If the 492 Tamil asylum-seekers who recently arrived by boat on BC’s shores are “queue-jumpers”, then I guess my parents were too. See, they came as Vietnam War draft dodgers from the US in 1967. Like a couple of the Tamil women just arrived, my mom was pregnant with me. My parents did not seek advance permission from the Canadian government to immigrate. They did not fill out any paperwork before arriving. And they could no more seek permission to leave from their home government than these Tamils could, for what they were doing was, as far as the US was concerned, illegal and would result in my father’s arrest.
Of course that’s the thing about being an asylum-seeker –– you don’t get into a queue. When you’ve got to go, you’ve got to go. Hell, my folks didn’t even know Montreal (where they landed) was a predominantly French-speaking city.
So they just showed up. The difference, however, was that in those days, they got landed immigrant status in 20 minutes at the airport. Imagine that! Over the course of the Vietnam War, about 100,000 American war resisters came to Canada (many with less formal education than my folks and thus unlikely to score particularly well under today’s immigration point-system, and I suspect many had less education than many of these recent Tamil arrivals). Yet here we are setting our hair on fire about 492 people.
But those aren’t the only numeric comparisons I find curious.
Among the common reactions to the arrival of the MV Sun Sea is the proposition that Canada’s alleged lax immigration laws make us a global sucker –– a target for many of the world’s migrants. This is an absurd notion.
World conflicts, environmental disasters, and a global economic system that keeps billions impoverished has resulted in millions upon millions of refugees and displaced people. In Pakistan alone, the current flooding is producing, we are told, 14 million internally displaced people. Globally, there are, according to the UN, about 43 million “forcibly displaced people”, of which about 15 million are refugees. (You can find good UN statistics on displaced people here.)
But the vast majority of these globally displaced people are being absorbed, not by wealthy countries, but either internally or by neighbouring poor countries –– the places least able to afford the costs and with the bleakest economic prospects.
Canada accepted fewer than 20 thousand refugees last year –– a drop in the global bucket (about 0.1% of world refugees) –– and our acceptance rate has been declining in recent years (and in contrast, Canada deported about 13 thousand people). As Stephen Hume notes in an excellent piece in the Vancouver Sun, Canada does not rank as on of the top recipient countries for refugees: “Other developed countries are the destinations for most refugees and many more are granted asylum in those countries… Measured as a ratio of refugee claims to population, Canada doesn’t even make the top 10 nations for asylum seekers.”
Surely, when a few hundred people arrive on our shores, we can afford to treat these people with respect and grant them due process.
And here’s another curious comparison: The real and much more significant Canadian immigration story of recent years (at least measured numerically) isn’t about refugees or people arriving by boats. It’s about the explosion in temporary foreign workers. Over the past few years, the number of temporary foreign workers coming into Canada each year exceeds 200,000, and now surpasses the number of immigrants.
But the Harper government hasn’t been sounding the alarm about this. On the contrary, the federal government has been promoting and facilitating the massive growth in this category of migrants. Why? Because unlike regular immigrants and refugees, these workers are being specifically requested by employers, their indentured status makes them unable to exercise key employment rights and leaves them highly vulnerable to exploitation and unsafe conditions, and they are unable to make the same claims to the social and economic rights that Canadians take for granted.
Immigration is central to the story of Canada –– waves of people who came, mostly to meet a domestic need for labour, and sometimes fleeing harm and conflict. But historically, once people arrived, either as immigrants or refugees, they were upon landing met with a social contract: they could avail themselves of the social and economic rights Canadians enjoyed (such as health care and education for their families, and workplace rights and protections), and in a few years could be granted the full rights of citizenship.
With the explosion of temporary workers (set against a tightening of regular immigration and refugees admissions, and reactions such as those we see directed towards the Tamils), the government is effectively saying, “that deal is off –– we’re happy to have temporary indentured labour, but don’t think you can be a Canadian.”
When my parents arrived in the ’60s, a small minority in Canada were keen to label the Vietnam war resisters will all manner of unwelcome labels (much as the Canadian government is currently doing with respect to the Tamil asylum-seekers today, quickly labelling them as terrorists, criminals and queue-jumpers). But for the most part, the Vietnam war resisters were welcomed, and went on to make a valuable contribution to Canadian society. Much the same can be said of the Vietnamese boat people who arrived in the late 1970s. Why can’t these better receptions be the norm, rather than the xenophobia that characterizes more recent arrivals?
And here’s what troubles me most. In a world still coming to terms with the reality of climate change, the truth is that the number of global climate migrants and displaced people will soon dwarf the UN numbers sited above –– a lot more people are coming, and our recent record does not bode well. Will this recent ugliness mark each new unexpected arrival, or can we chill out and have a rational conversation about what our moral obligations and humanitarian response should be to the global realities ahead?
(The group No One is Illegal has produced an excellent fact sheet debunking six common myths about the Tamil refugee claimants. It can be found here.)
Lisa Barrett // Aug 22, 2010 at 1:51 am
Thanks for this, Seth.
The international and domestic context for this discussion has been far too narrow to date and you’ve just expanded the conversation to include issues of human rights and the intent of asylum and refugee policy. If our government is too uncomfortable to examine its foreign policy and its support for regimes under investigation by human rights organizations such as Amnesty Int’l, we’re fortunate to have organizations such as CCPA-BC and commentators like you to make the point.
I think the issue of ‘convenient’ migrant workers is a policy upon which we should shine a very bright light. The hypocrisy is glaring but we need working people and labour organizations to help build support for these dangerously marginalized people.
I also noted at the time, although most media focussed on the racist protesters in Victoria, that a delegation of First Nations people were gathered to welcome the shipload of Tamil asylum-seekers.
nechakogal // Aug 22, 2010 at 11:48 am
Yes, the juxtaposition of the influx of migrant workers against the Tamil discussion in this context is just excellent. Thank goodness for CCPA a truly Canadian voice.
Roni // Aug 22, 2010 at 11:56 am
I’m not someone who has any kind of background in this area other than the person experience of being granted landed immigrant status this decade. I was shown the generosity of being awarded points that I didn’t really earn because I was trying to come to Canada to be with my lesbian lover. This was before the reforms that recognized same gendered couples and before we were able to be legally married. I immigrated alone. In my car. My friends threw a party.
I hope for Canada, and for the refugee claimants, that they help us to examine our immigration goals as a society. I know that this story has brought to light the current immigration strategy of temporary workers and not one that encourages all people in Canada to look at this set of refugee claimants as simply 492 human beings.
Vincent Cowsill // Aug 22, 2010 at 12:47 pm
I immigrated to Canada from the U. S. in 1968. It took me 20 minutes at Windsor to “land”. Previously I had visited the Canadian consulate in San Francisco and discussed briefly what I wanted to do. They thought I was making a good decision.
I became a Canadian citizen in 1974. I have always been grateful to Pierre Trudeau and the Canadian government for making it easy for me
to immigrate.
Immigrating to Canada broke no U. S. law. It was a perfectly legal option for those opposing the Vietnam War. I spent thirty years working for the Ministry of Social Services in BC. In 2006 I renewed my U. S. Passport (in response to Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative).
Kim // Aug 22, 2010 at 2:50 pm
Thank you for voicing my opinion so elequently. I am disturbed by the level of racism surrounding this story. To me it speaks of the politics of division and fear that has infected political discourse in this country.
I am deeply disturbed by how easily this has been accomplished in Canada, a land of what, 97% immigrants? I agree with you about our financial status,, as a G8 nation, geographicly massive, relatively under populated and so rich in raw materials. We have a responsibility to provide opportunities in Canada for diverse peoples, as a springboard of opportunities they can then use to help developing nations.
It isn’t immigrants bankrupting our social network, it’s the very people (some of us) voted our trust to. That’s the worst of this, our government is actively working against everything culturally that we hold fervently, to be the truth about who we are.
Ever read a letter in the MSM published by Phil Hochstein (Independant Contractors Assn)? Apparently, he’s one of the guys drafting policy on workers rights and foriegn policy. He hates unions, and he pushes hard for more temporary workers. Sound familiar? He’s one of the guys that just sued us (HST Repealment Bill) so he could continue to erode workers rights in BC via his good friend, Gordon Campbell.
WendiG // Aug 22, 2010 at 5:00 pm
As an immigrant from the US in 1972, I wasn’t exactly welcomed with open arms..after all, I was an unmarried woman..
Got married in ’73 (and thereby became ‘chattel’ to my Canadian husband) and after that, it was a question of points, (and since I labeled myself an artist, which, apparently, in the Trudeau era was worth much more than it is now) had enough to achieve landed immigrant status..
Gratefully and happily took out citizenship in ’76, and despite the disbelief and ignorance in my family re this descision, I have never been happier to wave the Maple Leaf..til now…
This disgusting and poisonous display of bigotry here on the West Coast, and in the Canadian media, really mkes me wonder just where it is I’m living, until I see articles like this…Thanks for helping to restore my faith and committment, Seth…
Paul Leduc Browne // Aug 22, 2010 at 5:35 pm
Good stuff, Seth, an excellent column!
Best wishes.
Skookum1 // Aug 23, 2010 at 7:29 am
Seems to me a while ago we just made a series of apologies and forelock-tuggings about the use of underpaid foreign labour to build the Canadian Pacirfic, i.e. to bring British Columbia into Confederation. This was ALSO a federal government agenda (i.e. John A. MacDonald’s) though historically British Columbians were blamed for it (though actually not wanting it at all…).
What struck me as doubly ironic about this, re the indentured Mexican labour used to build the Canada Line, who were working for 1/3 the wages a Canadian would have been paid, is that the same ethnic business community that makes an agenda about underpaid railway workers in the past didn’t raise a peep about having their shiny new suburb getting a rail line built by underpaid labour from another ethnicity/country. In fact, they politically supported it and voted for the parties that made it happen – the BC Libs and the federal Tories (interestingly the same party that insisted on cheap Chinese guest workers rather than British immigrants, which was the BC government’s preference but Ottawa was unwilling to subsidize). So racism and hypocrisy in relation to foreign “guest workers” aren’t limited to “white” Canadians, thank you very much.
Also every time you open a bottle of Okanagan wine and think about how great it is BC has “world class wines” (or ones it promotes that way anyway), give some thought to the Mexican and other Latin American guest workers who help keep the vinyards profitable by being willing to work for less than “real Canadians” (well, actually they’re also being used to displace the unruly quebecois youth who traditionally have been the migratory crop pickers there).
The rise in use of Mexican and other Latin American indentured labour in BC is barely discussed; I suppose because there isn’t a powerful or vocal (or rich) lobby of Mexican Canadians to bring attention to it. No doubt there’s more Mexican guest workers than there are Mexican immigrants, also. Hm I wonder if their conditions are any better, or worse, than Mexicans and Mexican American labourers in the neighbouring areas of Washington….
Metta Spencer // Aug 23, 2010 at 2:34 pm
Sorry, Seth, but this time I have to disagree with you. The issue is not a matter of racism or of opposition to immigration. I took in a refugee family from Sri Lanka, who lived with me in various combinations for six years, during which time the father became the most important Tiger leader in Canada. See my blog on the subject: http://metta-spencer.blogspot.com/2009/05/waiting-to-forgive.html
There is a plan now to re-group the LTTE for another effort to gain a separatist homeland. This is what has to be prevented. Unfortunately, the majority of Canadian Tamils either are, or pretend to be, fervently in favor of that cause. It is hard to know exactly what the distributions are, since some secret opponents of the Tigers still are afraid to say so openly. Some years ago I tried to organize a dialogue among Tigers, non-Tiger Tamils, and Sinhalese, but the non-Tigers were afraid to participate, lest they be pushed under a train on the way home. You need to examine the history of violence in this movement. It is not just a matter of excluding an ethnic community. Read Mark McKinnon’s recent piece in the Globe: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/the-impossible-voyage-of-a-tamil-ghost-ship/article1680852/?cmpid=rss1
Seth Klein // Aug 23, 2010 at 8:29 pm
Hi Metta,
Always nice to year from an old friend and committed peace activist. But your post does not alter my view. I read your blog about the Tamil family who lived with you, and the McKinnon piece in the Globe, and neither change the fact that the Tamil asylum seekers who have arrived are entitled to due process, and should not be presumed guilty because of who may or may not have organized the boat.
We simply do not know the individual circumstances of those who have arrived, or the threats they faced at home, and they deserve a fair hearing.
Moreover, the fact that someone may have had a connection to the Tigers in their past does not, it seems to be, preclude the possibility that they are nevertheless, in the wake of the civil war, legitimate refugees. We have never made a clear record of pacifism a requirement of immigration or refugee determination. In my life, I have known refugees who came to Canada, who in their youth were connected with rebel groups (whether in Eretria, or with the FMLN in El Salvador, and who were on the losing side of some other civil conflict), yet all faced very real threats of reprisal had they remained in their home countries, and came here as genuine refugees.
Metta Spencer // Aug 23, 2010 at 10:06 pm
I certainly want due process. I think they are getting that. I also have friends who have been guerrilla fighters in their homeland. The difference is that they left their war behind when they came. My anxiety is about people who intend to re-group and pick up the war. Having known the history of extortion and iotimidation here in Canada since 1983, I am keenly aware that the same thing could resume. The only thing that is required for that to resume is for people to be too polite to say no. I should have kicked my Tamil leader out of my house. It is a matter of profound guilt and remorse that I failed to do so, just to help the family continue denying what was happening. The pretense was asounding.
Luke // Aug 23, 2010 at 6:48 pm
Australia also faces these issue, this video was made for the recent elections and I hope made a small difference to peoples understanding of this vital human rights issue. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3C1ua_RyX4 I think it all comes down to educating people to the issues and not allowing major political parties play on the fears within parts of the community who are less informed.
Bill Bell // Aug 24, 2010 at 10:32 am
Seth, I’m glad you came to Canada.
Meghna // Aug 24, 2010 at 3:23 pm
I find the discussion between Seth Klein and Metta Spencer about human rights and offering due process of the law quite illuminating.
I am an immigrant and I well remember the feeling of years of desperate waiting…(I also remember how angry I was with illegal immigrants because I felt like they were cutting in line!)
Metta Spencer’s argument is informed about the realities of South Asian politics and context. How can Canada be compassionate and welcoming while at the same time not turn into a safe harbour for warriors from distant lands? When it comes to distant wars, research and records can be fudged. Law is largely based on factual records available. Thus the wars continue, fought by proxy, from here.
I also wanted to mention the Komagata Maru incident to which this bears many resemblances. Then the migrants were denied entry by courts and were labelled as terrorists by the media and the like. Some of the passengers were involved with the Indian independence struggle which was not all non-violent then. They were all sent back and most died untimely deaths at the hands of the colonial police in Asia.
I wish it was more black and white. It’s a grey zone.
Still why can’t we acknowledge all these complex and painful realities and still throw out a welcome mat? Why paint them all as victims? Why paint them all as Tigers? Will we ever know? And does it matter that once they set up home here, some of them might eventually fight for homelands elsewhere?
Sarah Leavitt // Aug 24, 2010 at 4:52 pm
Meghna, the last paragraph of your comment reminds me of the judgements that are often applied to women who are survivors of domestic violence. If they are not “pure victims” then they don’t deserve protection or support — i.e. if they used violence to protect themselves or to retaliate, if they themselves have a criminal history, if they use drugs or alcohol. Sometimes if a woman has done any of these things she is turned away from transition houses. It seems like a parallel to me. Thanks for your insights!
Cecilia Kalaw // Aug 24, 2010 at 11:54 pm
Thanks Seth for your insights on this. I really appreciate you pointing out some key contradictions to the mythology of Canada as somehow a more humanitarian and tolerant nation in the global community. Whether its the shamefully low #s accepted by Canada as asylum seekers, or the treatment of temporary workers, the chronic underemployment of legal immigrants (particularly those not coming from G8 countries) – we as Canadians need to face the structural forms of racism that persist in this country.
This is not to dismiss security concerns -but the uncanny historical parallels and repetition of both government and the public response, are too many to ignore: In 1914, there was the Komagata Maru; in 1939, 907 Jewish refugees on the SS St. Louis were forced to return to Germany; the more recent arrival of previous “boat people” from China, Vietnam, etc. – all have generated pretty much the same response.
Like it or not, xenophobia continues to be a strong current in the Canadian narrative. Naming and addressing it when it shows up in our social structures may help build a more constructive response. The more diverse the voices that speak out about it, the better.
Gio // Aug 25, 2010 at 6:40 pm
It is my feeling that the wider discussion about the Tamils, and how Canada is going to be inundated by queue jumpers, is a not-so-veiled discussion about xenophobia (fear of the foreign).
Canada already has proper laws dealing with refugees and refugee applications. Yes, the process is slow, but it is there and it works, even if no system is perfect.
It is a very slow process, but that is not because of migrant boats; rather, because a large proportion of current refugee claimants are, in fact, economic migrants who are trying to get around the restrictions of the Federal Skilled Worker application requirements.
I would also try to be careful when talking about temporary foreign workers: it is true, they are a vulnerable category. However, not all foreign workers are the same: some of them have Canadian university degrees and work experience, others work in occupations that cannot be filled by other workers… then there are the seasonal workers, who are one of the most vulnerable populations.
Also, most of these permits are subject to the approval of HRSDC through the Labour Market Opinion process, which is quite arduous in general, and even so during hard economic times.
Basically, it is hard to be accepted as a refugee, hard to get a renewal on a work permit, and hard to immigrate to Canada. However, here we are, trying to decide who the ‘problematic’ people are: the foreign workers…. no, the queue-jumpers…. no, the fake refugees… no, wait, someone else….
I agree squarely with Seth: migration (and therefore immigration) is a sign of the times, and a consequence of the state of the world we live in. Moreover, laws, no matter how harsh, cannot stop migrations once strong economic, environmental and social forces are in motion. This is a part of our past, but also current history: all we can do is find a way to deal with these changes in a socially responsible way.
Raghu // Aug 31, 2010 at 7:54 am
Very nice piece, Seth.
Though I found her otherwise moving blog piece contained some unfortunate generalizations about a very complex situation (eg “almost all Tamils went along with the Tigers”), the exchange with Metta Spencer raises some challenging questions.
But, as you say, these should not dissuade us from demanding due process and opposing the xenophobic hysteria that is now on display.
Metta’s questions are a matter of how progressive, pro-peace people in Canada relate to sections of expatriate communities supporting violent and sectarian politics “back home” — and also of what we do to make our government foster peace and social justice (rather than war, oppression and exploitation) in these same countries.
I would just add two points that I think complement or at least nuance your blog post.
I have grown a little wary of the romantic narrative of a “Canada built by waves of immigrants” that ignores the ways “immigration” has been used to feed cheap unskilled labour (or skilled labour trained at some other country’s expense) to Canada’s capitalists as well as to further the colonial-settler enterprise of the Canadian state. Your point on temporary foreign workers is very well taken in regard to the former; Lisa Barrett’s point about the First Nations welcoming committee is very moving in regard to the latter.
As to the political character of this specific arrival of Sri Lankan Tamil migrants, it may be helpful to point out that not all immigrants and refugees have had a “progressive” character (draft dodgers, Jews fleeing Nazism, etc). Many refugees and immigrants have had close connections with frankly despicable regimes — notably from Europe after the Nazi defeat in World War Two; and during the prolonged collapse of the British Empire. No one makes much of a fuss about these many millions of people (including their descendants) — and nor should they — but it’s pretty clear that the reason for this is that these people were/are largely “European” (ie. white and Christian) and because they were/are seen as a better fit to the Canadian state’s geopolitical interests.
I think these are also points worth considering in the current debate.
myna lee johnstone // Sep 6, 2010 at 5:10 pm
last week i got taken by ambulance from lady minto hospital on saltspring island to the jubilee in victoria for an echocardiogram, complications from pneumonia i had for over 3 weeks.
2 lovely female ambulance attendees took me back to the ferry. one of them was one of the few ambulance attendees who volunteered to help with the boat people.
there were actually few health problems but she said the security was unbelieveable. just to take a pregnant woman to the hospital there were 4 security people squeezed in the back as well and 2 or 3 in the front.rcmp and border guards. everywhere. Me thinks Canada’s security has changed drastically since the Vietnam war days.
Angela // Sep 8, 2010 at 5:01 pm
Thanks for adding your voice and mindful thoughts to the case of temporary foreign workers in BC (and rest of Canada). As host society, we need to educate ourselves about what is happening with our immigration system. As you pointed out Seth, less immigrants and refugees are being accepted into Canada. I have noticed that our immigration system draws attention towards our laws, policies and regulations and yet it continues lacking transparency and accountability in how decisions are made about who gets in who stays out. We are bringing into BC more low-skilled temporary foreign workers (janitors, food and drink servers, …) than any other category of migrant workers — many of them have been lied to by job brokers or misinformed by governments about the possibility of becoming a Canadian citizen. The Provincial Nominee Program is an example of Canada giving too much power to employers to define who makes a ‘good immigrant” — it is nearly impossible for low-skilled foreign workers to meet the conditions to become a Provincial Nominee and eventually apply for a permanent residence.
A more just immigration system would be more transparent about the benefits from the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, particularly from the Low-Skills Occupations Pilot Project. Please Sheila Fraser (Auditor Gral) can you help us with a report about costs and benefits of this program?