Is Libby Davies the Most Irresponsible MP in Canada?

Davies resurrects Dhalla's pension bill

When running in a riding like Vancouver East, one can always bank on the appeal of additional welfare benefits for somebody.

In this vein, Vancouver East MP Libby Davies' most recent proposal is not actually a new idea by any stretch of the imagination. Unlike the idea's progenitor, Davies will likely not have to pay a price for the sheer irresponsibility of it.

Davies has resurrected a proposal by former Liberal MP Ruby Dhalla to pay old age pension benefits to elderly immigrants immediately upon arriving in Canada. The proposal, adopted as a blatant means of pandering to the immigrant community in her riding of Brampton-Springdale, instead angered her constituents. She was beaten by 10,000 votes in the 2011 federal election by Conservative Parm Gill.

Running in Vancouver East, Davies has found that no bit of far-left boilerplate, no matter how ridiculous or irresponsible, can fail her.

Precisely how irresponsible is Davies' most recent proposal? It's irresponsible to the tune of anywhere from $300 million to $700 million per annum, paid out to people who have never contributed a red cent to the Canada Pension Plan. Every year.

The sheer irresponsibility of it becomes crystal clear when one considers that as of 2006, the CPP was considered to be facing an unfunded liability of $620 billion.

This isn't the first time Davies has done something irresponsible for purely ideological or demagogical purposes. In 2009, Davies voted against a bill to impose a 5-year mandatory minimum sentence for human traffickers who exploit children. Her reason was an ideological opposition to mandatory minimum sentencing.

Davies' Parliamentary motion calling on the government to open pension funds to recent immigrants -- currently there is a 10-year residency requirement, which is as it should remain, if not increase -- is merely the most recent in a long, sad history of demagogical irresponsibility from Libby Davies.

In Their Own Words: Jaggi Singh of No One is Illegal

More Evidence No One is Illegal Couldn't Carry An Idea In a Bucket

Appearing on a recent edition of Brian Lilley's Byline program on SUN TV, No One is Illegal tried to put a good face on what is otherwise a very disturbed organization.

Appearing for NOII, Luam Kidane attempted to do everything but answer some very simple questions about what it is NOII (describing themselves as a "migrant justice" organization) stands for.

Questions about whether or not NOII advocates purely open borders was met by a barrage of "clarifying question", as Kidane attempted to reach "an understanding" on the terminology she and Lilley would use to discuss the issue.

The clear intent on Kidane's part was to attempt to portray the organization as holding a particular philosophical vigour that simply isn't there.

It's hard to get clear answers out of anyone from NOII. But one thing that comes up repeatedly are two basic ideas that are entirely at odds. One is that "people have the right to migrate". The other is that "Canada is occupied Turtle Island".

It sounds like complete gibberish, but some aboriginal groups describe all of North America as "occupied Turtle Island". But once detail is established and set aside, it becomes clear that the denziens of No One is Illegal haven't really thought out their ideas. Not a whit.

Simply put, if people have the right to migrate, than European settlers had the right to migrate to North America.

Another talking point of No One is Illegal is that no one is obligated to be a "good immigrant" by integrating into the culture and society of the land to which they migrate.

Simply put, people can settle down in any territory they choose to move to and then live however they choose. They have no obligation to become part of "the community" that exists there. In fact, they have no obligation to join that community at all. (Which makes it all the more comical that Kidane justifies her enjoyment of services provided by a state she doesn't recognize as legitimate because "members of the community provide the services".)

Naturally, this does not actually entail the right of a migrant group to dominate an indigenous group. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms NOII could offer about how the Canadian state has treated aboriginals in the past, even as Canadians bend over backwards to make it right today.

But to declare Canada to be an "occupied" territory suggests that non-aboriginal Canadians have no right to be here. Intriguingly, that includes Kidane herself.

Until one considers that No One is Illegal has declared that people have the right to migrate. One would assume that this applies to all people equally, unless it doesn't. Unless there really is some kind of racial bias to NOII's "right to migrate".

In all truth, however, Luam Kidane's appearance on Byline is actually entirely uncharacteristic of No One is Illegal. After all, any group that teaches children to punch Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney in effigy could hardly be considered civil, even if some of their members can adopt a veneer of civility when given the opportunity to play Socrates (badly) on national TV.

Stephen Harper's New Challenge: The "Vision Thing"

Certainly, Stephen Harper has always been more of a Margaret Thatcher type than a John Major type.

But in the wake of winning his first majority government, Harper may be about to face his greatest challenge yet: the "vision thing".

Now, more than ever, Harper will have to navigate between the hopes of his supporters and the fears of his detractors. Harper, has to date, approached this majority government with humility, declaring that it's now up to his government to earn the trust of Canadians.

"My friends, it's been a long campaign but now we can turn the page on the uncertainties and repeat elections of the past seven years and focus on building a great future for all of us," Harper declared. "Canadians have chosen hope, a united Canada, a strong Canada. We must be the government of all Canadians, including those that did not vote for us. We shall be faithful to the trust that you have proposed in us."

But now Harper will be expected to deliver on the expectations of social conservatives. Admittedly, it's been these expectations that have been at the core of darkest nightmares of Harper's detractors.

According to Conservative Values of Canada executive director David Krayden, abortion is going to become an issue. It won't matter if Harper wishes it or not.

"Stephen Harper has said no (to abortion laws) but a lot of his caucus is pro-life, a lot of his supporters are pro-life," Krayden declared. "I think it's time for those who don't think abortion is not on the table to realize it's catch-up with the rest of the Western world where there are some restrictions on abortion."

Krayden's voice is joined by Joseph Ben Ami of the Canadian Centre for Policy Studies.

"I know professed atheists who are strongly pro-life and at least would like to see the government allow a dialogue," Ben Ami added. "If I had a wish list, top of my list would be the opportunity to have an intelligent debate about human rights commissions and tribunals."

"We should be having an open, honest and intelligent debate about immigration; I don't think we have a well-managed immigration policy," he added.

Both Krayden and Ben Ami seem to hunger for a government more conservative than Harper has been to date.

"This is an opportunity to have a truly conservative government," Krayden announced.

"At some point in time, you have to stand for something more substantial than the mere fact you are not the Liberals," Ben Ami agreed.

Krayden and Ben Ami may be pleased to learn just how many Canadians agree that these are issues that must be addressed. What Canadians have yet to make clear is just how far they think Canada should go on these particular issues. Neither David Krayden nor Joseph Ben Ami are likely to get everything they want on any of these issues. They will have to compromise.

By the same token, however, so will the social progressives who have championed the far-left cause. In fact, they will have to compromise for the first time in nearly forty years. It's far overdue.

But compromise is precisely what Harper's vision will have to be from this point forward. If he successfully reaches a compromise on the issues that truly matter to Canadians, it will be the gateway to a larger majority government. If he fails, it will be the gateway back to a minority, or to political oblivion altogether.

From 2011 onward, the "vision thing" matters more than ever. It's up to Stephen Harper to deliver.

Ruby Dhalla Outhustled, Complains About It

Dhalla objects to Tory candidate helping immigrants

According to Liberal MP Ruby Dhalla, something rotten is afoot in Brampton-Springdale; it's Conservative candidate Parm Gill.

Dhalla is upset that Gill has been extending his help to local immigrant families, helping them fill out the applications necessary to help their family members move to Canada.

"In those cases the families have been called before even I was notified, that had they had been accepted and approved by the minister's office and they were called by Parm Gill," Dhalla complained.

She alleges that her constituents are unwilling to come forward because of some form of intimidation. (Which seems strangely at odds with what the facts seem to be. Helping people get their family into Canada is an odd form of intimidation.)

For Jason Kenney's part, he suggests Dhalla is largely fabricating her concerns.

"That's completely ridiculous, you know, she's a Liberal MP who's under a lot of pressure, and of course she's going to make unfounded and ridiculous accusations," Kenney declared. He also suggests Dhalla does a poor job of serving her constituents.

"It's because they can't get any service from their member of Parliament and that's one of the reasons why I think Parm Gill should be elected member of Parliament for Brampton-Springdale," Kenney declared.

"Mr Gill has every right as a private citizen to provide volunteer unpaid advice," Kenney continued. "I understand he has taken no payment for that. He has never claimed to represent the government or me, but he's just providing a volunteer service and that's totally legitimate."

It's not over in Brampton yet. Dhalla -- who was also the MP behind a ludicrously-irresponsible bill that would have granted pension benefits to immigrants after they'd been in Canada for only three years -- has spent a great deal of time pandering to the immigrant community in her riding. Even if she's done a poor job of serving her constituents, she may yet be able to win reelection based on that pandering.

So even though Ruby Dhalla got outhustled in her own riding, she may yet outrun her principal opponent.

Immigrants' List PAC: Cheapening the Immigration Debate

Immigration "Hall of Shame" a cheap stunt

Considering the amount of public support for an Arizona-style immigration law, one would think that groups like the Immigrants' List PAC wouldn't be so interested in picking a fight with lawmakers on the topic.

Apparently not.

In a media conference, the group inducted 10 US lawmakers into its "hall of shame". Those law makers were:

1. Representative Steve King - Republican, Iowa
2. Representative Lamar Smith - Republican, Texas
3. Representative Ed Royce - Republican, California
4. Representative Peter King - Republican, New York
5. Representative Michelle Bachmann - Republican, Minnesota
6. Representative Brian Bilbray - Republican, California
7. Senator John Boozman - Republican, Arizona
8. Representative Heath Shuler - Democrat, North Carolina
9. Representative Candice Miller - Republican, Michigan
10. Represenative Ben Quayle - Republican, Arizona

The individual on this list who has been most vocal has been Lamar Smith. He basically described the list as the last resort of a group battling against the tide of reality.

“Those who oppose enforcing the law often turn to name-calling when they do not have the facts on their side," Smith insisted.

Smith also pointed out that the issues are distinctly not on the side of these groups. In particular, Smith pointed to the problem of so-called "anchor babies" -- children concieved in Mexico and then born in the US -- as exploiting a Constitutional loop hole in order to circumvent immigration law.

“It is unfair to grant automatic citizenship to children of illegal immigrants because it undermines the intention of the 14th Amendment, encourages illegal immigration and costs taxpayers," Smith declared. "Passing a law to eliminate birth citizenship is constitutional and would help deter illegal immigration.”

Now this isn't to say that Immigrants' List PAC didn't have any legitimate points. In fact, their objections to the words of Steve King are entirely justified.

In 2008, King proposed that electrified barbed wire be run across the top of a border wall separating the United States from Mexico. In his comments, delivered from the floor of the House of Representatives, he compared illegal immigrants to livestock.

“We can also electrify this wire with the kind of current that wouldn’t kill somebody but it would simply be a discouragement for them to be fooling around with it,” King announced. “We do that with livestock all the time.”

Although its vital that the US do something to curtail illegal immigration, electrified barbed wire is simply going too far. Comparing illegal immigrants to livestock is simply crass. Suggesting they should be handled like livestock is purely unacceptable.

“Politicians like Steve King — who compare people seeking a better life to ‘livestock’ — appeal to people’s worst instincts,” declared PAC director Amy Novick. “And in doing so, they prevent the reform Americans want.”

Novick claims she speaks for the majority of Americans, but in fact speaks only for herself and her group. The majority of Americans have consistently polled in favour of Arizona-styled immigration law.

“We need reform that unites families, promotes fair employment practices and restores America’s place as a nation that welcomes those seeking freedom from persecution and a better way of life,” Novick continued.

Many Americans would likely agree with most of this. US immigration law needs to welcome those seeking a better life and needs to promote fair employment practices by compelling immigrants to enter the country legally. Many Americans -- maybe even those in regions with economies heavily-dependent on immigrant labour -- may even support making it easier for immigrants to enter the country legally.

Many Americans may even support reforms to reunite families, provided that they don't follow the Canadian example of admitting too many individuals who then become dependent on the state.

But as Lamar Smith would point out, Amy Novick and Immigrants' List PAC need to become more responsive to the fundamental realities driving demand for immigration reform in the United States.

All of the "Halls of Shame" inductions in the world won't excuse them from that responsibility.

Labour's Immigration Dilemma

Labour Party still self-consciously clueless about immigration policy

It was a defining moment of the 2010 British election: Gordon Brown, after conversing with British everywoman Gillian Duffy, declared her to be "a bigoted woman".

Duffy, a lifelong Labour supporter, challenged Brown about his ability to tackle the UK's national debt while demand for welfare continued to be driven by immigration.

"We had it drummed in when I was a child … it was education, health service and looking after the people who are vulnerable," Duffy had declared. "But there's too many people now who are vulnerable but they can claim and people who are vulnerable can't get claim, can't get it."

"But they shouldn't be doing that, there is no life on the dole for people any more," Brown argued. "If you are unemployed you've got to go back to work. It's six months…"

"You can't say anything about the immigrants," Duffy complained. "But all these eastern European that are coming in, where are they flocking from?"

Brown replied that while one million immigrants were arriving from Eastern Europe, one million Britons had emmigrated elsewhere.

In frustration, Brown would later declare Duffy to be "a bigoted woman". He was still wearing a Sky News Microphone and had forgotten about it. It was a defining gaffe of the election for Labour.

The message -- which is still causing deep anxieties within Labour ranks -- was very simple: Britons were not yet prepared to accept multiculturalism as inevitable; at least not with what they had already seen.

As it pertains to multiculturalism, many countries have experienced some growing pains. But it seems that Britain has had it far worse than some other countries.

Britain is one of the only countries in the western world where Sharia courts were actually allowed to take root. The rot has penetrated so deeply that even the Archbishop of Canterbury has described the implementation of Sharia law as "inevitable".

It's on this general note that social patterns such as the troubling upswing in support for organizations like the British National Party have emerged. Many Britons, it seems, no longer recognize their own country when radical Islamists so frequently take to the streets to declare their intentions to bring the totality of British society under their extreme political ideology, which masquerades as Islam.

This is not a challenge that the British government will be able to tackle easily. Before the Labour Party will be ready to return to government, it will need to conquer its Gillian Duffy-related demons, and prepare a vigorous response to the troubled state of British multiculturalism.

Jason Kenney's Refugee Legacy Not So Troubling

Kenney filling in gaps in immigration policy

With Jason Kenney's governmental responsibilities as the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration intersecting neatly with his party responsibilities as the pointman for outreach to ethnic communities, it was only a matter of time before someone popped up to take some shots at him.

It turns out one of the first is Jim Creskey. Writing in Embassy Magazine, Creskey outlines what he considers to be Kenney's "troubling" record as the Minister of Immigration. In some regards, it reads like a screed from an extremist organization like No One is Illegal.

Creskey's complaints circle around Bill C-49, an anti-human smuggling bill. Authored with help from Public Safety Minister Vic Toews, allows immigration officials to temporarily detain a refugee who arrives by irregular means, and to reevaluate them after five years to determine whether or not they are at risk if they return to their country of origin.

Creskey suggests that Kenney, Toews and Prime Minister Stephen Harper fabricated the idea that Canada has been "overrun" by illegal immigrants. If Creskey is attempting to claim that there is no problem with migrants illegally on Canadian soil, he is simply wrong.

Bill C-49 would be one thing if it were targetted at legitimate refugees who belong in Canada. But that isn't the case. Bill C-49 is targetted at refugees who lack a founded claim. In particular, its aimed at denying foreign terrorists entry into Canada, and deporting them promptly if they are already here.

Individuals linked to the Tamil Tigers have spent years terrorizing law-abiding Tamil communities in Canada, often demanding funds while making threats against any family they may have at home in Sri Lanka. They also commit comparatively petty crimes in Canada, including debit card fraud rings.

This on top of attempts to form a Tamil Tiger government-in-exile in Canada.

For years, a policy aimed at using refugee status as a gateway to citizenship has biased immigration policy into letting many of these so-called "refugees" roam free. When one of them is identified as having links to a terrorist or criminal organization, they simply vanish. There is an incomprehensible number of such individuals currently evading deportation orders in Canada.

This isn't to say that Creskey is entirely wrong about the immigration issue. In an earlier Embassy column, Creskey relates the tales of numerous refugee claimants, with entirely legitimate claims, who simply get lost in the system.

It's a sad fact that sometimes, in Canada's refugee system, people get lost in the cracks. Occasionally, Citizenship and Immigration bureaucrats even hand down some poor decisions, such as the decision to deport a blind man back to Algeria. Fortunately, the decision was overturned with the help of considerable public pressure.

Kreskey does the country a service by raising these concerns. But to complain so hyperbolically about Jason Kenney's moves to fill in key gaps in Canada's immigration policy does the country a profound disservice.

Jim Creskey too often sounds far too little like a reasoned, educated thinker on immigration policy, and too frequently like one of the demagogues at No One is Illegal.

Conservative Immigration Bill Must Stand

Tories responsible, will opposition be?

In the wake of a controversy regarding Tamil migrants -- many of them suspected to be affiliated with the Tamil Tigers -- the Conservative government is moving to introduce new legislation that would make it easier to detain migrants who arrive on Canadian territory illegally.

"We're absolutely certain that this meets our international and domestic legal obligations, as well as our humanitarian obligation to provide protection for people who might face persecution," Kenney explained. "We would in fact provide protection and would not send back people, even illegal smuggled migrants, if they are able to demonstrate, in our legal system, that they would face persecution."

"We are confident that this complies with the Charter and our domestic and international legal obligations," he continued.

Immigration policy seems mysterious and technocratic to many people not deeply-versed in its legalities. But, in reality, the ultimate purpose of such legislation is very simple: let the people who belong in Canada in, and keep the ones who don't belong in Canada out.

Very simple.

Canada isn't the only country whose government examined the passengers of the Sun Sea and think twice about admitting them. Britain considered some of those on board the vessel and turned them down.

In Kenney's view, those Tamils who boarded the Sun Sea after being turned down in the course of a lawful application to the UK have simply jumped the queue.

"This unlawful behaviour is nothing more than jumping the immigration queue, taking up space and resources in our immigration and refugee system that should be focused on those who are legitimate and lawfully waiting their turn to come to Canada," Kenney insisted.

In terms of immigration, Kenney gets it: those who should be in, in. Those who shouldn't, out.

There are stark consequences if Canada forgets about this very simple idea.

Of course, not everyone is in favour of such legislation. Wanda Yamamoto, President of the Canadian Council for Refugees, objects. Particularly to the detention of irregular claimants.

"Measures keeping some refugees longer in detention, denying them family reunification and restricting their freedom of movement are likely in violation of the Canadian Charter and of international human rights obligations," Yamamoto complained. "People who are forced to flee for their lives need to be offered asylum and a warm welcome, not punished."

Yamamoto may want to point to any portion of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that allows foreigners to illegally enter Canadian territory with near-complete impunity. But she can't, because it doesn't exist.

If challenged based on its constitutionality, the choice for any court hearing the case is a very stark one: will Canada's immigration laws be decided by Parliament, or by special interest groups with a vested interest in maintaining a substandard and porous immigration policy.

Plugging these holes in Canada's immigration policy is important not only to repairing Canada's Extended Refugee System, but also to addressing security issues like terrorism, and criminal issues such as human trafficking.

The Conservative Party is doing the responsible thing with this legislation -- a point only underscored by the repeated arrival of vessels such as the Sun Sea.

"Since the last vessel arrived we saw a significant drop in Canadian public support for immigration in general and refugee protection in particular," Kenney said. "Our government cannot allow these exploitative criminal networks to continue to violate our immigration laws, undermine the fairness of our immigration system and undermine public support and confidence in that system."

What remains to be seen is whether the opposition is prepared to match the Conservative's responsible approach to this matter; or whether the special interest groups who stand to benefit from blocking a responsible immigration policy.

Whitman May Find Immigration to be a Tough Sell

Nicky Diaz affair poisoning immigration debate in California

In the debate over the future of immigration policy in California, the name of Nicky Diaz will likely be one that resonates for a long time.

Diaz is the former housekeeper of Republican Gubernatorial nominee Meg Whitman. She's also an undocumented and illegal immigrant. Whitman claims that Diaz had presented fake documents when she was hired to clean for the Whitman family, and that Whitman fired her after learning of the alleged deception.

Democratic nominee Jerry Brown, however, sees a goldmine in the Nicky Diaz story. So much so that he hosted Diaz at a press conference, and is using the story to score political points on his opponent.

There may be many to be scored. Among the accusations against Whitman are that she failed to pay Diaz a proper wage, and that she mistreated her.

All this while Whitman makes immigration central in her policy platform. Whitman opposes amnesty for illegal immigrants, and wants government to crackdown on the hiring of undocumented migrants.

At a recent debate, Brown accused Whitman of hypocrisy.

"You're going around this state saying employers must be accountable for hiring unlawful people, there ought to be raids on businesses, there's no path to citizenship," Brown crowed. "This is a terrible thing we have -- all these millions of [illegal] people, but you don't want a path to citizenship."

Of course what Brown fails to acknowledge is that there's already a path to citizenship for immigrants. It's supposed to begin before they cross the border.

Caught in a compromising situation, Whitman was unable to defend herself with such simple details. Rather, she resorted to attempting to shame Brown for what she termed crass exploitation of the story.

Brown clearly had his answer: shame Whitman instead. Regardless of whether or not she's done anything wrong, it helps that she looks guilty.

"You don't just bring in semiserfs and say do our dirty work, and then we're finished with you like an orange and just throw it away," he countered. "That's after you've squeezed it. That's not right."

It's a shame that the Nicky Diaz story has poisoned the immigration debate in California. With so many municipalities in California boycotting Arizona over its immigration law, California needs to be awake to the reality that they have a stake in the matter beyond trying to appear politically correct, and needs a clear vision of how it can best move forward on the issue.

Jerry Brown's stance on the matter -- supporting the Dream Act -- is to support a wrong-headed approach that risks introducing a further incentive for migrants to enter the United States illegally, undemrining border security.

Meg Whitman's opposition to the Dream Act may be harder to sell to California's traditionally-liberal population, but is more likely to lead to a constructive solution to the immigration issues confronting California.

Stephen Colbert, Jonah Goldberg & The Politics of Irony

Colbert blurs lines between fiction & reality in testimony

When comedic pundit Stephen Colbert testified before the US Congressional Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship and Border Security, he provided everything that one expects of a typical Colbert performance.

In the words of National Review columnist Jonah Goldberg, "he pretends to be what many liberals claim Bill O’Reilly is. That’s the joke. Get it?"

It isn't necessarily that simple.

"The real upshot of Colbert’s shtick is that he’s mocking people who disagree with him -- or with the left-wing base of the Democratic party -- on the complicated issue of immigration," Goldberg continues.

"Colbert’s testimony reduced the topic to a black-and-white issue in which people on the other side are fools or bigots worthy of cheap mockery," Goldberg writes. "I thought the whole point of Colbert was to stand against that sort of thing by making fun of it, not by doing it. Are our politics really improved by making congressional hearings even more of a joke? Were they truthiness-deficient?"

Not all of Goldberg's complaints are necessarily well-founded. Carol Swain, professor of law and political science at Vanderbilt University, is right to have noted that illegal immigration depresses wages and lends itself to deteriorating working conditions.

Then again, Colbert didn't testify in favour of illegal immigration. He testified in favour of legal immigration, suggesting that the US government should act to facilitate legal immigration by making it easier to acquire a work visa. All in all, a sensible proposal.

This doesn't, however, answer the question of whether or not it should have been considered permissable for Colbert to testify in-character before a Congressional subcommittee. Certainly, Colbert's fans expect certain things of him -- then again, so did the Representatives who called him to offer testimony.

They expected Stephen Colbert to testify in good faith. He demonstrably did not. Unfortunately, this may harm the credibility of his testimony -- although in all honesty, it shouldn't.

The Canadian Left Adopts Immigration as a Bullying Tactic

Immigration has beocme the left's piggy-back issue

In the United States, immigration has become the ultimate hot-button issue; perhaps more than ever previously.

In states bordering Mexico, crime rates -- including violent crime -- have been drastically inflated by the flow of illegal immigrants into the United States. Among the desperate men and women who simply want to come to the US to work and prosper, criminal gangs and drug cartels frequently sneak across the border to set up shop.

In a fit of desperation, the state of Arizona passed legislation that would allow state law enforcement to enforce already-existing federal immigration laws, albeit with a higher standard of jurisprudence.

The Barack Obama administration promptly moved to prevent the Arizona immigration law from being enforced. Democrats have since confessed that Obama won't secure the border in order to keep support for comprehensive immigration reform alive.

But the political tolerance for illegal immigration goes much further than that. The far left has long realized that they can use the immigration issue to piggy-back their agenda onto the institutions of the state.

In Canada, a case in point is provided by a recent article published in the Tornto Star, in which a key element of the left's agenda -- universal child care -- is demanded by an immigrant group, and described as a "fundamental right".

“It is medieval to think that child care is just a sop to some special interest group,” says self-described "community activist" Uzma Shakir. “It’s a fundamental right. You can’t have rights as a woman if you don’t have child care.”

“This should be our priority as a group when we are talking to the government about poverty reduction,” she continues. “You cannot reduce poverty if women can’t work.”

The subject of the story is the South Asian Women's Rights Organization and their campaign for universal child care.

The group aruges that many immigrant women in Canada are prevented from working by child-rearing responsibilities, and that the only answer is for the government to impliment universal child care.

Interestingly, their test case is an accountant from Bangladesh, who apparently never considered telecommuting or working from a home office in order to ply her trade while still being able to care for her five-year-old son.

It's a sobering reminder of the attitude such groups take toward individual responsibility -- their clear preference is for government action, and their tactic is to exploit the vulnerability of recent immigrants in order to expand government activism.

As the example of the United States shows, the best way to do that is to expand the number of recent immigrants to Canada. Moreover, the more desperate those immigrants are, the more likely it is that they'll be able to provoke the kind of public sympathy needed to justify such a broad expansion of government activism.

A current Canadian case-in-point is that of a boatload of Tamil refugees recently arrived in Canada.

In a paragraph-long statement passed off as an article by Rabble.ca, Shakir declares that "our best strategy is to follow our humanitarian principles and due process."

For leftists such as Shakir, the best-case scenario is that Canada would accept as many of these Tamils as possible.

Yet there's a dark spectre underlying the matter: among the legitimate refugees from the violence and chaos that continues to reign in Sri Lanka are, almost certainly, Tamil Tiger terrorists.

Vic Toews, Canada's Minister of Public Safety, has suggested that the Sun Sea may be a "test boat", and that more vessels like it may follow.

Kevin Libin has raised a possibility worthy of consideration: that Tamil Tigers may be attempting to set up a "government in exile" in Canada.

The probability that Tamil Tiger terrorists are among the Sun Sea's passenger manifest is remarkably high. Less than one year ago, two dozen of 76 Tamils arriving under similar circumstances were suspected Tigers.

Shakir is right to note that humanitarianism and due process are key watchwords in matters such as these.

The problem for Canadian due process is that it's far too lax; vessels such as the Sun Sea are attracted to Canada because the number of migrants Canada is likely to accept is far higher than in any other western country.

This indicates that if these Tamils were to attempt to claim refugee status in Britain, France or the Untied States, they would be screened much more vigorously, and more Tigers would be separated out and marked for deportation -- not that Canada's deportation processes aren't fraught with issues of their own.

In the meantime, the Tamil Tigers are known to terrorize and intimidate law-abiding Canadian Tamils into financially funding their efforts in Sri Lanka.

It's details like this that make the far left's tactics in regards to immigration all the more irresponsible.

Simply put, the far left attempts to adopt immigration as a bullying tactic against conservatives. If conservatives decline to support out-of-control government activism, they are accused of being anti-immigrant, or racist. If conservatives campaign in favour of stronger immigration controls, they are accused of the same.

This despite the detail that it was conservatives -- under Prime Minister John Diefenbaker -- who ended the consideration of race as a decisive factor in immigration decisions.

From Arizona to Ontario, the far left is attempting to use the immigration issue to piggy-back their agenda onto a deeply divisive issue and bully conservatives out of the debate.

Unfortuantely, this is often to the detriment of the immigrant communities they claim to be supporting.

Arizona Will Get Its Day in Court

Arizona will finally get fair opportunity to defend immigration law

After all the boycotts, all the accusations of racism, and all the indignation surrounding Arizona's efforts to head off (pun possibly intended), the United States Department of Justice has filed a lawsuit to attempt to overturn the state's immigration law.

The brief filed by the Justice Department argues that states may not enact their own immigration laws, nor may they enforce existing state laws in a manner deemed to inferfere with federal immigration law.

The Arizona law, which requires immigrants to carry alien registration documentation, and allows police to question suspects about their residency status while enforcing other laws.

But as it turns out, some of the most-objected-to provisions of the Arizona law already mirror federal law. Immigrants in the United States are already required to carry alien registration documentation as per the federal Alien Registration Act of 1940.

The biggest difference between the Arizona law and federal law is that a lawful stop is not required under federal immigration law, it is required under Arizona's law.

In other words, a higher standard of jurisprudence is required under Arizona's law than under federal law. This is actually the kind of improvement that those criticizing the law should be applauding.

It's difficult to think that there's much more at the heart of the justice department's challenge the Arizona law than pandering to left-wing groups exploiting the issue of racism for ideological gain.

After all, regardless of how the left-wing opponents of this bill want to characterize it, this is not about race. It does nothing to impede the legal entry of immigrants -- Mexican or otherwise -- into the state of Arizona.

The racism argument is, as it so often has been, a canard meant to ideologically benefit those who cynically exploit it.

Note to Vancouver Radicals...

...When you're complaining that the police are manhandling you, don't show people what you did to make it necessary.



"Jason Kenney you're not welcome here!" But we won't let you leave, either.

Let's Talk About "Serious", Shall We?

Bill Siksay clearly not serious about human trafficking -- or crime

Weeks after Conservative MP Joy Smith's private members' bill setting a five-year mandatory minimum sentence for child trafficking was passed by the House of Commons, at least one of the MPs who voted against it is still making excuses.

NDP MP Bill Siksay -- who, along with Libby Davies, was one of the only non-Bloc Quebecois MPs to vote against it -- insists that the government isn't being serious about child trafficking.

But Siksay is defending his actions based on the same limited ideology on criminal justice: the insistence that criminal law exists only to prevent crime and rehabilitate convicted offenders.

“I voted against it because I don’t believe this bill will do anything to prevent the crime, to stop human trafficking or to assist the victims of the crime,” Siksay insisted. “Mandatory minimum sentences have been proven to be utterly ineffective as a crime prevention tool and there’s just absolutely no evidence that they do anything to make the situation better.”

But Siksay is missing the mark. Locking human traffickers away does help protect their victims. Benjamin Perrin notes that "In order to come forward, the victim needs to know they are safe."

Or at least, needs to believe that they will be safe. Keeping their assailant behind bars would go a long way toward creating that sense of safety.

There is one valid point that Siksay does raise: the handling of victims by officials often provides a distinct disincentive for them to come forward.

“Victims are often deported from Canada if they’re discovered and often that puts them right back in the hands of the traffickers who sent them here in the first place,” Siksay explained.

This is a good point. But it's no excuse for Siksay to not support Smith's bill.

For example, Siksay could have offered his own private member's bill devoting more funding to the investigation and pursuit of human trafficking rings. He could have tabled a private member's bill that would automatically extent refugee status to people brought to Canada against their will by human traffickers.

Nothing about Joy Smith's bill would permanently close the books on the topic of human trafficking.

Even then, it's odd that individuals like Siksay simply can't grasp the notion that people who traffick in other human beings -- especially children -- belong in prison for the protection of those who would be their victims if they were allowed free.

Bill Siksay doesn't get it. He just. Doesn't. Get it. And he most certainly is not serious about the topic of human trafficking, or about crime.

If he were, he would have discarded his ideological views on crime and supported Joy Smith's bill.

An Idea Crazy Enough to (Never, Ever) Work

Liberal leadership -- or Tory membership -- should be farthest thing from Ruby Dhalla's mind

Writing in a blog post on the National Post's Full Comment blog, Dan Arnold drops an interesting thought regarding rumours that Ruby Dhalla is among the Liberal MPs that may cross the floor.

Arnold provides what he must imagine to be a very persuasive reason for Dhalla to stay put with the Liberal party: defecting will hurt her chances to be leader of the Liberal party.

It's hard to decide which prospect is more unlikely -- Dhalla being admitted into the Conservative party, or winning the leadership of the Liberal party. Not only is either incredibly unlikely, but both are terrible ideas.

The reasons for both come back to one central issue: Dhalla's recent private member's bill that would extend pension -- admittedly, not a full pension to immigrants after only three years of residence.

The bill has drawn near-universal condemnation, and for obvious reasons: not only is it an extremely cynical piece of legislation, but it's incredibly irresponsible to boot.

Even Judy Sgro, normally a close ally of Dhalla's, has announced she will vote against the bill. Usually private member's bills stand a snowball's chance in hell of passing. Dhalla's bill is likely better compared to a single snowflake in the eighth ring of hell.

The Conservative party would have to publicly renounce virtually all of its principles in order to accept Dhalla within their ranks.

The Liberal party, meanwhile, would not only risk alienating its fiscally-conservative wing, but also risk alienating communities of immigrants who came to Canada and earned their position in this country -- not having a government cheque mailed out to them before they had so much as earned their citizenship, as the recipients of Dhalla's bill would recieve.

It's hard to believe that Dhalla wasn't imagining a windfall of votes from immigrants whose parents are receiving an extra government cheque every month. Her bill is so incredibly cynical that it could only be born of sheer opportunism.

Of course, there are deeper problems with Dhalla's bill than simply paying these people a pension. There's something deeply wrong with the idea of admitting immigrants to Canada who are past retirement age unless they are capable of supporting themselves financially.

Cases where an individual is in immediate peril of being persecuted or killed by their state is another matter entirely. Admitting these people to Canada (regardless of age) and extending them financial aid if need be is the right thing to do. (Canada has no business to accept refugees only to live in poverty.)

But cases where an elderly individual is coming to Canada under no such state of peril is another matter altogether. If they are coming to Canada on their own, they'd better be able to support themselves. If they're being admitted under a family reunification program, their family had better be able to support them.

It's in the sense that Dhalla's bill spits on these basic principles that it truly represents Barry Cooper's politics of self-service. The Liberal party has already been bitten hard by the consequences of embracing these politics too closely. The Conservatives would do themselves -- and the country -- a disservice by following suit.

Fortunately, the Conservatives won't be embracing the politics of self-service, at least in the form of Ruby Dhalla. She's already announced that she won't be crossing the floor.

"The rumour mill is in overdrive again," Dhalla wrote in an email. "These people need to find a topic of discussion that doesn't include the name Ruby Dhalla."

The Liberals may not be so fortunate. If Michael Ignatieff can't right the Liberal ship, the party may be in search of a new leader soon. If Dhalla hasn't jumped to the NDP by that time, one can only wonder if she'll make every Liberal's worst nightmare come true.

Yeah, They Hate Immigrants Too

Westboro Baptist Church promises picket of shooting victims

With all of the people Topeka, Kansas' Westboro Baptist Church hates -- homosexuals, dead soldiers, Britney Spears -- it should be considered unsurprising that they hate immigrants, too.

In the wake of a horrific shooting in Binghampton, New York which targeted an immigrant community centre, the church has announced that it will protest at the funerals of the victims.

"God sent the shooter!" exclaims a press release from the WBC. "Thank God for executing on his promises - dead bodies everywhere!"

"You Turned the World Over to Violent Fags, and you ALL Worship the Filthy Bloody Doomed-american Fag Flag," the release continues. "Now They're Going Home in Body Bags!"

Jiverly Wong, 41, killed 14 people from eight different countries, then killed himself.

Having never encountered a tragedy they didn't love exploiting for the purpose of spreading their religious invective, it's not shocking that the WBC would embrace this opportunity.

The only think shocking is that they didn't follow the Taliban's lead and claim responsibility for the attack.

Leave No Afghan Behind?

Hugh Segal calls for Afghan collaborators to recieve preferential treatment

As Canadians look ahead to the 2011 withdrawal from Aghanistan, Conservative Senator Hugh Segal is looking ahead to a potential influx of Afghan immigrants to Canada.

Segal is calling on the government of Canada -- whoever that may be in 2011 -- to give Afghans who have helped Canadian forces preferential treatment when considering applications for immmigration.

"It is important for us to signal as a country ...that we understand that a lot of Afghans have taken a lot of risks to help our forces," Segal mused. "It's very important they know we have no intention of leaving them behind."

Segal is reportedly preparing a motion calling on the government to "develop and implement a program to facilitate the settlement in Canada of Afghan nationals who have helped Canada during our engagement in Afghanistan."

Which isn't a bad idea, but it does have two problems with it.

First off, 2011 remains two years off. If a purported American surge in Afghanistan has the same overall positive effects as it had in Iraq, Canada may yet be able to leave a stable Afghanistan behind when if leaves, with little need to absorb a mass of refugees.

Secondly, it's well known that there are, indeed, unsavoury elements in the Afghan government. Afghans who have been involved with former warlords could attempt to use such policies in order to enter Canada. Any Afghans who've been deeply involved with the Afghan heroin trade, for one thing, should certainly be refused entry to Canada under any circumstances.

But for those law-abiding Afghans who've helped Canadian forces and wish to come to Canada at any point in the near future -- not merely post-2011 -- preferential immigration policies aren't merely a good idea, but they're very much in order.

Such policies could even encourage other Afghans to support Canadian efforts in Afghanistan.

More to Immigration Than Importing Labour

Small-minded views on immigration threaten Canadian identity

Of the many things Canadians take in pride in about their country, multiculturalism is generally one of them.

Naturally, not everyone agrees with multicultural policy. In particular, many conservative-minded Canadians oppose multiculturalism because they feel it undermines the traditional Canadian identity -- one these particular individuals view as predominantly European and white.

Meanwhile for many Canadians multiculturalism seems to be largely irrelevant. Instead, they view immigration simply as an economic tool -- one in which they can find extra bodies to fill jobs.

Speaking alongside Leon Benoit in Lloydminster, Jason Kenney notes that he expects the current economic climate in Canada to reduce levels of immigration. Regardless of this expectation, the Conservative government is working on ways to streamline the immigration process in order to admit more workers to Canada.

Kenney and Benoit were in Lloydminster to discuss precisely that initiative.

"It’s a chance to meet people who are key in the community and figure out what the federal government can do to help them make sure the economy stays strong in this region," Kenney said. "Across Western Canada, we’re talking about tens of thousands of jobs that would go unfilled, businesses that would go down and bankrupt if they could not find temporary workers."

"Immigration is the sort of thing you just don’t want to do a short term knee-jerk reaction, you want to plan for the medium term, and that’s what we’re doing," Kenney explained. "We consulted industry and all of the provinces just a couple months ago and they all said we should probably keep levels about where they’re at now."

Of course, there's a serious problem with treating immigration mainly as an economic tool.

While it is a reality that immigration needs to be economically sustainable, acting recklessly upon some of the other preferences reportedly expressed -- toughening refugee policies and reducing government funding for groups serving minority communities -- would imperil multiculturalism in Canada.

Toughening refugee policies too much could result in refugees who deserve to be allowed into Canada based on merit being turned away. Reducing the funding for groups that serve minority communities would make it harder for new arrivals to adjust to Canadian society -- ironically, one of the concerns Kenney raised while in Lloydminster.

Reducing immigration to a mere economic tool is a formula for a more insular, parochial Canadian society -- one of the absolute last things Canada needs.

It seems that Jason Kenney and Leon Benoit may not fully understand this.

"People were asking about serious issues … and problems that need to be solved," Benoit added. "We have accomplished a high percentage of things that I recommended as critic, things I saw were wrong."

"Does that mean there’s nothing to do? Well you heard tonight: there is."

While Canadian immigration policies are far from perfect, the government needs to be very careful regarding which reforms it chooses to pursue.

Of Professional Hatemongers and Professional Whores

Kenney and Arab Groups face off over funding

In a country where people can be haouled in front of a Human Rights Commission for saying this that others believe express hatred or contempt, it only seems logical that the government would deny funding to groups that express hatred or contempt.

Interestingly enough, some individuals have a problem with such a move.

Among them is Khaled Mouammar, who accused Kenney of being a "professional whore" for Israel.

Kenney recently identified the Canadian Arab Federation, a group in which Mouammar serves as President and the Canadian Islamic Congress as groups which promote hatred for Jews.

"There are organizations in Canada, as in Britain, that receive their share of media attention and public notoriety, but who at the same time as expressing hateful sentiments, expect to be treated as respectable interlocutors in the public discourse," Kenney explained. "These and other organizations are free within the confines of our law and consistent with our traditions of freedom of expression, to speak their mind, but they should not expect to receive resources from the state, support from taxpayers or any other form of official respect from the government or the organs of our state."

"I would encourage all other governments to take a similar approach to organizations that either excuse violence against Jews or express essentially anti-Semitic sentiments," Kenney continued.

"We do see the growth of a new anti-Semitism, the anti-Semitism predicated on the notion that the Jews alone have no right to a homeland," Kenney explained. "The argument is with those whose premise is that Israel itself is an abomination, and that the Jews alone have no right to a homeland. And in that sense anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism."

Of course, what Kenney really should have said is that this particular brand of anti-Zionism is< anti-Semitism. It would be foolish to heap those who object to the conduct of the Israeli state in with those who believe that it has no right to exist in the first place.

For his own part, NDP Finance Critic Thomas Mulcair seems to agree with the principle behind the decision. "I agree that people shouldn't get money from the federal government if they say hurtful things about any group," Mulcair said.

However, one also has to keep in mind that organizations such as the Canadian Arab Federation often provide services to immigrants that aren't only valuable to themselves, but to society as a whole. In particular, Kenney's move would deny the CAF $447,297 for language training and assistance with job searches.

If the CAF is to be denied this funding, the federal government will have to take responsibility for providing those services.

But even then, the government providing such services direclty is infitely preferable to providing funding to groups that can be said to violate -- ironically groups that often seek to exploit -- Canada's hate speech laws.


Other bloggers writing on this topic:

Peace, Order and Good Government Eh? - "Be Nice to Jason Kenney. Or Else."

Yaya Canada - "Political Whore Kenney Won't Put Out"

Calgary Rants - "Excellent Work by MP Jason Kenney"