A 'Fluid and Dynamic' Situation of Illegal Entry

"This means that these family members can present themselves at a port of entry and not be considered as irregular migrants."
"Also, they can't be refused entry under the Safe Third Country Agreement."
Canada Border Services Agency

"The data does not support the claim that there is a trend of increased 'anchor relatives' being used to get around the Safe Third Country Agreement."
"In fact, it shows that there are fewer asylum claimants using these exemptions to enter Canada."
Scott Bardsley, spokesman, Public Safety Ministry

In this Aug. 7, 2017 file photo, a Royal Canadian Mounted Police officer informs a migrant couple of the location of a legal border station, shortly before they illegally crossed from Champlain, N.Y., to Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle, Quebec, using Roxham Road. Authorities say more than 80 percent of the 4,000 migrants who crossed into Quebec recently are from Haiti, and the rest include people from India, Mexico, Colombia and Turkey.AP Photo/Charles Krupa, File

Canadians are, generally speaking, not too impressed by their government's handling of an ongoing situation where people living in the United States fearing that their temporary permits to live there are soon to be lifted, and others that live as undocumented therefore illegal migrants, and others still who receive U.S. visitors' visas for the express purpose of transiting the United States to enter Canada illegally are not being turned back at the border. There is a deliberate, planned infiltration of the Canadian border to cross into Canada at unrecognized points of entry, bypassing the legal entry stations.

Canada has a longstanding agreement with its neighbour, an agreement that has its genesis in the theory that countries considered to be stable and secure have the sovereign choice to consider requests made to them through applications for immigration or safe haven. The country that first receives such requests is the country designated to deal with them. Anyone seeking safe haven as a refugee or an economic migrant planning to move on to a second country is refused entry on the basis that they have already accessed a country of safe haven.

Such applications are not routinely accepted, but go through an assessment to verify their legitimacy. If those applying have arrived from a country of origin deemed to be safe and secure their application will be refused. But this hasn't stopped people from illegally crossing the border, and declaring themselves refugees. In theory, the majority of those people will be turned down. In reality, the process of checking background and the details of the application is a lengthy one, often taking several years to conclude.

In the interim Canada makes itself obligated to provide shelter and humanitarian aid, including all types of social welfare available to Canadian citizens, along with medical attention, language training, temporary employment permits in many instances and education for children. It is costly and it is unwarranted, given the illegal nature of the entry procedure undertaken and the fact that most applicants are not in fact legitimate refugees but rather economic migrants.

A new survey asking Canadians how they feel about the influx of illegal border crossers and the government's reaction in handling the situation, highlights that two thirds of respondents to the Angus Reid Institute survey feel Canada has already absorbed too many 'irregular' asylum claimants in view of the fact that the assigned authorities whose work it is to process claims and to provide the services to the applicants have been flooded past the point of efficiently working through the claims.

Knowing that this is a costly situation, drawing hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars to defray costs, makes the situation no more palatable to the Canadian public.

And now, the news that the parliamentary budget office in analyzing costs associated with handling irregular (illegal) asylum claimants, another source of concern has arisen, that once having established a presence in Canada, the initial claimant is considered an "anchor" within Canada through which relatives -- spouses, children, siblings, legal guardians, grandparents, aunts and uncles and nieces and nephews may undertake to enter the country using the official ports of entry the "anchor" spurned, because the Safe Third Country Agreement is no longer, in those circumstances, an option to refuse entry.

From January first to July 18, 2018, 11,420 asylum seekers entered Canada illegally, while the year before 20,953 crossings took advantage of Canada's limp entry laws. The greater majority of those tens of thousands entered at unofficial Quebec crossings, although there have also been illegal crossings into and through Ontario and Manitoba from the U.S. People don't feel an obligation to be particularly scrupulous in obeying the laws of a foreign country they hope to make their own for the economic gains they foresee realizing.

So, aside from the tens of thousands of legitimate refugees fleeing deadly conflict and fear of death Canada has brought into its borders with all their attendant costs, it is little wonder Canadians across political party lines are fed up and angry not only with the arrogant entitlement and underhanded tactics taken by Haitians and Nigerians, the primary groups taking these routes, but by their limp-wristed federal government for acquiescing so readily to being manipulated in support of their 'progressive' agenda.

Another offshoot anchor is that those awaiting decisions on their applications for refugee status are able, if refused, to invoke the Canadian legal system to appeal, thus buying themselves more time to remain in the country. Their welfare needs throughout the period of years taken to determine their status drain the systems available to counter the needs of Canadian citizens who find themselves in need of social assistance in an ever-lengthening line-up of need.

And finally, having a child while living in Canada means having a final anchor -- with the child declared a citizen of Canada whose rights will be violated if removed from the country, and whose need of parents to raise them can ensure that compassionate grounds exist for them to remain in Canada. Who says that illegally forcing your way into someone else's home doesn't guarantee untold benefits?