Excellent opinion in the Ottawa Citizen.
Fear not, Canada
Fear not, Canada
Working to allow greater movement between Canada and the U.S. enhances, rather than threatens, our sovereignty, writes James Bissett.
By James Bissett, Citizen Special
February 14, 2011
It was inevitable that the opposition parties and much of the media would immediately express fear that Canada's sovereignty might be compromised by the possibility of a new border agreement with the United States. This claim centres on fears that our privacy might be invaded and our generous refugee and immigration systems forced to undergo reform.
These fears are misguided if not mischievous.
The proposed agreement poses no threat to Canadian sovereignty. Sovereignty is the expression of a state's ultimate power to decide on its own about matters affecting the national interest. A sovereign state exercises its power in a variety of ways, such as deciding to go to war or entering into treaty arrangements with other countries such as the proposed common security perimeter with our neighbours to the south.
If there is a real threat to Canadian sovereignty it rests with our inability to control our own border. One of the primary expressions of a nation's sovereignty is the power to decide who may or may not enter its territory and also the power to remove those who are not legal residents or citizens.
Our power in this regard has been seriously compromised by a refugee system that permits anyone from any country to apply for refugee status if they enter our territory, and by so doing get to remain here even if they are found not to be refugees. Our sovereignty has also been threatened by our inability to remove terrorists or serious criminals if by so doing they might face mistreatment or persecution. If the new border proposal can help us -- among other things -- regain sovereign control of our border, then it deserves wholehearted support.
Canada already has a free-trade agreement with the United States and a common defence shield under the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD). It would seem only natural and beneficial to both countries to establish a common security policy. The idea is not new. It was first suggested by the former U.S. ambassador to Canada, Gordon Giffin, in October 2000 (before 9/11) as a logical next step in the effort to maintain the safety and security of the citizens of both countries.
Three months after the events of 9/11, in December 2001, Canada and the United States signed the Smart Border Declaration that established the framework designed to harmonize our security strategy in the light of possible terrorist attacks against targets in both countries.
The declaration involved, among other things: agreement on the designation of terrorist organizations, the removal of people ordered deported from either country, the sharing of intelligence information, advance passenger information, the freezing of assets of organizations suspected of financing terrorist activities, and recognizing each country as "safe" for certain categories of refugees.
These arrangements go a long way in the direction of common security co-operation and present no threat to the sovereignty of either country.
Many Canadians deeply resent the perception common among many U.S. politicians that Canada presents a serious security threat and they attribute this erroneous assumption to the militarization of the border and the slowing down of commercial and tourist traffic.
Many Americans, on the other hand, believe that Canada is the weak link in matters of security and point to our wide-open refugee system that permits thousands of asylum seekers to enter the country each year without any form of screening. They also are aware that after 9/11 the potentially most serious terrorist threat to the United States came from a former asylum seeker from Canada whose plan to blow up the Los Angeles airport was luckily averted.
These differences of view should not be allowed to obstruct the formation of a common security perimeter that will be of enormous benefit to both countries. If such an agreement is realized it will put an end to these mutual apprehensions and return us to the former "good neighbour" policy that was the envy of much of the world.
The 27-member European Union has done away with internal borders and has established a common perimeter to control the entry of noncitizens. By recognizing the European Community as a single entry point for all of its members, it has been able to concentrate its focus on internal security and enhance its efforts to combat terrorist threats. The free movement of people and goods has in turn facilitated trade and commerce among the member states.
The agreement between Prime Minister Stephen Harper and President Barack Obama to move forward towards a security perimeter for the two nations is a historic moment. We should not allow partisan domestic politics or the spurious threat to our sovereignty prevent it from happening.
James Bissett is a former Canadian ambassador and member of the advisory board of the Centre for Immigration Reform.
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen
Prime Minister Stephen Harper, left, and U.S. President Barack Obama have announced an agreement to work toward a joint security perimeter. Many Canadians are worried the deal poses a threat to our sovereignty and privacy.Photograph by: Larry Downing, Reuters, Citizen Special
Showing posts with label Canada immigration poicy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Canada immigration poicy. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Saturday, February 5, 2011
SHOULD IMMIGRANTS ADAPT TO LOCAL VALUES?
The article below appeared in today's National Post, it echoes the recent debate about "reasonable accommodation" in Quebec, bu tit is now set in otherwise uneventful Manitoba. Should new immigrants adapt to local values and customs? Or should residents and citizens accommodate their wishes? Would that lead to a "two-tier" educational and social system? Voice your opinion in this national debate on the future of immigration.
Immigrant families try to opt out of curriculum
Immigrant families try to opt out of curriculum
Thursday, February 3, 2011
NEW SURVEY ON IMMIGRATION ATTITUDES
It is interesting that the study below does not separate "immigrants" who are generally economic migrants by choice and contribute skis or capital to the economy and add to the labour force, and "refugees' who are generally poor and require significant taxpayer support and public expense. If that question would have been asked, would the results have been different?
Canadians view immigration more positively than Europe, U.S.: Poll
Canadians view immigration more positively than Europe, U.S.: Poll
By Peter O'Neil, Postmedia NewsFebruary 3, 2011
PARIS — Canadian attitudes toward immigration are hardening but Canada remains a relative island of tranquillity compared to other increasingly anti-immigrant Western developed countries, according to a poll released Thursday.
The annual survey, done by a Washington-based think-tank, looked at public perception of a wide variety of immigration issues in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain.
The study found a near-consensus that the public is frustrated by their governments' handling of immigration policy, and showed that those who are struggling financially are particularly hostile.
Canada, according to the German Marshall Fund of the United States, sharply diverged from the other seven countries on questions ranging from government performance to the impact of immigrants on society and the economy.
"Canadian attitudes are by far the most positive among all countries surveyed," think-tank analyst Delancey Gustin told Postmedia News.
"Canadians really are outliers on pretty much every measure, which is pretty shocking . . . considering that one in five people in Canada was born abroad."
Gustin said the modest hardening of attitudes in Canada was likely linked to the controversy over the landing of a boatload of Tamil migrants in British Columbia last summer.
She pointed out that 67 per cent of respondents felt in 2010 that immigrants helped create jobs by establishing new businesses, down from 75 per cent in 2009.
And the proportion of Canadians who thought immigration "enriches" culture by bringing in new customs and ideas slipped from 65 per cent to 60 per cent.
But in both cases the numbers were significantly higher than those from the U.S. and Europe.
She said Canadian government policy, and more importantly Canadian geography, drive public attitudes.
Canada, protected on all sides by the Arctic, two oceans and the huge U.S. buffer standing in the way of Latin America migrants, can be more selective because it doesn't face the undocumented cross-border inflows confronting U.S. and European governments.
"Geography is a huge factor," she said.
"Research shows when immigrants come from far away more they're more likely to succeed, because it costs a lot of money and requires connections.
"These people are typically more educated and tend to be the elite of their own country. So you guys have (the) luxury of kind of skimming right off the top and bringing in the best and brightest."
The sense that the government has control over the flow of migrants is reflected in attitude toward government policy.
Slightly fewer than half the Canadians surveyed, or 48 per cent, said the government was doing a good job, while 43 per cent said it was doing a poor job. The rest either refused to say or didn't know.
In the U.S., 73 per cent said the government was doing a poor job, while 62 per cent of Europeans felt that way.
In Canada 13 per cent said the number of newcomers arriving is "too much," compared to 23 per cent of Americans and 29 per cent of Europeans. Almost half of British respondents (46 per cent), hit with a wave of so-called "Polish plumbers" taking advantage of European Union mobility rules, said the numbers were excessive.
"The perception that things are under control is an important one, because British respondents feel that immigrants have overrun their country. There is a similar feeling here in the United States, that the government doesn't have control over the issue."
Respondents who have suffered during the recession were more likely to have negative views in all countries. Of the Canadians in 2010 who felt their personal economic situation has declined, 33 per cent believed immigrants dragged down wages. Among those whose situations improved or stayed the same, 29 per cent said newcomers depress income levels for everyone.
In Europe, 36 per cent of those whose status stayed the same or got better blamed immigrants for dragging down wages, while 49 per cent of those whose situation declined felt that way.
Roughly 1,000 people were interviewed in each country, with the European polling done between Aug. 27 and Sept. 13, 2010, while the Canadian and U.S. respondents were interviewed in mid-November of last year.
The results are considered accurate to within three percentage points, 19 times out of 20, according to the German Marshall Fund of the United States.
Canadians view immigration more positively than Europe, U.S.: Poll
Canadians view immigration more positively than Europe, U.S.: Poll
By Peter O'Neil, Postmedia NewsFebruary 3, 2011
PARIS — Canadian attitudes toward immigration are hardening but Canada remains a relative island of tranquillity compared to other increasingly anti-immigrant Western developed countries, according to a poll released Thursday.
The annual survey, done by a Washington-based think-tank, looked at public perception of a wide variety of immigration issues in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain.
The study found a near-consensus that the public is frustrated by their governments' handling of immigration policy, and showed that those who are struggling financially are particularly hostile.
Canada, according to the German Marshall Fund of the United States, sharply diverged from the other seven countries on questions ranging from government performance to the impact of immigrants on society and the economy.
"Canadian attitudes are by far the most positive among all countries surveyed," think-tank analyst Delancey Gustin told Postmedia News.
"Canadians really are outliers on pretty much every measure, which is pretty shocking . . . considering that one in five people in Canada was born abroad."
Gustin said the modest hardening of attitudes in Canada was likely linked to the controversy over the landing of a boatload of Tamil migrants in British Columbia last summer.
She pointed out that 67 per cent of respondents felt in 2010 that immigrants helped create jobs by establishing new businesses, down from 75 per cent in 2009.
And the proportion of Canadians who thought immigration "enriches" culture by bringing in new customs and ideas slipped from 65 per cent to 60 per cent.
But in both cases the numbers were significantly higher than those from the U.S. and Europe.
She said Canadian government policy, and more importantly Canadian geography, drive public attitudes.
Canada, protected on all sides by the Arctic, two oceans and the huge U.S. buffer standing in the way of Latin America migrants, can be more selective because it doesn't face the undocumented cross-border inflows confronting U.S. and European governments.
"Geography is a huge factor," she said.
"Research shows when immigrants come from far away more they're more likely to succeed, because it costs a lot of money and requires connections.
"These people are typically more educated and tend to be the elite of their own country. So you guys have (the) luxury of kind of skimming right off the top and bringing in the best and brightest."
The sense that the government has control over the flow of migrants is reflected in attitude toward government policy.
Slightly fewer than half the Canadians surveyed, or 48 per cent, said the government was doing a good job, while 43 per cent said it was doing a poor job. The rest either refused to say or didn't know.
In the U.S., 73 per cent said the government was doing a poor job, while 62 per cent of Europeans felt that way.
In Canada 13 per cent said the number of newcomers arriving is "too much," compared to 23 per cent of Americans and 29 per cent of Europeans. Almost half of British respondents (46 per cent), hit with a wave of so-called "Polish plumbers" taking advantage of European Union mobility rules, said the numbers were excessive.
"The perception that things are under control is an important one, because British respondents feel that immigrants have overrun their country. There is a similar feeling here in the United States, that the government doesn't have control over the issue."
Respondents who have suffered during the recession were more likely to have negative views in all countries. Of the Canadians in 2010 who felt their personal economic situation has declined, 33 per cent believed immigrants dragged down wages. Among those whose situations improved or stayed the same, 29 per cent said newcomers depress income levels for everyone.
In Europe, 36 per cent of those whose status stayed the same or got better blamed immigrants for dragging down wages, while 49 per cent of those whose situation declined felt that way.
Roughly 1,000 people were interviewed in each country, with the European polling done between Aug. 27 and Sept. 13, 2010, while the Canadian and U.S. respondents were interviewed in mid-November of last year.
The results are considered accurate to within three percentage points, 19 times out of 20, according to the German Marshall Fund of the United States.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
