Gary Mauser

 Canadian authorities seized a boat off BC’s coast holding 76 young men fleeing Sri Lanka, according to recent news reports. Should Canada accept these migrants as refugees based on humanitarian concerns? Or should we follow the letter of the law and reject them. Apparently they are Tamils who are fleeing a brutal crackdown by Sri Lankan authorities.  Clearly, they are attempting to ‘jump the queue’, and, what’s worse, they may well be terrorists. What should we do? Here’s a review of the arguments on both sides.

 On humanitarian grounds, some have called upon Canada to accept virtually anyone who shows up on our shores – legally or illegally – as permanent residents.  This approach appeals to our feelings of compassion for people who live in poverty or in war-torn countries. Canada has long had a very generous refugee policy. Since 2002, Canada has been among the top three resettlement countries in the world. In 2005, Canada resettled 10,400 refugees who accounted for 13% of the refugees resettled globally that year. Over the past five years, Canada has granted permanent residence to more than 147,000 refugees. (For more information, see the Citizenship and Immigration Canada website, http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/backgrounders/2007/2007-06-20.asp).

Immigrant groups who are now as Canadian as maple syrup originally came to Canada escaping desperate situations. This includes many Irish, Chinese, Sikhs, Jews, Italians, and Ugandan Asians. Some came with little more than the clothes on their backs. Frequently, if unevenly, Canadians have opened their hearts to them. Not only have we been compassionate, but we have benefited  too. (This is called the selfish argument for generosity!) Typically, these formerly impoverished immigrants worked hard to better themselves, and, years later, many became quite successful. Communities benefit from talented immigrants. And I’m not talking about gaining a greater variety of ethnic restaurants. Real problems are solved, jobs created, taxes paid, contributions made to charities, and more, much more. It is an iconic picture of the poor immigrant who arrives in North America -- Canada or the United States -- who then successfully struggles to better himself and his family.

A few examples paints a picture. In the years after World War II, Canada admitted more than 800,000 displaced persons and refugees. These immigrants soon became successful and paid their own way. In fact, before the 1970s, immigrants’ earnings after 10 years equalled or exceeded slightly those of native-born Canadians. This success gave rise to the argument that increased immigration levels could become the economic engine that would pay for the retirement benefits for an aging Canada. This would only be true if immigrants tended to be younger and pay more taxes than other Canadians.

Consider also the Ugandan Asians. In 1972, Idi Amin, then dictator of Uganda, in an early act of ethnic cleansing, gave Asians living in Uganda just 90 days to pack their bags. Canada granted 6,292 visas to these refugees, about 80 per cent of them Ismailis. The Ugandan-Asians went on to accumulate wealth beyond anything they had possessed in Uganda. In Greater Vancouver there are more than 40 Ismaili millionaires.

The argument to reject refugees appeals to the head, not the heart. It is just not practical to accept any and all refugees. According to the United Nations, at the end of 2006 the number of refugees around the world had reached almost 10 million. (See www.unhcr.org/pages/49c3646c4d6.html). How many refugees can Canada accept? And how do we decide who to admit and who to refuse? Canada is a relatively small country, with limited capacity to absorb immigrants, as recent immigrants will attest. Worse, our economy at the present time is in a fragile state. We can’t accept all who would apply.

That’s why the Canadian government has set rules. It’s true that 76 new immigrants, no matter how impoverished, will not strain our resources. But if we accept one boatload of illegals, others will follow. Reportedly, these 76 immigrants paid $45,000 each to get on this ship. Human smugglers are eager to fill boat after boat with well-paying desperate immigrants to send them to Australia, Canada or the United States. Where ever. The most practical, as well as humanitarian, policy is to reject the first boatload in order to forestall others from following.

Perhaps our refugee policy is too generous. Refugees are poor, and, by definition, pay less in taxes than the Canadian average, but they absorb much in welfare, health care and other benefits. This means that we all pay to support poor immigrants, and especially refugees. The average incomes of immigrants after ten years in Canada are only 80 percent of those of comparable Canadians. Arguably, large numbers of immigrant workers act to depress the wages of other Canadians with whom they compete, raising poverty rates and unemployment among workers with low skills. These costs are not borne equally by all Canadians. Other recent immigrants pay disproportionately for admitting additional poor immigrants since they tend to compete for the same unskilled jobs. (For more information about professor Grubel’s findings, see http://www.hgrubel.blogspot.com/).

I trust the Canadian government will thoroughly screen these refugees. Even if we are willing to accept poor immigrants who attempt to enter Canada illegally, we should not admit criminals or terrorists. Granted that the Sri Lankan government may be mistreating ethnic Tamils, but Canada will not benefit from allowing terrorists into our country. Any of these Tamils who have been involved with the Tamil Tigers should be summarily rejected. The Tigers are a terrorist organization. The Tamil Tigers systematically subjected the Tamil community in Toronto to extortion and brutality in order to raise funds to support terrorism in Sri Lanka. Canada should not be a haven for terrorists.