Canada's Immigration Wonderland

[myata]

It pays to have the radio on while eating your breakfast on Saturday mornings (tuned to the CBC Radio 1). One can learn amazing things about this country. This time, on the House, they brougt up the topic of "the safe third country" agreement with the US. Apparenly, the agreement has been in effect for about a year and the first review is in order. One result was significant reduction in refugee claims (by 25% if I got it right). Another one, to which the bulk of the section was given, was that for a certain group of people (such as e.g. asylem seekers from Columbia) the agreement meant that they end up with no refuge because the US does not grant them the status as a matter of common practice (I believe the rate of positive decisions was around 20%). Here the wonders begin.

Without attempting to judge validity of any claim, here's the situation as I understand it: if one's claim has been turned down by the US, they cannot seek asylim in this country, and will be turned back if they attempt to enter or claim at the border. So, is it the end? No, it's not the end. Apparently, one only has to find that "unmarked crossing" and enter Canada illegally. Then, make it to the immigration office and claim.

You think that would get them arrested for illegal entry? Sent back to the states on the first train? Not so, according to the program. Rather (surprise, surprise) the claim is accepted! Hoards of lawyers helped by strong infusion of taxpayer dollars get to business writing applications, communications and appeals. The wheels of the immigration machine set in its (painfully slow) motion. Everyone's happy.

So, to summarize: you follow the law - you get sent back to your country without a buck in your pocket and possibly, with a real danger to your life; you break the law - and you get rewarded with worry free existence on taxpayers account for the years to come while the machine goes through its ostensibly infinite cycles.

This is not the only wonder of our immigration system as I understand it. A similar situation, as I recall from another program, happens with skill immigration, i.e.: if one has skills (and hard earned savings), they can submit application, pay couple of grand in misc application fees and wait up to outrageous 3 years (which was recently reduced to less outrages 18 - 24 months) to, on successful outcome, finally come to this country; or, if someone else does not have the skills, or savings, or just doesn't feel like waiting, they can buy a tourist trip (for a half of the cost), wait a week to get the visa and claim refuge on the first stop in Canada. Wonder never ends.

I just want do add one disclaimer as it's already been a long message. The above is my interpretation of at least two different radio programs and while I honestly believe it is correct, I can't guarantee it's complete or claim that it reflects actual situation with these cases. All corrections and/or any additional information are highly appreciated.

[August1991]

Without attempting to judge validity of any claim, here's the situation as I understand it: if one's claim has been turned down by the US, they cannot seek asylim in this country, and will be turned back if they attempt to enter or claim at the border. So, is it the end? No, it's not the end. Apparently, one only has to find that "unmarked crossing" and enter Canada illegally. Then, make it to the immigration office and claim.

Sort of. In the past, a person could be refused refugee status in the US and then simply arrive at the Canadian border and make another claim in Canada. IOW, people "shopped around". The new regulations stop that (in theory) whether the person makes the claim at the border or inside Canada at an immigration office. I say in theory because there's a wide berth between policy and practice. First, this new policy has yet to be tested in the courts and second, to work properly, it would require a degree of co-operation between Canadian and US refugee bureaucracies that doesn't exist now.

The refugee support groups in Canada will argue (as they did on the CBC) that the US refugee system doesn't offer due process in the Canadian sense.

This is not the only wonder of our immigration system as I understand it. A similar situation, as I recall from another program, happens with skill immigration, i.e.: if one has skills (and hard earned savings), they can submit application, pay couple of grand in misc application fees and wait up to outrageous 3 years (which was recently reduced to less outrages 18 - 24 months) to, on successful outcome, finally come to this country; or, if someone else does not have the skills, or savings, or just doesn't feel like waiting, they can buy a tourist trip (for a half of the cost), wait a week to get the visa and claim refuge on the first stop in Canada.

Sort of. I'm not sure which bureaucracy is worse: the refugee processing system in Canada or the immigration processing abroad. On balance, a legitimate immigrant would probably be better to go with the latter.

In general, Canada and US immigration bureaucracy is a mess. The bureaucrats (like bureaucrats everywhere) never quite grasp how incentives work. In the lingo, the bureaucrats are reactive rather than pro-active. They figure that if they dam one river, the water will stop but they forget that water always seeks the easiest route.

No ambitious bureaucrat/politician stays in immigration. The chance of career-destroying disaster is simply too great.

----

I hope you realize that these problems stem also from the Charter of Rights. It guarantees anyone in Canada, regardless of their status here, the right to due process.

Given their long southern border, I can understand why the US has a problem with illegal immigrants. With our relative isolation, there is no reason for us to have a problem at all. Yet we do.

Ottawa has ruled out amnesty for the estimated 200,000 undocumented workers toiling in Canada's underground economy, saying it would not be fair to those who have applied legally and are waiting in line, according to a letter obtained by The Globe and Mail.

G & M

It's sad but the decision not to grant an amnesty may cost the Tories some votes in the next election.

[jbg]

This is a great argument for continent-wide perimeter controls. There are only a limited number of sea and air ports, an almost unlimited amount of Canadian and Mexican border (to my country).