|
[January 15, 2008]
FEDERAL COURT STRIKES
DOWN THIRD-COUNTRY
REFUGEE AGREEMENT
The
Federal Court of Canada has struck down an agreement that barred thousands
of refugees from seeking refugee status in Canada, saying the U.S. does not
meet international refugee protection requirements, nor does it respect
international conventions against torture.
In a
landmark 124-page ruling made public late Thursday afternoon, Justice
Michael Phelan struck down the Safe Third Country Agreement, which had been
used to stop prospective refugees from crossing the Canada-U.S. border, and
part of the Immigration and Refugee Protection regulations which Mr. Phelan
said violates Canada's Charter of Rights. In addition to "acting
unreasonably" in concluding that the U.S complied with refugee protection
conventions and conventions against torture, Mr. Phelan said the Canadian
government has failed to ensure the continuing review of the agreement and
U.S. practices. He added, "For the reasons outlined in this judgment, the
United States' policies and practices do not meet the conditions set down
for authorizing Canada to enter into a Safe Third Country Agreement¡±.
"The U.S.
does not meet the Refugee Convention requirements nor the Convention Against
Torture prohibition (the Maher Arar case being one example.) Further, the
STCA does not comply with the relevant provisions of the Charter. Finally,
the Canadian government has not conducted the ongoing review mandated by
Parliament despite both the significant passage of time since the
commencement of the STCA and the evidence as to U.S. practices currently
available."
Mr.
Phelan also said the U.S. definition of terrorist activities can include
those who never had any intention of contributing to terrorism.
"It is
difficult to imagine how the governor in council could have reasonably
concluded that the U.S. complies with the Refugee Convention when the law
allows the exclusion of claimants who involuntarily provided support to
terrorist groups. The terrorist exclusions are extremely harsh and cast a
wide net which will catch many who never posed a threat. In returning
claimants to the U.S. under these circumstances, the weight of the evidence
is that Canada is exposing refugees to a serious risk of refoulement (return
to danger) and torture which is contrary to the applicable articles of the
Refugee Convention and the Convention Against Torture."
But while
the court struck down the agreement, prospective refugees won't see any
change right away. The court has yet to rule on the consequences that flow
from the ruling and it is also possible that the ruling will be appealed.
Under the
Safe Third Country Agreement, which went into effect on Dec. 29, 2004,
refugees who reached Canada or the U.S. were considered to have already
reached a safe country and were generally barred at land crossings from
entering the other country.
However, the agreement earned the ire of
refugee advocates from the very start, who pointed out that Canada's
criteria for recognizing refugees were often quite different than those in
the U.S., as was its treatment of refugees waiting for their cases to be
heard.
As
America is pushing foreigners out and making it more difficult to immigrate,
the European Union has announced plans to implement a ¡°blue card¡± program -
modeled on the U. S. ¡°Green Card¡± for permanent residents to lure highly
skilled foreign professionals including doctors, engineers, nurses and
information technology workers to Europe which is expected to suffer severe
labor shortages in the near future due to an aging population and falling
birthrates.
According to
the plan, holders of the Blue Cards will be accorded equal social and
employment rights to EU citizens, including access to pensions, public
housing and health care, and will be free to move to other EU countries.
They will be able to bring family members and potentially quality for
long-term residency after five years.
Over all, the
EU hopes to attracts as many as 20 million highly skilled foreign workers
from Asia, Africa, and Latin America over the 20-year period.
Applicants
will be required to have a one-year contract and employers will show that
such skills are not available. The validity of the Blue Card will initially
be for two years.
STALEMATE ON IMMIGRATION ISSUES
The candidates
are afraid to express themselves and offer needed resolutions. Meanwhile,
the numbers speak loudly in favor of immigration.
The Census
Bureau has informed us that as of January 1, 2008, the U .S. population
exceeded 303.1 million which represents a 22% increase since 1990. A lot of
this growth has been driven by immigration.
Talk show
hosts try to convince the public that the foreign nationals drive crime
rates up, swell welfare rolls and steal jobs. The data proves to the
contrary but these mongrels and foreign haters don¡¯t want to read numbers.
Between 1994
and 2005, the illegal immigrant population in the U.S. is estimated to have
doubled to around 12 million. Yet, over the same period, the violent crime
rate in the U.S. declined by 24.2% and the property crime rate fell by
26.4%. Crime has fallen in cities with the largest immigrant population as
well as border cities.
Today,
immigrants on balance are five times less likely to be in prison than
someone born here.
A popular
belief pushed by some commentators foreign haters promote the idea that the
immigrants come here to go on welfare. Data shows that welfare caseloads
have fallen as immigration has risen. Since 1994, the national welfare
caseload has declined by 60%.
For all the
talk about stealing jobs, the unemployment rate stands at 4.7% and job
growth continues apace. The economic activity they create as consumers and
entrepreneurs contributes to the overall economic growth.
In the
past 9/11 environment, knowing who¡¯s in the country is very important and,
therefore, regulating the stay of illegal aliens and new border crossers is
very important.
So go to
work, legislators and resolve the immigration issues!
OF STATE &
LOCAL IMMIGRATION MEASURES
In the
wake of Congress' failure in recent years to pass comprehensive immigration
reform, state and local governments have taken it upon themselves to try to
tackle problems resulting from our nation's broken immigration system.
Though the Constitution generally assigns the power to regulate immigration
exclusively to the federal government, state and local entities have pounced
upon the apparent "wiggle room" provided in recent Supreme Court
interpretations regarding the legality of certain state and local attempts
to pass immigration related measures. In 2007 alone, for example, the 50
state legislatures considered over 1000 pieces of legislation attempting to
regulate immigrants and immigration. Of these measures, at least 156 have
become law.
A report
released this month by the
Migration Policy Institute (MPI), tries to make sense of this jumbled
mass of state & local legislation, analyzes these measures as to their
legality, and provides a framework for courts to use in order to do the
same. According to the report, most of the state and local attempts to
regulate immigrants and immigration fall into one of five categories. Given
the Constitutional dictum concerning federal jurisdiction over immigration,
however, not all of the measures within these categories are legal. The
authors of the report provide the following framework of questions for
courts to consider in determining whether a given piece of state or local
legislation is legal: 1. Has Congress expressly preempted the law?; 2. If
not, has Congress ousted state authority by occupying the field in which the
state regulates?; and 3. If not, does the state or local law create an
obstacle to enforcement of federal law?
Based on
this framework, the authors conclude that, in general, the vast majority
of state and local attempts to pass immigration-related measures overstep
jurisdictional boundaries. A significant and very troubling number
deprive individuals of due process rights, and many more raise serious
public policy concerns.
|
