The following article illustrates another example where the
current government raises fear over a non-problem to change the very nature of
Canadian citizenship.
The proposal seems to be yet another example of poorly
conceptualized policy and law changes, without adequately thinking through the
possible consequences they may occasion if implemented.
In this case, the "field" appears to have a firmer
grip on reality than the "think-tanks" at the National Headquarters.
The CBSA is correctly warning the government that these changes will end up costing
the Canadian taxpayers disproportionately to the benefits they may realize,
while creating operational nightmares. The Government and its “legal beagles”, however,
set on their preconceived course, appear to be deaf to these alarm bells.
The whole endeavor seems to be predicated on the irrational
obsession with the guarding and protecting of Canadian citizenship. We are
constantly reminded by the bureaucrats that "citizenship is a precious privilege"
and that the abuse of "Canada's generosity" must be terminated. While
one is hard-pressed to put forth convincing arguments against such noble
intents, the fact is that this is all based on presumptions, presuppositions
and "urban anecdotes". The sad truth is that no government agency
keeps statistics on live births to non-status parents in Canada, how many of
these babies accompany their parents if the parents are removed or otherwise
leave Canada, nor how many of them return in adulthood to sponsor their parents
and bring them to Canada. And given the moratorium on the sponsorship of
parents, which has practically wiped out that entire class of immigrants, does
it really matter?
Canada has signed
international conventions that commit us not to make people stateless. Canada
is a signatory to the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
Child. Yet, the current government is apparently prepared to turn a blind eye
and abrogate all those commitments. It finds justification for its intent in
the fact that currently only Canada and the United States offer "birth on
soil" ("anchor babies" is a disparaging terminology common in
the United States) provisions, as if that in itself has no intrinsic values which sets us apart from the
rest of the world.
Let us look at an example. Palestinians, who for generations
have been moving from country to country never acquire citizenship of any state.
Under the proposed changes, children of Palestinians seeking protection in Canada, would be born in Canada but would not
have Canadian citizenship. Then, if the claim of their parents fails, there
would be no government to give these babies citizenship and travel documents,
hence making it impossible for them to accompany their families if the parents
are required to leave Canada and return to the country they came from. Canada,
in that scenario, would in fact be engaging in the breaking up of families and
making these children a ward of the state.
This could also happen to a family that is here on temporary
purposes, with no intention of immigrating to Canada, or seeking protection.
No comments:
Post a Comment