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.
Showing posts with label Vic Toews. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Vic Toews. Show all posts
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Monday, October 18, 2010
It Wasn't About Integrity, It Was About Politics
University of Winnipeg group falsely dresses their political grievances in language of integrity
A tiny group of University of Winnipeg students made what they must regard as a remarkable statement recently -- but one that was really only remarkable in the brazen extent of its own self-edification:
They think the University of Winnipeg should only grant honourary degrees to individuals who agree with their political views.
That was the basic theme that emerged out of a protest by a miniscule group calling itself the Coalition for Integrity in Academic Accolades. As is the case with so many members of Canada's far left, their definition of integrity is one that begins and ends with their own political views.
"[Toews’] policies are in direct opposition to the notions of compassion, justice, acceptance, inclusiveness, human rights and equality," said Brittany Thiessen. "As a university which values these notions, I along with many others, believe that honouring this man is unacceptable."
Thiessen's Care2 profile largely speaks for itself. There, Thiessen declares that her aim is "to promote and protect human rights and equality for all. End discrimination and social/economic/racial/gender/sexual inequality worldwide."
Spoken like a true grievance monger.
Among Thiessen and company's other grievances are Toews vote against same-sex marriage, his government's plan to build new prisons, and his acknowledgement that some of the Tamil migrants that arrived by boat this past summer could have been terrorists.
The Winnipeg Sun's brief photo essay tells one all one needs to know about the objections raised by these individuals.
"Ask me what Vic Toews said during his speech at the national pro-life conference," reads one sign. "Ask me about how Vic Toews supports an American-style war on drugs," reads another.
The latter sign is categorically false -- Conservative anti-drug policies provided additional funds for treatment of drug addicts while focusing enforcement toward those who distribute drugs. Compare this to American drug policies which are primarily aimed at users.
Moreover, the other sign-holders outrage that Toews would disagree with her on abortion really only casts her reaction as part of the effort by pro-abortion groups to silence their opponents on university campuses.
The Valedictorian for the U of W's convocation, Erin Larson, took her speech as an opportunity to air her own grievances against the honour.
“While I’m immensely proud to be an alumnus of the University of Winnipeg and extremely honoured to have been selected valedictorian, I have to admit I’m not proud to share the stage with everyone who is on it today,” Larson -- piercings and all -- complained. “I feel the University of Winnipeg has recently suffered a profound loss of integrity due to the actions of the administration.”
Former Liberal Foreign Affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy was not impressed.
“I think it’s important to point out that I don’t think Mr Toews used his platform to express political views,” Axworthy said. “He talked about what it meant to be a student. I think that was the unfortunate part, that [the valedictory address] was used as a way to make a political statement, not a statement on behalf of the graduates.”
“I respect the way the students had a quiet protest and I think it was a respectable way of doing it, but I wouldn’t say the same for the valedictorian,” he concluded.
Simply put, the protest against Toews' honourary degree wasn't about integrity at all. It was merely about politics: about one group's attempt to enshrine their own political views within the university administration to the exclusion of all others.
God forbit that the University of Winnipeg would want to honour Vic Toews, an alumnus, with an honourary master of laws degree for becoming the Minister of Public Safety.
A tiny group of University of Winnipeg students made what they must regard as a remarkable statement recently -- but one that was really only remarkable in the brazen extent of its own self-edification:
They think the University of Winnipeg should only grant honourary degrees to individuals who agree with their political views.
That was the basic theme that emerged out of a protest by a miniscule group calling itself the Coalition for Integrity in Academic Accolades. As is the case with so many members of Canada's far left, their definition of integrity is one that begins and ends with their own political views.
"[Toews’] policies are in direct opposition to the notions of compassion, justice, acceptance, inclusiveness, human rights and equality," said Brittany Thiessen. "As a university which values these notions, I along with many others, believe that honouring this man is unacceptable."
Thiessen's Care2 profile largely speaks for itself. There, Thiessen declares that her aim is "to promote and protect human rights and equality for all. End discrimination and social/economic/racial/gender/sexual inequality worldwide."
Spoken like a true grievance monger.
Among Thiessen and company's other grievances are Toews vote against same-sex marriage, his government's plan to build new prisons, and his acknowledgement that some of the Tamil migrants that arrived by boat this past summer could have been terrorists.
The Winnipeg Sun's brief photo essay tells one all one needs to know about the objections raised by these individuals.
"Ask me what Vic Toews said during his speech at the national pro-life conference," reads one sign. "Ask me about how Vic Toews supports an American-style war on drugs," reads another.
The latter sign is categorically false -- Conservative anti-drug policies provided additional funds for treatment of drug addicts while focusing enforcement toward those who distribute drugs. Compare this to American drug policies which are primarily aimed at users.
Moreover, the other sign-holders outrage that Toews would disagree with her on abortion really only casts her reaction as part of the effort by pro-abortion groups to silence their opponents on university campuses.
The Valedictorian for the U of W's convocation, Erin Larson, took her speech as an opportunity to air her own grievances against the honour.
“While I’m immensely proud to be an alumnus of the University of Winnipeg and extremely honoured to have been selected valedictorian, I have to admit I’m not proud to share the stage with everyone who is on it today,” Larson -- piercings and all -- complained. “I feel the University of Winnipeg has recently suffered a profound loss of integrity due to the actions of the administration.”
Former Liberal Foreign Affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy was not impressed.
“I think it’s important to point out that I don’t think Mr Toews used his platform to express political views,” Axworthy said. “He talked about what it meant to be a student. I think that was the unfortunate part, that [the valedictory address] was used as a way to make a political statement, not a statement on behalf of the graduates.”
“I respect the way the students had a quiet protest and I think it was a respectable way of doing it, but I wouldn’t say the same for the valedictorian,” he concluded.
Simply put, the protest against Toews' honourary degree wasn't about integrity at all. It was merely about politics: about one group's attempt to enshrine their own political views within the university administration to the exclusion of all others.
God forbit that the University of Winnipeg would want to honour Vic Toews, an alumnus, with an honourary master of laws degree for becoming the Minister of Public Safety.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)