Budget bietet Massenamnestie für Asylsuchende
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/budget-offers-mass-amnesty-for-asylum-seekers
Budget bietet Massenamnestie für Asylsuchende
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/budget-offers-mass-amnesty-for-asylum-seekers
4 Kommentare
I just need someone from the government to explain to me how, in a cost of living and unemployment crisis, where we know bringing down immigration will help. Do we still continue to take in so many immigrants.
It just seems like we’re shooting ourselves in the foot. As a young person I’m starting to lose hope in ever having a future in this country.
We need more clarity on this! We clearly don’t have the capacity to accommodate that many people. Carney government must come clean.
These people will be taking spots from other qualified economic immigrants that our economy needs to survive. They are also more costly to maintain here. This is very disappointing.
Another interesting thing about the budget that has gotten zero press is that they’re projecting a total end to temporary lodging for asylum claimants in 2026-27 and an end to healthcare supports for asylum claimants and refugees in 2027-28. See page 272.
I don’t really know how this is possible. Perhaps after the amnesty most of the current backlog will be transferred entirely to provincial healthcare supports, so the federal cost estimates after 2027-28 are too uncertain to project, but presumably much lower than they are now.
This headline is misleading, even by the text of the article itself.
„Amnesty“ necessarily implies forgiveness of wrongdoing. Asylum claimants whose claims have not yet been processed have not committed any actionable wrong, so there’s nothing to give ‚amnesty‘ over.
The term here is being mis-adopted from the American context, where there is a legitimate debate about ‚amnesty‘ for long-term undocumented/illegal immigrants who otherwise have no right to remain in the country.
Funding processing to clear the backlog is precisely what a competent government should do here, even one that is generally opposed to asylum seekers. Asylum claimants can’t be removed until after their claims have been given a fair hearing, so slow-rolling the administration perversely keeps *more* claimants in the country under a liminal status.
This is what frustrates me most about knee-jerk populism such as this headline: broken processes encourage the very abuses that make headlines. If it takes (hypothetically) ten years to hear an asylum claim, an economic migrant might rationally file a false claim to ‚roll the dice‘ on future policy change or on building another case (such as humanitarian/compassionate grounds) to remain. If you want strict immigration policies, then you must also have a competent and speedy administration of those policies.