had come to Canada as permanent residents, visa students, foreign workers, visitors or refugees. While for some, their previous records went undetected before arrival, others were found to be inadmissible for offences committed while in Canada and ordered to leave.

Border services data obtained under access to information legislation shows that the number of people deemed inadmissible each year has been on a gradual decline from a peak of 9,131 in 2008 to 6,365 in 2016.

Over the decade, Americans topped the list of those deemed inadmissible, with a total of 63,590 being told they had to leave. They were followed by Mexicans (22,104), Hungarians (13,082), Haitians (11,748) and Colombians (10,090).

Immigration experts said it’s not known if the annual decline in the number of inadmissible individuals was a direct result of effective pre-arrival screening procedures, which successfully stop undesirable migrants from coming here in the first place.

However, Vancouver-based immigration lawyer Steven Meurrens said the number of people deemed inadmissible from some countries appeared to fall dramatically after visa requirements were imposed for visitors from those countries.

The number of inadmissible Mexicans, for instance, dropped significantly from 6,739 in 2009 to just 1,041 in 2010. Other requirements such as pre-boarding electronic authorizations and biometric screening also help detect criminals before they get on a plane to come here, said Meurrens.

“We do have a robust screening system. People are checked against terror lists and criminals are caught before they get here,” said Meurrens. “And the majority of the hundreds of millions of people who come to Canada are not involved in crimes.”

In 2016 alone, Canada admitted 296,346 permanent residents, including 58,435 refugees and protected persons. More than half a million people came as temporary residents, including 266,000 international students and 287,117 foreign workers, in addition to more than a million visitors such as tourists here to visit family and friends.

Toronto refugee lawyer Raoul Boulakia said foreign nationals deemed inadmissible for criminality must apply for special permission to re-enter Canada and those who are banned as a security threat must get what’s known as ministerial relief to remain here — a process that takes a minimum of five years.

“The stats do not tell you the whole story. Without the facts, you don’t know how serious or frivolous their crimes are,” he said. “The big issue is this overbreadth of wording and interpretation of the inadmissibility grounds.”

The definition of membership to terrorist groups is broad and border officials have a lot of discretionary power to designate someone inadmissible with that label, said Boulakia, pointing to the case of Sugunanayake Joseph, a grandmother who came to Canada from Sri Lanka after her husband, a Tamil activist, was assassinated in 2005.

Officials associated her husband’s political coalition with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and alleged she was inadmissible because she had supported her late husband in his career and accompanied him to political events, which they said amounted to her complicity in crimes against humanity with the Tigers.

Joseph was ordered deported, but found to be in danger of torture or death in a pre-removal risk assessment if sent back to Sri Lanka. Her case is still in the system. She cannot be given refugee status or permanent residence unless the public safety minister grants her ministerial relief.

“There’s a wide gap in how people are being treated (by border services). Some are prosecuted zealously and others are not,” said Boulakia. “There is a lot of arbitrariness.”

Source: Americans top the list of ‘inadmissible’ migrants to Canada

Filed under Immigration Tagged with

Committee urges federal government to repeal law that bans disabled immigrants

2017/12/15 Leave a comment

It will be interesting to see what issues emerge in implementation consultations with the provinces given that they have to foot the bill. Good however to see some data on the numbers and anticipated funding requirements:

A parliamentary committee has recommended Ottawa repeal a provision in the law that bans people with disabilities and excessive health needs from immigrating to Canada.

In a groundbreaking report on the controversial practice, the standing committee on citizenship and immigration said the excessive medical demand clause goes against the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and is out of touch with Canadian values.

However, those who pose risks to public health and public safety should still be barred from being admitted to Canada, said the committee report, released Wednesday.

“Our immigration laws unjustifiably violate human rights of certain would-be newcomers to Canada and this is inconsistent with the modern values Canadians associate with contemporary human rights protections,” said the committee in a 76-page report.

“Canadians value diversity and inclusiveness and it should be mindful of all the abilities and contributions of its citizens, newcomers and potential immigrants as it moves forward with reviewing the medical inadmissibility.”

The recommendation was applauded by rights groups who have criticized what they call discriminatory treatment against people with disabilities.

“I have seen how the application of this provision has caused a great deal of hardship over the years. This provision has been a barrier to family reunification for many Canadian families,” said Toronto immigration lawyer Lorne Waldman. “It has also prevented many qualified immigrants from settling in Canada.”

Under the medical inadmissibility provision of the immigration law, which does not apply to refugees, medical demand is found to be excessive if it exceeds the average annual health care costs for a Canadian, which is currently estimated at $6,655 a year.

In 2016, there were 21 exemptions issued to overcome medical inadmissibility out of 995 applications deemed inadmissible, according to the Immigration Department. The main conditions included chronic kidney problems, intellectual disability, developmental delays, autism and being HIV-positive.

Advocates for foreign caregivers said some 150 foreign caregivers were denied permanent residence in 2014 alone because a dependant child was deemed medically inadmissible. Temporary foreign worker Mercedes Benitez, for example, was slapped with a medical inadmissibility opinion this year because her 18-year-old son is developmentally delayed.

“Denying permanent residency to entire families was never fair or just, thousands of people have suffered under this law already and hundreds of families are waiting to be reunited. There is no time for delay. It is time to repeal this law,” said Anna Malla of Toronto’s Caregivers Action Centre.

Immigration officials said the total number of medical inadmissibility cases amount to about 0.2 per cent of all applications (or between 900 to 1,000 individuals), representing savings of at least $135 million over five years — or 0.1 per cent of all provincial and territorial health spending in 2015.

Although the law allows exemptions at the discretion of immigration officials, they are determined on a case-by-case basis and applicants must prove the disabled individual would not cause excessive burden on Canadian taxpayers and they have a solid “mitigation plan” to care for the person.

“It is easy for MPs on the committee to say this is a good idea because it is the provinces that pay for the health care,” said Janet Dench of the Canadian Council for Refugees, which supports the repeal. “The recommendation is significant because it’s moving the dial further than what the expectations are.”

Admitting immigrants with excessive medical demands is a polarizing issue and even provinces fail to come to consensus on this issue.

During the public hearings by the standing committee, the Saskatchewan government insisted that the current policy “is the best option for ensuring that Canadians continue to have timely and quality access to health, education and social services.”

Others like Newfoundland and Labrador and Nunavut said the excessive demand provision is “unfair and unjust” considering immigrant applicants’ long-term contributions to Canada.

“Canada’s immigration system needs to ensure that Canada continues to attract the brightest and best newcomers to this country,” said MP Rob Oliphant, chair of the committee. “If (renowned physicist) Stephen Hawking wanted to immigrate to Canada, he would not be allowed under the current provision of the law. This is not what Canadians want.”

The report also recommended Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen continue consultations with provinces regarding the implementations of the repeal. “This is not for permission, but for consultation,” said Oliphant.

Although Hussen has yet to officially respond to the parliamentary report, he has said the law has to be changed because it’s against the government’s policies to move toward “an accessibility agenda.”

via Committee urges federal government to repeal law that bans disabled immigrants | Toronto Star

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,