Canada's Immigration Policies
Canada is a country of immigrants, our much-vaunted multiculturalism (a decidedly failed and currently worrisome social construct of silly federal conceit) celebrating our 'differences' and our homogeneity as a society willing to advance good will toward others. We think of ourselves as being socially emancipated, ready and willing and eager to present as an open, relaxed and multifarious society, embracing a common purpose and a social compact offering value to the entire population.
Successive federal governments have embarked on an ongoing receptivity and open welcome to people from around the globe who have chosen Canada as their emigration destination. Canada absorbs more immigrants than any other industrialized country. There's a purpose beyond merely opening the country's doors to one and all in good spirit; our indigenous birth-rate is low (exception is our truly indigenous population) and the country depends on immigration to help grow our GDP.
There is an awareness that the country should seek to admit those who present with some evidence that they will be able to meld into the population. Background checks are carried out, albeit not to the degree they possibly should. Anyone with a criminal history in their country of origin will not be permitted entry to become a landed immigrant. Refugee claimants too, must have a clean record of abiding by the law of their country, of not having been involved in war crimes, as well.
Despite which slip-ups do occur, and Canada receives more than its share of those with a shadowy past. Those who enter the country and who take advantage of the freedoms and the protections the country offers are sometimes known to abuse them. And generally it's at that time that immigration authorities undertake extradition procedures. Alternatively, refugee claimants coming before a Refugee Board representative fail to convince their interlocutor of their status and are refused.
Either way, removal proceedings are undertaken. The trouble is, Canada is such a kind country that it extends the privilege toward those whose appeal for asylum has been refused, to appeal to the Refugee Appeal Board, and matters are extended through the course of years, presenting as a stalemate. Canada has too many would-be immigrants refused status here, who simply fade into the woodwork.
(And the recently-revealed 100% acceptance rate of the current president of the Canadian Arab Federation during his extended ten-year period as a representative of the Canadian Refugee Board has revealed the extent of that gaping lack of due diligence in admissions.)
Some entreat authorities to reconsider the initial rejection, and churches and social-work agencies are swift to work on behalf of rejected appellants, testifying as to their good character. And this, unfortunately, is just what occurred in the case of convicted murderer Allan Tehrankari, with the very woman he brutalized, raped and murdered appealing to the Minister of Immigration on his behalf.
Barbara Galway took it upon herself to characterize the "kind and thoughtful individual who is anxious to better himself", attempting to persuade authorities from deporting this illegal refugee back to his home country of Iran. The man had committed a string of armed bank robberies as well as a hostage-taking. He was arrested, stood trial and was convicted, and sentenced to 12 years in prison.
On his release from prison he was taken under the protective wing of an evangelical religious family, who introduced him to their brand of Christianity. He married one of the daughters of the family, and the rest became history when he was arrested for the murder of his sister-in-law. Tehrankari had pleaded guilty to criminal offences; aggravated assault and forcible confinement, armed robbery.
Yet this family saw in him a good man, a kind and reliable individual. The federal government had twice declared him a public danger, intending to deport him back to Iran. But in the end acceded to the appeals on his behalf, to permit him to remain in Canada, to seek a new life with the help of his supporters and his newfound faith.
The result was an avoidable murder of a gullible and trusting woman. And the insane spectacle of a man accused of first-degree murder wreaking the lunacy of hysterical havoc in a court of criminal law, screaming tirades of accusations against police, lawyers, witnesses and experts whose testimony helped in convicting him.
Their work in convincing the jury wasn't dreadfully onerous; the mountain of evidence against him would even have persuaded anyone severely biased in his favour. Isn't it past time for the federal government to seriously reconsider the laxity of our follow-through on the intent to deport?
The recent case of Canada's embarrassment and the country's anger over bringing back to this country a Sri Lankan criminal who had been deported in 2005 over his involvement in a violent Toronto street gang, a case in point. The many instances of people like Ottawa's Mohammed Harkat, arrested under anti-terror laws, who insists he cannot be deported back to Algeria, where his life might be in danger.
Get rid of them. We've enough and more than enough of our own home-grown social misfits, miscreants and violent criminals.
Successive federal governments have embarked on an ongoing receptivity and open welcome to people from around the globe who have chosen Canada as their emigration destination. Canada absorbs more immigrants than any other industrialized country. There's a purpose beyond merely opening the country's doors to one and all in good spirit; our indigenous birth-rate is low (exception is our truly indigenous population) and the country depends on immigration to help grow our GDP.
There is an awareness that the country should seek to admit those who present with some evidence that they will be able to meld into the population. Background checks are carried out, albeit not to the degree they possibly should. Anyone with a criminal history in their country of origin will not be permitted entry to become a landed immigrant. Refugee claimants too, must have a clean record of abiding by the law of their country, of not having been involved in war crimes, as well.
Despite which slip-ups do occur, and Canada receives more than its share of those with a shadowy past. Those who enter the country and who take advantage of the freedoms and the protections the country offers are sometimes known to abuse them. And generally it's at that time that immigration authorities undertake extradition procedures. Alternatively, refugee claimants coming before a Refugee Board representative fail to convince their interlocutor of their status and are refused.
Either way, removal proceedings are undertaken. The trouble is, Canada is such a kind country that it extends the privilege toward those whose appeal for asylum has been refused, to appeal to the Refugee Appeal Board, and matters are extended through the course of years, presenting as a stalemate. Canada has too many would-be immigrants refused status here, who simply fade into the woodwork.
(And the recently-revealed 100% acceptance rate of the current president of the Canadian Arab Federation during his extended ten-year period as a representative of the Canadian Refugee Board has revealed the extent of that gaping lack of due diligence in admissions.)
Some entreat authorities to reconsider the initial rejection, and churches and social-work agencies are swift to work on behalf of rejected appellants, testifying as to their good character. And this, unfortunately, is just what occurred in the case of convicted murderer Allan Tehrankari, with the very woman he brutalized, raped and murdered appealing to the Minister of Immigration on his behalf.
Barbara Galway took it upon herself to characterize the "kind and thoughtful individual who is anxious to better himself", attempting to persuade authorities from deporting this illegal refugee back to his home country of Iran. The man had committed a string of armed bank robberies as well as a hostage-taking. He was arrested, stood trial and was convicted, and sentenced to 12 years in prison.
On his release from prison he was taken under the protective wing of an evangelical religious family, who introduced him to their brand of Christianity. He married one of the daughters of the family, and the rest became history when he was arrested for the murder of his sister-in-law. Tehrankari had pleaded guilty to criminal offences; aggravated assault and forcible confinement, armed robbery.
Yet this family saw in him a good man, a kind and reliable individual. The federal government had twice declared him a public danger, intending to deport him back to Iran. But in the end acceded to the appeals on his behalf, to permit him to remain in Canada, to seek a new life with the help of his supporters and his newfound faith.
The result was an avoidable murder of a gullible and trusting woman. And the insane spectacle of a man accused of first-degree murder wreaking the lunacy of hysterical havoc in a court of criminal law, screaming tirades of accusations against police, lawyers, witnesses and experts whose testimony helped in convicting him.
Their work in convincing the jury wasn't dreadfully onerous; the mountain of evidence against him would even have persuaded anyone severely biased in his favour. Isn't it past time for the federal government to seriously reconsider the laxity of our follow-through on the intent to deport?
The recent case of Canada's embarrassment and the country's anger over bringing back to this country a Sri Lankan criminal who had been deported in 2005 over his involvement in a violent Toronto street gang, a case in point. The many instances of people like Ottawa's Mohammed Harkat, arrested under anti-terror laws, who insists he cannot be deported back to Algeria, where his life might be in danger.
Get rid of them. We've enough and more than enough of our own home-grown social misfits, miscreants and violent criminals.
posted by Pieface | 6:09 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home