Are protesters advocating that the immigration laws be amended to eliminate deportation as a remedy against prospective immigrants to Canada who violate Canadian laws? Many seem to be advocating removal of deportation as a remedy in Canadian immigration law. Politician Raymond Chan was the latest person calling for Bruce Allen to retract his statements and apologize after he essentially said if one does not want to follow the rules in Canada he/she should go back home.
On the surface it seems to be a very politically incorrect thing to say if Mr. Allen meant that immigration should not be encouraged in Canada. However, many argue his statements merely mean that if a prospective immigrant to Canada breaks Canadian laws, deportation is a remedy under current immigration laws which should be used. Many recent examples exist to show that deportation is a valid and proper remedy in certain immigration cases.
Recently an Indian 'immigrant', Mr. Saini, received his law degree from Windsor University in Ontario and is on his way to become a lawyer in Canada. In 1984 however, he was the leader of a terrorist group which hijacked a plane in India. He came to Canada using a false name and then claimed refugee status. He was ordered deported shortly thereafter. Nearly 25 years later, Mr. Saini, is still in Canada fighting his deportation and earning his law degree. Is Mr. Allen wrong in saying that a non-rule follower such as Mr. Saini should be deported and go back home?
There are other examples. A gangster from China is currently living in a luxury condo in Burnaby's Crystall Mall towers. Like Saini he didn't follow the Canadian rules and was ordered deported and is now fighting his deportation. Is Mr. Allen wrong in saying that such a non-rule follower should be deported back home? Vancouver residents are also well aware of the street racing incident in the North Shore involving an immigrant from India who was drag racing and killed an innocent pedestrian. As a result of his conviction he was ordered deported and is fighting his deportation. Is Mr. Allen wrong in saying that a non-rule follower should be deported back home?
If Mr. Allen is wrong in saying non-rule followers should be deported, this means that politicians such as Mr. Chan and others are essentially calling for an abolition of the remedy of deportation in Canadian immigration law. If we structure our laws such that we cannot deport 'non-rule' followers, then aren't we just harbouring terrorist and criminals in Canada? There is no doubt in many people's mind that Bruce Allen will eventually be booted off the Olympic committee because what he said is not politically correct.
On the surface it seems to be a very politically incorrect thing to say if Mr. Allen meant that immigration should not be encouraged in Canada. However, many argue his statements merely mean that if a prospective immigrant to Canada breaks Canadian laws, deportation is a remedy under current immigration laws which should be used. Many recent examples exist to show that deportation is a valid and proper remedy in certain immigration cases.
Recently an Indian 'immigrant', Mr. Saini, received his law degree from Windsor University in Ontario and is on his way to become a lawyer in Canada. In 1984 however, he was the leader of a terrorist group which hijacked a plane in India. He came to Canada using a false name and then claimed refugee status. He was ordered deported shortly thereafter. Nearly 25 years later, Mr. Saini, is still in Canada fighting his deportation and earning his law degree. Is Mr. Allen wrong in saying that a non-rule follower such as Mr. Saini should be deported and go back home?
There are other examples. A gangster from China is currently living in a luxury condo in Burnaby's Crystall Mall towers. Like Saini he didn't follow the Canadian rules and was ordered deported and is now fighting his deportation. Is Mr. Allen wrong in saying that such a non-rule follower should be deported back home? Vancouver residents are also well aware of the street racing incident in the North Shore involving an immigrant from India who was drag racing and killed an innocent pedestrian. As a result of his conviction he was ordered deported and is fighting his deportation. Is Mr. Allen wrong in saying that a non-rule follower should be deported back home?
If Mr. Allen is wrong in saying non-rule followers should be deported, this means that politicians such as Mr. Chan and others are essentially calling for an abolition of the remedy of deportation in Canadian immigration law. If we structure our laws such that we cannot deport 'non-rule' followers, then aren't we just harbouring terrorist and criminals in Canada? There is no doubt in many people's mind that Bruce Allen will eventually be booted off the Olympic committee because what he said is not politically correct.
SHARE
