ANOTHER CASE TO FUEL THE SANCTUARY DEBATE

The Globe and Mail newspaper reported today that yet another failed refugee claimant has sought sanctuary in a religious institution, after exhausting all levels of review. In this case, the failed asylum claimant appears to be suffering from a severe chronic illness, at a considerable cost to the taxpayers. It is obvious that he would have been ineligible to enter Canada in any way other than illegally or surreptitiously. This is the most recent in a long series of cases where failed refugee claimants, after exhausting all legal remedies, resort to sanctuary in a church or religious institution. It seems that there is no shortage of people to encourage this conduct. Is it right to do this? Should people who are dealt wiht fully, but do not like the result in the end, refuse to abide by the decisions made by the various tribunals and courts involved? Does this encourage respect for the rule of law? Or are they justified to do so because they do not think the system has treated them fairly? Should they be rewarded with a good result just for disobeying and resisting as long as they can? What if they go on a hunger strike? Should that be a factor? Should religious institutions encouraging this practice be prosecuted? You decide....

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070709.BCEVADE09/TPStory/National