IMMIGRATION BY FRAUD AND INTIMIDATION CONTINUES
The following information was provided by an informant. The specific issue that the person refers to is the abuse of a visa. However, this case is shocking because it describes the shameless abuse of a visa that the Immigration Minister himself has provided—– after, in effect, being intimidated by people who know that intimidation and false appeals for sympathy are effective. As readers will see, the abusers' actions confidently mock the Immigration Minister, implying that the abusers believe they can get away with the fraud they have allegedly committed.
The abuse illustrates the wider need for much stronger immigration legislation, particularly legislation to deal with issues quickly. The abuse also shows the need to get rid of legislation that sabotages or impedes Canada's ability to act quickly.
Proper legislation would give the Canada Border Services Agency many additional tools to deal with this case of abuse and probably tens of thousands of existing as well as future cases of fraud. It would also protect honest people who are applying for visas.
All of this can be achieved only if immigration's purpose is re-directed, first and foremost, to serving and protecting the interests of Canada. As matters stand, Canada's interests are far down on the list.
THE CASE OF R. AS PRESENTED BY AN INFORMANT
1. Mr. G., a resident of Surrey B.C. but originally from the Punjab in India, died of cardiac arrest in Surrey, B.C. on Sunday, January 25th, 2009. His funeral was held on Sunday, February 8th, 2009. All of this man's children, with the exception of his son R., who was still living in India, resided in Canada.
2. Not long after hearing of his father's death, R., who was separated from his own wife at the time of his father's death, applied for a visa to come to Canada. In 2003-2004, R. had tried unsuccessfully to get into Canada by using a fake marriage, but he had been denied a visa. On receiving a new application from R., immigration officers were suspicious and denied him a visa.
3. The G. family pleaded with Citizenship and Immigration to issue a visa to R. so that he could take part in the funeral rituals and see his father's face for the last time. They enlisted the help of the print media and radio stations to declare that they felt that the Canadian government was ruthless, uncompassionate and unsympathetic to ethnic minorities. An MP and a Radio Talk Show host from Radio Shere Punjab and Radio India held talk shows on this issue. The MP went on air and openly supported this allegedly “noble” cause.
4. A B.C. MLA appeared with the family on BC Global TV to bring the issue to the main-stream community as well. Openly, the G. family assured the public that if R. received a Visa, he would go back to India once the funeral was done. The G. family got enormous support from the entire community. Finally, R. received a Minister's permit to come to Canada for four weeks. His visa expired on March 5th 2009.
5. To the astonishment and dismay of the whole community, R. got married on February 23rd, 2009—-just two weeks after his father's funeral and ten days before he was supposed to leave Canada. The reception was held at a banquet hall in Surrey, B.C. It is widely alleged that this marriage is fake, that the woman who participated in this fraud has been paid $55,000, and that it has occurred solely to provide R. with a reason for staying in Canada.
6. The informant, who witnessed the marriage reception, has alleged that even though the G. family promised that R. would return to India after the funeral, they have participated in the fraud to keep him in Canada. He has also stated that the girl's family (her parents, siblings, relatives) and friends did not attend the wedding reception—allegedly because they did not want to be associated with the fraud.
7. The witness has written to the two Indo-Canadian MP's, the B.C. MLA and all those who helped R. to get the visa, and asked them if they endorse fake marriage and the mis-use of the Immigration Minister's permit. He has pointed out that the permit was issued only so that R. could attend his father's funeral. He has also asked them to put as much energy into the removal of R. as they did into getting a visa for him to enter Canada.
8. Here are the specific questions he has presented to these people :
(a) Do you think what has happened is ethical?
(b) In participating in this fraud, has the G. family not cast suspicion on all honest and deserving families who, in future, want to get visas for relatives?
(c) If the G. family had really found a genuine spouse for R., couldn't she have gone to India and married him there?
(d) Don't you think that Immigration Canada has been mocked and blackmailed on the Ethnic Community issue? Immigration Canada bowed before the pressure from all sides and issued R. a permit. Now, isn't it the duty of the G. family and our community/community leaders to take a stand against such mis-use? If nothing is done about this matter, what effect do you think the G. family's fraud will have on the Indo-Canadian community's reputation?
(e) Many people (MP's, MLA's, other elected officials, the media and the public) were tricked by the G. family. Don't all of those people, especially the politicians and the media who were quick and more than willing to throw scorn on Citizenship and Immigration Canada for not immediately giving R. a visa, now have a duty to expose the fraud? If so, why is there so much silence?