SEX-FOR-ASYLUM WAS NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF THAT STORY
Last week, Canadians heard a news report of a judge who said that he would approve a female asylum-seeker's claim if she provided him with sex. The story titillated many. The asylum-seeker was a 25-year-old Korean woman. The judge was 50-year old Steve Ellis.
A former Toronto City Councillor, Ellis was convicted on April 21 of breach of trust and bribery. He had been a judge of asylum-seekers since 2000. He was suspended from his job as a judge shortly after charges were laid against him.
But the most important part of this story was hardly mentioned. That was the part that stated the reasons the Korean asylum-seeker had given for needing asylum in Canada.
The Korean woman had said she was fleeing a physically abusive father and threats from money lenders in South Korea.
Assuming that the news reports are true, of all of the reasons given by an asylum-seeker, the one about having a physically-abusive father should have caused even the most gullible judge to wonder why he was even listening to this case. This woman was probably at least 20 when she left Korea and arrived in Canada. Was she trying to tell the immigration judge that she had no relatives or other place to go to in all of Korea to escape her father?
Assuming that the judge commented on the second reason the woman gave for requesting asylum, did the judge tell the woman that escaping from money lenders is not a legitimate reason for requesting asylum? Regarding the excuse that she had had threats from money lenders, was she talking about Korean-gang threats or was she talking about owing money to Korean banks? If she owed money to banks, why had she borrowed? To buy a Hyundai? Were the so-called “threats” really phone calls telling her that she was behind in her payments?
If gang threats were true, did the immigration judge assume that South Korea had no institutions (basic police) to deal with those threats? Was the judge one of the judges who naively or smugly believe that Canada is the only safe country in the world and that, therefore, Canada had to accept such a claim?
It may seem hard to believe that an immigration judge or any person in a position of authority would be so gullible as to accept the Korean claimant's excuses. But that seems to be what has occurred. Unless this decision is thrown out, a new precedent has been established. And unless the UN or member nations such as Canada dramatically restrict the definition of an asylum-seeker, how many future asylum-seekers will be using this precedent to claim physical abuse from a father or threats from money-lenders as a reason to grant asylum in Canada?
The inevitable conclusion that most Canadians would make is that a judge who approves these reasons is incompetent. So, if someone like Immigration Judge Steve Ellis is rightly to be fired for breach of trust and bribery, why hasn't the Minister of Immigration taken measures to at least ensure that this judge is not re-hired, if not removed ASAP?
Many would ask this question: Isn't this woman's claim one more reason why Canada has to have a quick way of dealing with frivolous claims like this one?
And that leads to another question: Why aren't the reasons given by asylum-claimants available to the public? Is it that many of these asylum claim reasons are as ridiculous as the ones provided by this Korean woman? Is it that if the public found this out, there would be so much outrage that many politicians who had permitted this senseless process to continue for so many years would have their heads on a chopping block?
And of course that leads to another consideration. As we have said many times, those who have supported the current asylum-seeker process (and the chain migration it brings) like to present themselves as great humanitarians and like to portray Canada as a bottomless money pit. But it has become more and more evident that Canada does not have endless cash and that the influence of self-appointed humanitarians on Canada's asylum-seeker system is responsible for the diversion, to a large number of cheaters, of billions of dollars of potential social spending .
There is no doubt that the billions of dollars spent on fraudulent asylum-seekers could have solved a number of Canadian social problems such as homelessness many times over. But that has not happened.
In fact, these problems have reached the point where some of our well-intentioned mayors and councillors (as well as other politicians) have even stated that their primary objective is to end public disgraces such as homelessness. For example, Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson and many on his council have clearly said this. But, as we have pointed out, these politicians at the same time say that, as lowly municipal politicians, they are helpless to do anything about the immigration issue.
The truth is that municipal politicians have influence and they should be using it to make critical comments about immigration. Many of the members of Canada's Big City Mayors' Caucus have seen the negative effects of high immigration levels on their communities. They should be saying that the rise of abnormal immigration policies and the rise of social disgraces such as widespread homelessness are connected. Homelessness and increasing poverty are not just a result of ideological priorities in spending. If Canada throws away billions on cheaters and all the relatives they want to bring in, as it has done for over 20 years, it will not have the funds to solve its home-grown problems.
The sooner we realize this, the sooner the public disgraces will end.
