Open shores for illegal migrants erode Canadian sovereignty
By Kingsley Beatti
The Ottawa Citizen
August 25, 2010
Re: Getting tough on refugees, Aug. 20.
Opinion writer Peter Showler and letter-writer Mohan Samarasinghe (“Two tales of Sri Lankans,” Aug. 21) argue that we must preserve our humanitarian tradition of welcoming “refugees.”
My experience as an old, and cynical, immigration officer leads me to suspect that our humanitarianism is restricted to those citizens who are prepared to use their own resources to receive and settle refugees.
Politicians take money from taxpayers and use it to promote their own political interests. They are forcing Canadians to pay for “humanitarian” policies that subvert our laws and sovereignty.
It is difficult, if not impossible, to accurately determine the veracity of claims made in Canada. In some cases, identity may not be proven. Many cases are based on claims that have been successful for other refugees. We stand a much better chance of selecting legitimate refugees when the selection is make overseas, as in the case of the Vietnamese. They did not arrive uninvited and knock on the door.
During the last few months of my tour in Chile, I noted the file numbers of visitors to our embassy who had made successful refugee claims in Canada. One lady who had received her minister's permit, some 48 hours earlier, wanted a visitor's visa for her sister. A gentleman living in Vancouver was upset when I referred to him as a political refugee. He angrily insisted he was an economic refugee. Both he and the lady, and others, insisted they had nothing to fear from the Chilean authorities. It was the truth.
The primary mission of any immigration service is to control access to a nation's territory. Canada has lost that ability. There are millions who could make reasonable claims to refugee status. Many have the interest and the will to shop for countries with the easiest access and best treatment. Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand are destinations of choice.
There was nothing to stop the Tamils from crossing the narrow channel to the Indian mainland, to join the huge population of fellow Tamils. They, like the other 34,000 per year who arrive by air, will go into the 60,000 backlog for two or three years. A very small percentage will be refused and few of them will ever be deported. More will be motivated to make the same pilgrimage.
I am pleased that our prime minister is concerned about our northern sovereignty. Perhaps he could spare some concern for sovereignty on the east and west coasts and at our international airports.
