Court puts hold on refugee pact ruling

Jim Bronskill and Bruce Cheadle, THE CANADIAN PRESS

Published Thursday January 31st, 2008

OTTAWA - The Federal Court of Appeal has put a freeze on a recent ruling that overturned a controversial refugee pact between Canada and the United States.

In a decision Thursday, Chief Justice John Richard said there should be a full airing of arguments before the Safe Third Country Agreement is suspended.

Under the agreement, which took effect in December 2004, Canada and the U.S. recognize each other as safe places to seek protection.

It means Canada can turn back potential refugees at the Canada-U.S. border on the basis they must pursue their claims in the U.S., the country where they first arrived.

Canadian refugee advocates have vigorously fought the deal, arguing the U.S. is not always a safe country for people fleeing persecution.

Critics say claimants, including children, are often imprisoned for months or even years south of the border while their applications are processed.

In addition, more restrictive American rules and interpretation of who qualifies as a refugee mean that in the past some rejected by the U.S. were later accepted by Canada.

The Canadian Council for Refugees, the Canadian Council of Churches and Amnesty International successfully contested the agreement in Federal Court.

In a November decision, Justice Michael Phelan ruled the federal cabinet exceeded its jurisdiction in adopting the new system, saying the U.S. does not comply with United Nations conventions concerning the status of refugees and prohibition of torture.

He also concluded the return of a refugee claimant to the U.S. from Canada violated Charter of Rights guarantees of equality and life, liberty and security.

The government asked the Court of Appeal to put the ruling on hold, arguing a sudden end to the Safe Third Country Agreement would prompt an influx of refugees into Canada from the United States, overwhelming border officers.

Janet Dench, executive director of the Council for Refugees, was dismayed by the latest decision.

"Obviously we're extremely disappointed and actually shocked that the court would put the administrative convenience of the government over the lives of refugees," she said.

"We know that people do come up to the border, are turned back and end up deported to their country of origin."

Among the council's submissions to the court was an affidavit from a woman whose husband was killed in Honduras after being detained at the Canadian border, sent back to the United States and deported.

Richard noted in his ruling, however, that there was no evidence that the man made a refugee claim in the U.S. or of the circumstances surrounding his deportation.

Still, Dench pointed to the case Thursday as reason to be worried.

"The stakes are really high," she said. "We don't know for sure in coming months whether this will happen to other people. But there's certainly a very real possibility that people will end up being sent back to face persecution, torture or even death."

In 2006, some 400 people were turned away at the Canadian border based on the Safe Third Country provisions.

Dench noted the Court of Appeal has agreed to an expedited review, but the hearing is likely some months away and a decision many months after that.

"It's not a good day."

Despite the ruling Thursday, New Democrat MP Olivia Chow said she would try next week to put a motion before the Commons immigration committee to end the Safe Third Country agreement.

If successful, the motion would go to the full Commons for a vote, potentially pre-empting the coming appeal hearing.

http://www.canadaeast.com/news/article/199217

Judge strikes down law limiting refugee claims

Ottawa is appealing a court ruling that has the potential to significantly increase the number of people making refugee claims in Canada.

On Thursday, a Federal Court judge struck down the contentious Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and the United States.

The agreement, which came into force in 2004, requires would-be refugees to make their claims in the first of the two countries in which they land. That has prevented claimants from landing in the U.S. and crossing the border to make an application in Canada, significantly reducing the number of claimants.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada said the number of claims filed at its land border offices in the U.S. dropped by 40 per cent in the year after the change.

Under this agreement, the U.S. is considered a safe third country. But in November, Justice Michael Phelan found the U.S. does not meet international requirements for protecting refugees or conventions against torture.

On Thursday, the judge went a step further, ruling the agreement would end on Feb. 1. But Citizenship and Immigration Canada spokeswoman Karen Shadd-Evelyn says the government will appeal, seeking a stay of the judge's decision until a higher court settles the issue.When the agreement was put in place, the government said the aim was to end "asylum shopping."

But the Canadian Council for Refugees, the Canadian Council of Churches, Amnesty International and a Colombian asylum seeker living in the U.S. filed a lawsuit against the agreement in Federal Court. The groups cited Maher Arar's deportation to Syria and subsequent torture as an illustration of the treatment refugees could face from U.S. authorities in the post-Sept. 11 era.

"Unfortunately the Canadian government, like many governments, is looking for ways to reduce the number of refugees that claim protection here," Janet Dench, executive director of the Canadian Council for Refugees, told CBC News.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2008/01/18/refugees.html

Defend the Border

The CBC’s new show can only help “the bad guys”

The phrase “defend the border” wasn’t always a metaphor. And it isn’t just a metaphor in many parts of the world, even today: some states do have to worry about overland military invasions.

Canada is not such a state. To the degree that it is, the only conceivable invader is, of course, the United States. Those in Canada who talk about “defending the border” are distinctly unconcerned about such a possibility. They are, instead, making an analogy for a set of power institutions designed to keep “them” out and “us” safe.

Some argue that the threat of terrorism to Canada is so great that it outweighs any mushy, politically correct concerns. The historian J.L. Granatstein, in his book, “Whose War Is It?” makes such claims (1). So, with its new show, does the CBC, a point to which I’ll return below. Stripped down to basics, his argument is that Canada, to be safe, needs to subordinate its foreign policy to the US and join its War on Terror wholeheartedly, instead of half-heartedly. The most incredible aspect of his book, however, is that Granatstein relies on fiction – literally, entirely fictional scenarios about Muslim terrorists releasing poison gas in a Toronto subway at the same time as a natural disaster on the West Coast – to demonstrate how Canada needs to have better military preparedness. Granatstein can’t find real threats to justify his policy suggestions, so he makes them up. The detention of over a dozen young Muslim men in Toronto for over a year, accused of some sort of convoluted terrorist plot and possibly entrapped by the authorities, suggests that perhaps Canada’s police and intelligence agencies are also in the business of making up threats (2).

To read more click HERE

Lipan Apache plea for help, Homeland Security deadline to seize lands January 7, 2007

Lipan Apache women and elders issued a call for help to resist the seizure of their lands.

By Margo_Tamez

This is a request for immediate intervention on behalf of indigenous land title holders of the rancheria of El Calaboz, La Paloma, and El Ranchito in South Texas. I am writing to you this evening as the indigenous peoples of El Calaboz, La Paloma and El Ranchito rancherias in South Texas express grave fear for their safety, their livelihoods, and being ripped violently apart from our sacred lands held in our communities prior to contact with Spanish settlers and empresarios, and thereafter, in continuity.

Elders, such as Eloisa Garcia Tamez, and others in our communities threatened with Eminent Domain, by the Department of Homeland Security and carried out by Secretary Chertoff, have authorized me to request immediate emergency intervention from the International Indian Treaty Council at this time.

The 30-day period which Chertoff forced upon the threatened communities will expire on January 7, 2008.

Today, an emergency national conference call was held to address key concerns of the South Texas independent indigenous rancherias whose lands are not only physically on the International Boundary (IB), but also whose traditional and titled lands (by Spanish, Mexican Republic and Texas Republic title) are dissected by the IB and are also in Tamaulipas, Mexico.

We are communities of both indigenous Hleh pai nde'--the Light Gray People, the independent Lipan Apache of the San Pedro de Carricitos Land Grant of 1786. As well we are communities of Basque-Nde' and Basque-Comanche peoples who are the First Peoples of the contact period after 1745 when Basque laborers toiled under harsh conditions and mixed in with the indigenous of the region to survive colonial mission, presidio, hacendado and empresario rulers.

Today the impacted communities of South Texas held a conference call with allies from Tohono O'odham, Yaqui, Jumano Apache, as well as a team of committed civil and human rights attorneys, land grant attorneys, human rights attorneys, activist organizations, and academic activist-scholars from the University of Texas system. We heard the voices of the first impacted communities of this horrendous 'border security project'--the voices of mothers, daughters, uncles, fathers, and grandparents whose lives and lands are currently under threat of eminent occupation on January 7, 2008.

Tonight, my mother, Eloisa Garcia Tamez, expressed to me that more and more elders are giving up--and considering surrendering to Secretary Chertoff, due to their advanced age, their sense of hopelessness, isolation and extreme fear of an impending sense of doom which the national media churns out daily on the television and papers--militarized violence.

This fear is not unfounded. Our community is all too familiar with militarization, as we are a hyper-militarized and occupied region.

My mother, tonight, fearfully recalled to me the reason why she believes some elders will surrender and sign the waiver which will forcibly relocate them. In the mid 1930's the army came to build the so-called 'secure levee'--which was forced upon the community. At that time the army constructed a dangerous levee system, against wishes of the the traditional indigenous farmers--my great grand parents and grand parents, grand uncles and grand aunts included. At that time, they forced a massive destruction of the traditional fields, and flooded our all of our families to the south of us. Women, children and elders were flooded out and vanished horrifically--a dramatic display of hyper-militarized power to dominate through terror, and bring my ancestors under the authority of the U.S. Army.

My mother retold me, tonight, that she remembers how during this time period the U.S. Army and Border Patrol ran their vehicles into the front doors of the small jacals (traditional shelters, or 'gowas'--wickiups) and how she ran and ran ... in fear of being run over and killed and seeing her family destroyed. She recounted how they burst open doors and forced their way in the homes and how she hid under the bed as the soldiers destroyed everything in their maniacal rampages against the indigenous. Thus, tonight, the elders, who were also vulnerable teens and young children at that time--again--specifically regarding the trauma associated with the U.S. Army Engineers' 'levee', are all too cognizant of the subversive ways of the U.S. government, forced occupation and militarized terror tactics. They fear that none will ever know that it will happen again--because the level of policing and Marshall law at the I.B. is so hyper militarized, so naturalized and so normalized that no one would even blink an eye if they are all overrun again.

Therefore, as the days draw close to the January 7 deadline, more elders who are sick, exhausted and overstressed by the national terror being focused upon the small and defenseless rancherias --are talking about surrendering.

We empathize with them and are encouraging them through our voices and prayers. However, my mother and many others, are gaining strength and productive structures to express and organize their outrage and sense of justice --from the national and international support pouring into us. We are firmly committed to the longer struggle for justice.

Our community has fought hand to hand with U.S. soldiers in prior waves of empire, and we will not, as my mother says, ever surrender. My mother gave me permission tonight to go forward and to request formally that the IITC step in on our behalf and respond with immediate intervention, for this is a struggle that is inclusive, and foregrounds an indigenous democracy--one that is horizontal and far-reaching. At this time, we invite you to join the Working Group.

The Working Group is holding a national press conference telephonic call on Monday, January 7, 2006.

We will keep you advised of further details regarding the legal and political defense of the land title holders of El Calaboz rancheria.
Respectfully, Margo_Tamez To Margo Tamez

From Bill Means, International Indian Treaty Council

As one of the founders and present Board Members of the International Indian Treaty Council I want to give my total support to saving your tradtional lands and comunities. You are right that unless there is massive support the US general public will never know or care about what is happening on the US-Mexico border. The continuous Human Rights violations by the US must be exposed. Is it only white people who are welcomed to the US? Where is the Statue of Liberty for the Southern Border of the US? Where is Ellis Island? Give Me your tired, your hungry, your huddled masses! Is this just for white people? The US policy on the US-Mexico border is totally racist! IITC is in support!

Toksha, Bill

Les demandeurs du statut de réfugié – Les États-Unis ne sont pas un pays sûr, dit un juge fédéral

Hélène Buzzetti
Le Devoir Édition du samedi 01 et du dimanche 02 décembre 2007

Le gouvernement pourrait devoir réécrire l'accord d'harmonisation signé dans la foulée du 11-Septembre

Ottawa -- Les groupes de défense des réfugiés crient victoire: un jugement rendu jeudi a démoli l'accord d'harmonisation signé avec les États-Unis dans la foulée des attentats terroristes du 11 septembre 2001. À moins d'en appeler, le Canada devra récrire sa loi.

Cet accord, c'est celui dit des «pays tiers sûrs». Le Canada l'a signé avec les États-Unis mais avec aucun autre pays de la planète. Il prévoit qu'un réfugié ne peut demander l'asile que dans un ou l'autre de ces deux pays. Si cette personne a mis les pieds d'abord aux États-Unis (comme dans 40 % des cas avant l'entrée en vigueur de cette entente), elle doit y soumettre sa demande. Officiellement, ce règlement visait à mettre un terme au «magasinage» d'un pays d'accueil. Dans les faits, il a jugulé le flot des demandes d'asile au Canada.

Les groupes de défense des réfugiés se sont toujours opposés à cette entente en rappelant que les États-Unis avaient une politique d'accueil beaucoup plus sévère. Dans les années 80, lorsque les États-Unis soutenaient plusieurs dictatures sud-américaines, ils refusaient le statut de réfugié aux ressortissants de ces pays alors que le Canada les acceptait.

Ces groupes se sont donc adressés à la Cour fédérale et ont gagné jeudi. Dans son verdict de 124 pages, le juge Michael Phelan pose un jugement lapidaire: les États-Unis ne devraient pas être considérés comme un pays sûr. Pourquoi? Parce qu'ils ne respectent pas la Convention contre la torture, notamment en retournant des personnes dans leur pays d'origine même si elles risquent d'y être maltraitées. Le juge Phelan rappelle le célèbre cas de Maher Arar, renvoyé par Washington vers les salles de torture syriennes.

«Bien qu'il ne s'agisse pas ici de juger la cause Maher Arar, écrit le juge, la cour prend note des conclusions du rapport Arar. Même si les États-Unis n'ont pas participé aux travaux, ils ont signalé à la commission qu'ils respectaient l'article 3 de la Convention contre la torture. Les faits entourant le cas Arar nous fournissent des raisons de douter sérieusement de cette affirmation.»

Plus loin, le juge écrit que le gouvernement canadien a eu tort de tenir pour acquis que les États-Unis s'acquittaient de leurs obligations internationales en matière de lutte contre la torture. En conclusion, écrit-il, «les politiques et les pratiques des États-Unis ne répondent pas aux conditions établies permettant au Canada de conclure [avec eux] une entente sur les pays tiers sûrs».

Les États-Unis ont répliqué hier soir par la bouche de leur ambassade. «Nous avons un bilan reluisant en matière d'accueil et de protection des réfugiés, de défense des droits de la personne et de respect de nos obligations découlant de traités. C'est pourquoi les États-Unis accueillent plus de réfugiés que n'importe quel autre pays au monde et restent un havre de paix et d'espoir.»

Pas de changement immédiat

Pour le moment, ce jugement n'a aucun impact: le juge Phelan a accordé aux parties jusqu'au 14 janvier pour lui faire des recommandations d'ordonnance. La Loi sur les pays tiers sûrs sera-t-elle abrogée? Ottawa portera-t-il la cause en appel? «Nous soupesons nos options», a indiqué une porte-parole au ministère de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration.

«Je suis très heureuse d'assister à cette intervention de la part de la Cour fédérale», a lancé Janet Dench, directrice du Conseil canadien pour le statut de réfugié, à l'origine de cette cause.

Avec l'entente sur les pays tiers sûrs, très peu de demandeurs arrivés au Canada par la voie terrestre sont acceptés. Une personne qu'on sait avoir d'abord séjourné aux États-Unis est immédiatement refoulée à la frontière. Les États-Unis emprisonnent les demandeurs plus souvent que ne le fait le Canada. La réunification familiale est devenue plus difficile.

«Cette entente a été signée pour tenter de réduire le nombre de réfugiés au Canada, et ç'a marché», déplore Joseph Allen, président de l'Association des avocats en droit de l'immigration.

«Un grand nombre d'Haïtiens sont tout simplement refusés aux États-Unis. Même s'ils ont vécu là-bas quelques années, on les ôte à leurs enfants, ceux-ci étant placés dans des centres d'hébergement, et ils sont expédiés en Haïti», ajoute M. Allen. «Le Canada ne retourne personne à Haïti à cause des risques.»

À la Chambre des communes, ce jugement a eu des échos. «Comme cette entente contreviendrait à la Charte canadienne et aux conventions internationales que le Canada a signées, le ministre entend-il renégocier les termes de cette entente?», a lancé la bloquiste Meili Faille. Le gouvernement s'est limité à dire, comme c'est toujours le cas dans ce genre de dossier, qu'il devait d'abord analyser le jugement.

Du côté du NPD, on s'est déjà fait une idée: cette entente doit être annulée. «Vous savez ce que le juge a fait?, a lancé le chef Jack Layton. Il a fait ce que Stephen Harper refuse de faire, soit de renoncer au style George W. Bush quand vient le temps de traiter de questions internationales et d'affirmer l'indépendance et l'autonomie canadiennes.»

L'entente, conclue en principe en décembre 2001, est entrée en vigueur en décembre 2004. Le nombre de demandeurs du statut de réfugié est alors passé d'environ 19 000 à moins de 15 000.

Hier, les libéraux se sont défendus d'avoir adopté cette mesure par réflexe sécuritaire. «Nous avons été aspirés dans cette nouvelle ère de sécurité et de coopération, a expliqué le député Omar Alghabra. À l'époque, c'était sensé. Maintenant que nous avons testé ce régime pendant quelques années, il serait normal de faire un retour en arrière et d'apprendre de nos erreurs, des lacunes de l'entente, et de la revoir.»

ASYLUM SEEKERS: SAFE THIRD COUNTRY DEAL

Ottawa mulls options on refugee agreement
The Canadian Press
December 1, 2007

OTTAWA -- Armed with a major court victory, advocates urged the federal government yesterday to scrap a deal that sees Canada turn refugee claimants back to the U.S. to face deportation and possible torture in their home countries.

Opposition MPs, Amnesty International and other groups called on Ottawa to scrap the so-called Safe Third Country Agreement after a Federal Court judge ruled it violates refugee rights. The government says the deal remains in effect while it mulls its response.

"We're considering the options now," said Citizenship and Immigration spokeswoman Karen Shadd-Evelyn. "The court has given the parties time to make submissions regarding an appeal."

Lawyers for both sides have until Jan. 14 to file papers for a final court order, which would likely strike down the agreement based on the judge's reasons. It will then be up to Ottawa to decide whether to appeal the outcome - a move that could take years to ultimately clear the Supreme Court of Canada.

Mr. Justice Michael Phelan of the Federal Court said the U.S. can't be considered a "safe country" for asylum seekers from such countries as Haiti, for example, because it doesn't comply with international refugee protections against torture.

Unlike the U.S., Canada will not deport back to Haiti.

Judge Phelan also said the deal is unfair because it turns back claimants who arrive from the United States by land, while those who fly to Canada can stay to make their case.

Rather than appeal the ruling, refugee advocates say Canada should reassert its traditional role of defending some of the world's most vulnerable people.

"We have a judgment that in clear, stark, detailed ways highlights the multiplicity of human-rights violations and shortcomings in the refugee system that await asylum claimants who are turned away from the Canadian border and forced into the U.S.," said Alex Neve, secretary-general of Amnesty International Canada.

U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins countered in a statement yesterday that his country "has a proud record of accepting and protecting refugees, defending human rights and adhering to our treaty obligations.

"Last year alone, the United States accepted more refugees for resettlement than any other country, according to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees," Mr. Wilkins said.

However, the UN refugee agency also spoke out in October against Canada's practice of summarily sending refugee claimants back to the U.S. - even when they're entitled to seek asylum here.

The practice again made headlines when four refugees from Haiti and one from El Salvador were sent back to the U.S. on Oct. 8 from the Lacolle, Que., border point near Montreal. Two of the five were later detained in the United States, said the UN high commissioner's office, making it difficult for advocates to track their fate.

NDP immigration critic Olivia Chow has already submitted a motion seeking support from the Commons all-party citizenship and immigration committee to support scrapping the safe third country deal.

The 2004 Safe Third Country Agreement struck under the former Liberal government was billed as a means of allowing both Canada and the U.S. to better manage the flow of asylum seekers.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20071201.ASYLUM01/EmailTPStory/National

Third-party asylum repugnant to Charter, federal court rules

UNNATI GANDHI AND COLIN FREEZE

November 30, 2007

Citing the example of Maher Arar, a Federal Court judge ruled yesterday that Canada must reconsider a reciprocal refugee-processing agreement with the United States because Washington flouts conventions meant to safeguard immigrants against torture in their homelands.

Experts say the effect of the ruling may ultimately be that Canada will have to process thousands more refugee claimants each year, now that the continued existence of the Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA), passed in 2004, is in question.

Mr. Justice Michael Phelan wrote that the U.S. does not comply with international refugee conventions and that the Canadian government, in entering into the agreement, "acted unreasonably" in concluding that it did.

"... The United States' policies and practices do not meet the conditions set down for authorizing Canada to enter into a STCA," Judge Phelan wrote in his 126-page decision.

"The U.S. does not meet the Refugee Convention requirements nor the [UN] Convention Against Torture prohibition (the Maher Arar case being one example). Further, the STCA does not comply with the relevant provisions of the Charter."

Mr. Arar was under Canadian investigation in 2002 when U.S. officials stopped him at a New York airport and sent him to the Middle East to be interrogated as an alleged al-Qaeda suspect. His complaints of being wrongly smeared at home and tortured overseas were upheld by a judicial inquiry last year, causing Canada to reconsider many of its laws and practices.

Judge Phelan also concluded that the Canadian government has not conducted the ongoing review of the STCA mandated by Parliament "despite both the significant passage of time since the commencement of the STCA and the evidence as to U.S. practices currently available."

The STCA requires refugee claimants to seek protection in the first country they reach, and has allowed Canada to automatically send refugee claimants at the border back to the United States, from where they are usually detained or deported.

The result has meant a dramatic drop in the government's refugee caseload, one immigration expert says, reducing the number of asylum claims in Canada by as much as 50 per cent.

"By removing the Safe Third, we can reasonably expect to see a new significant inflow of refugee claimants to Canada from the United States. The door will soon be open ... [because] the Federal Court decision has made it virtually impossible for the Safe Third Country Agreement to continue to exist," said Richard Kurland, a Vancouver lawyer and immigration policy consultant.

Karen Shadd-Evelyn, a spokeswoman with Citizenship and Immigration Canada, read a prepared statement that said the STCA remains in effect, as the court has given both parties until Jan. 14 to make and respond to submissions for an appeal.

Janet Dench, executive director of the Canadian Council for Refugees, which mounted the legal challenge based on the argument that the U.S. is not a safe country for refugee claimants, said the court's decision is significant.

"It is very good to see a court is taking seriously the human rights of refugees because there are times when we feel the rights of refugees don't count for much around the world."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/freeheadlines/LAC/20071130/ASYLUM30/national/National

Migrants arrested near Quebec-Vermont border

TU THANH HA

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

October 17, 2007 at 5:12 AM EDT

MONTREAL — More than 40 South American asylum seekers have been arrested in the past week near the Quebec-Vermont border in what an official said was a crackdown against an unusual surge in illegal immigration.

"This is a major spike in the number of people crossing illegally. It's a significant number," said Dominique McNeely, a spokesman for the Canada Border Services Agency.

Four of those arrested were charged: two for smuggling people and two for being in Canada illegally, Mr. McNeely said.

Most of the 43 people apprehended are from Colombia, and some are Venezuelans, said Claire Desgens, a Sherbrooke legal-aid lawyer contacted by the newcomers.

One of the four people charged is a U.S. citizen, and another is a Colombian with permanent residency status in the United States.

The arrests were made by CBSA and the RCMP around Stanstead, a small town sitting right on the border, 165 kilometres southeast of Montreal.

The majority of the 43 have been released and, having applied for refugee status, are now in the Montreal area awaiting a hearing before the Immigration Refugee Board, Ms. Desgens said.

Mr. McNeely said the migrants entered via unguarded roads around Stanstead in Quebec's Eastern Townships.

An immigration agent who testified at the bail hearing of one of the four accused said the authorities believe that the refugee claimants might have received bad advice.

Ms. Desgens noted that, in many cases, people who are portrayed by immigration officials as smugglers are, in fact, relatives living in the United States who were accompanying the asylum seekers.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071017.wborder17/BNStory/National/home

40 arrested in RCMP border sweep near Stanstead

CanWest News Service

Published: 6 hours ago

Forty people were arrested, including some charged with human smuggling, in an RCMP operation conducted near the U.S. border.

Four individuals are being charged with either human smuggling or not reporting to a border station.

Officials would not provide details about the remaining individuals arrested last week in the vicinity of Stanstead, about 150 kilometres southeast of Montreal, but a lawyer says they are claiming refugee status.

Intercepted and arrested," confirmed Dominique McNeely of the CBSA. "Charges were laid by (the CBSA) against four individuals in virtue of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act."

"It's rare that we arrest such a large number of people; this doesn't happen often," McNeely said.

"During the operation some 40 individuals wereRCMP Cpl. Luc Bessette said the Mounties expected to announce today the results of the "targeted operation," which also involved U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

"Following information obtained via our partners we conducted a strategic operation last week resulting in rather impressive results," he said, without providing further details.

"Most of the people who have entered are claiming refugee status," said Claire Desgens, the lawyer for a man charged with not reporting to the border station. A vast majority of those arrested were Colombian, she said. Those being criminally charged are not claiming refugee status because they are either U.S. nationals or permanent residents there.

U.S. and Canadian authorities announced this year they would seek to close three unguarded side streets that run across that border, but barriers have yet to the put in place McNeely said.

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=dda6962b-86e8-472b-85da-0eb53d3b7d00&k=25272

Une grenade avec ça?

Alain Dubuc

Collaboration spéciale, La Presse

Grande nouvelle. Nos douaniers seront enfin armés. Le ministre fédéral de la Sécurité publique, Stockwell Day, a présenté, mercredi au poste de Lacolle, les 26 premiers agents québécois à avoir suivi la formation leur permettant d'accrocher fièrement un révolver à la ceinture.

Je me demande encore à quoi ça servira. Qu'est ce qu'un fonctionnaire, dont la tâche principale consiste à demander aux milliers de Canadiens qui reviennent chez eux combien ils rapportent de bouteilles de boisson, pourra bien faire avec un gun? Pourquoi pas des grenades? Et ce n'est que le début. S'il n'en tient qu'au ministre, d'ici six ou sept ans, l'ensemble des 4800 douaniers canadiens seront armés. Cette mesure, parfaitement inutile tant qu'il n'y aura pas un changement majeur dans la vocation et le fonctionnement des douanes, illustre l'absurdité de notre système de protection frontalière.

L'idée d'armer les douaniers résulte d'une convergence assez rare entre deux cultures antinomiques. D'une part, une culture syndicale qui milite depuis des années pour que ses membres soient armés, comme leurs vis-à-vis américains, pour des raisons de sécurité, mais beaucoup pour le statut que confère le port d'armes, et les salaires qui viennent avec. D'autre part, une culture conservatrice de loi et d'ordre, pour qui un douanier armé est un symbole tangible de l'engagement du gouvernement pour un Canada musclé.

Système lourd et coûteux

Mais ça va donner quoi? Pas grand-chose, sinon un sentiment factice de sécurité pour les douaniers. On le voit bien en regardant une à une les fonctions d'un douanier.

À l'heure actuelle, la fonction première de nos douanes est la perception fiscale. Le gros du temps et de l'énergie des douaniers est consacré à débusquer les achats excessifs des Canadiens à l'étranger, et surtout, vérifier la quantité de tabac et d'alcool qu'ils rapportent.

Ce système de perception est lourd et coûteux. Et ce type de taxation, qui remonte à l'antiquité, a perdu son sens économique dans un monde de libre-échange. Et, pour revenir à notre sujet, faut-il un pistolet pour vérifier les emplettes aux USÀ des touristes canadiens?

Porosité de la frontière

Bien sûr, les douanes ont des fonctions plus nobles, comme la sécurité et la protection du territoire. Mais nous savons bien que ce n'est pas la perspicacité des douaniers aux postes frontières qui nous protège de la drogue, des armes ou des terroristes, mais bien davantage les enquêtes policières. Armer les douaniers ne sera donc pas d'un grand secours. Pas plus que pour l'autre fonction essentielle, le contrôle de l'immigration, où les douaniers jouent un rôle très utile.

On est saisi de la même perplexité quand on regarde non pas les fonctions des douaniers, mais leur lieu d'activité. Il y a deux types de point d'entrée au Canada, aériens et terrestres. Dans le cas des aéroports, par définition, la clientèle que rencontrent les douaniers sort des avions et a donc été contrôlée au lieu de départ. De toute façon, ce ne sont pas les douaniers dans leurs cubicules qui assurent la sécurité des aéroports.

La seule utilité potentielle des armes à feu serait donc aux postes terrestres. Mais la géographie particulière du Canada fait qu'il a un seul voisin, les États-Unis. Il est vrai que ce pays, marqué par le 11 septembre, se plaint, à tort, de la porosité de la frontière canadienne. Mais les armes de nos douaniers ne serviront pas à contrôler ce qui entre aux É.-U., mais plutôt ce qui en sort. Drôle de paradoxe.

Concilier sécurité et fluidité

Mais en plus, en armant nos douaniers, on contribuera à rendre la frontière canado-américaine moins conviviale. Déjà, les Américains, paranoïaques, multiplient les signaux: douaniers plus hostiles, contrôles protectionnistes, et bientôt, obligation du passeport. Nous prenons le même chemin, celui de construire un mur entre deux pays amis liés par le libre-échange.

Tout cela nous éloigne de la résolution du principal défi dans la gestion des points d'entrée, concilier la sécurité et la fluidité. Les États-Unis, dans leur délire, et le Canada, dans sa bureaucratie, ont créé une situation absurde. Des attentes inacceptables à nos aéroports, des files interminables aux postes frontière, d'autant plus irritants que l'on peut traverser une douane européenne en quelques secondes.

C'est tout cela qu'il faut repenser. Réduire au maximum les fonctions inutiles de perception fiscale, en augmentant sensiblement les plafonds d'achat à l'étranger, pour que les citoyens n'aient rien à déclarer et puissent entrer avec le moins de contrôle possible. Pour redéployer les énergies des douaniers là où elles sont nécessaires, le contrôle de l'immigration, la protection des points d'entrée actuellement sans surveillance, et les enquêtes, où, peut-être, une arme sera utile.

http://www.cyberpresse.ca/article/20071005/CPOPINIONS05/710050750/5034/CPOPINIONS

Refugee advocate arrested at Lacolle border crossing

IRWIN BLOCK, The Gazette

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=02346cb7-998c-4036-ba6c-650ecbd92132

A prominent U.S. refugee advocate has been arrested by Canadian authorities as she was helping 12 Haitians seeking asylum in Canada.

Janet Hinshaw-Thomas, a director of Pennsylvania based Prime - Ecumenical Commitment to Refugees, was taken into custody around noon yesterday at the St. Bernard de Lacolle border crossing.

According to her Montreal lawyer, this is the first time in Canada a section of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act of June 2002 has been invoked against a human rights worker.

Section 117 makes it a crime to "organize, induce, aid or abet" the entry into Canada of persons who do not have a visa or passport.

There are no exceptions in the law for church-based or other human rights personnel, Erik Paradis, a spokesperson for the Canada Border Services Agency, said yesterday.

Montreal lawyer Mitchell Goldberg, who is acting for Hinshaw-Thomas, said he knows of no other cases when "someone acting for humanitarian motives has been arrested" under the act.

"It was designed to deter smugglers and people who are trafficking, not people who are saving lives.

"Numerous organizations based in the U.S. and Canada have been bringing refugees to the border in co-operation with the border services agency - even given the power to schedule appointments with them."

Hinshaw-Thomas had warned the agency she was arriving with seven children and five adults, he added.

Goldberg likened her arrest to detaining Raoul Wallenberg, the Swedish diplomat who issued visas to thousands of Jews in Hungary in 1944, saving them from death camps.

"She's a hero - I don't think the Canadian people want us to prosecute people who are saving lives," he said.

Goldberg said the 12 Haitians will not be directed back to the U.S., but as of last night had not yet been admitted to Canada.

Haiti is among eight countries that are temporarily exempt from the safe third country agreement, allowing them to seek refugee status in Canada when they enter from the U.S.

If charged, Hinshaw-Thomas faces fines of up to $1 million or life in prison.

Refugee overload

Mayor appeals to Ottawa for help as city faces social services crunch

Doug Schmidt and Dave Battagello, Windsor Star

Published: Thursday, September 20, 2007

JUST ARRIVED: Concepcion Montiel and her daughter Perla, 2, arrived in Windsor this week looking for refugee status. They spent the past few years in Naples, Fla.

- Scott Webster, Windsor Star

With city shelters full and a surge of further refugee claimants expected to flood into Windsor, Mayor Eddie Francis is pleading for financial help from Ottawa.

"When there is a possibility of adding thousands to the local social assistance system as a result of refugee claimants crossing the border into Windsor, we will become overwhelmed and our current resources will not suffice," Francis said in a letter sent Wednesday to Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Over the past three weeks, 45 families and 31 individuals -- approximately 200 people -- entered Canada at the Detroit River crossings and applied in Windsor for shelter and social assistance after filing refugee claims with the Canada Border Services Agency. Municipal agencies dealing with the sudden influx of mainly Mexican refugee applicants are renting hotel rooms and bracing for predicted thousands more to come.

"We don't have the means, ability or capacity to deal with this additional cost. We are not able to deal with this potential crisis locally," Francis wrote Harper.

"I don't believe that Windsor's residents and taxpayers should have to foot the bill for U.S. immigration policy," Francis told The Star. He was referring to the suspected source of the problem -- a recent crackdown on illegal immigrants in economically struggling regions of the U.S. South.

With the bulk of the latest arrivals being long-time Mexican illegals dislodged from their homes and workplaces in southwestern Florida, fingers are being pointed at unscrupulous outfits charging money and then directing desperate individuals and their families toward the Windsor border crossing.

"We are aware of these operations -- they have been advertising incorrect and false information," said Marina Wilson, a spokeswoman for Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Wilson said Canadian immigration authorities have started contacting the Mexican and Haitian communities in Florida, as well as local media there, to get the word out that nothing has changed in Canadian refugee policy.

"The fact someone wants to come here for better economic opportunity or a better quality of life ... that's no basis for a successful refugee claim," said Immigration Refugee Board (IRB) spokesman Charles Hawkins.

The Canadian Council for Refugees, a non-profit organization which helps refugees, has also issued a warning about the scams and has asked the federal government to intervene.

But a group operating out of Naples, Fla., vowed to continue sending the so-called economic refugees to Windsor.

"They ask, 'Is Canada an option?' and I say, 'Yes, it is an option,'" Jacques Sinjuste of the Jerusalem Haitian Community Center said in a phone interview Wednesday. For a US$300 "donation" (most of those interviewed in Windsor claim they paid US$400), JHCC staff download forms off the Internet, help applicants fill them out and give directions on how to get to the Canadian border.

Sinjuste said he's simply providing a "referral" service.

"Most of the time when the people come, they say they've heard something (about Canada). I say that I've heard the same thing," he said.

Concepcion Montiel, who arrived Monday with her husband and two-year-old daughter Perla, said the family decided to move after watching a news report on the Spanish channel Univision, which said Mexicans needed only a valid passport or birth certificate to gain legal status in Canada.

Her husband worked in construction but hadn't been able to find employment recently because of the downturn in the economy. "He wasn't working because there weren't any jobs available," Montiel said through a translator.

Montiel said she paid $400 to come to Canada in a bus along with another two families, but that the money covered only the cost of applying for refugee status.

Jacquie Rumiel, director of programs for new Canadians at the YMCA, where refugee claimants are referred by Windsor's border guards, said the new people she's seeing are mostly Mexicans coming from Florida.

To be successful, refugee claimants must prove they are fleeing persecution at home, something most of the Mexicans arriving in Windsor would be hard-pressed to do. The IRB's Hawkins said there was only a 13 per cent acceptance rate of refugee claims filed by Mexican nationals during the first six months of the year, compared to an overall rate of 47 per cent.

But the average processing time for a refugee claim in Canada is currently 14.2 months, said Hawkins, a period during which the applicant is eligible for financial and other support. A failed claimant then also has the right to seek leave to appeal his or her rejection to federal court.

Despite the high number of failed applications cited by the IRB, Sinjuste said he gets calls to his Naples centre from "a lot of people" who've arrived in Windsor. "They say everything is OK -- they are doing good, going to schools, going to work," he said.

Sinjuste said he was visited last week by an official from the Canadian consulate general in Miami but couldn't remember if he was told to stop helping economic refugees go to Canada.

"I don't think they tell me that," he said. Federal bureaucrats confirmed the meeting but said they couldn't divulge details.

Others are warning about the types of activities engaged in by Sinjuste.

"The way he's misleading the most vulnerable is infuriating," said Pegg Roberts, executive director of Detroit's Freedom House, which runs a shelter and assists asylum seekers with their refugee claims. Sinjuste said he uses the Freedom House website to download refugee claim forms and advises the people he assists to seek help there.

"I do not help economic refugees," said Roberts, adding her non-profit organization assists the fleeing victims of torture and war crimes and has no affiliation with the JHCC.

"This is a problem the U.S. has allowed to create. It's really unfair for Canada to have to face this," said MP Joe Comartin (NDP -- Windsor-Tecumseh), his party's public safety and national security critic.

He predicting that, "with few exceptions," most of these "economic claimants" will eventually be sent back.

http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/news/story.html?id=f77f322d-bae1-478c-b641-c8674c1398e0

Canada’s New Government to expand CBSA training facility in Rigaud

National 2007

Rigaud, Quebec, September 11, 2007 --The Honourable
Stockwell Day, Minister of Public Safety, and the
Honourable Michael M. Fortier, Minister of Public
Works and Government Services and Minister Responsible
for the Region of Montréal, today announced plans to
expand the Canada Border Services Agency’s (CBSA)
Learning Centre in Rigaud, Quebec, with an investment
of $50 million.

The renovations, which will be implemented over three
years, will allow the Centre to train approximately
220 more new recruits each year and to operate the new
CBSA firearms training program. The renovations
include a new indoor firing range, a multi-purpose
building and expanded residential capacity.

“CBSA officers help to ensure the safety and
prosperity of Canadians by keeping our border secure,
which is why Canada’s New Government is proudly
investing in new training programs and facilities,”
said Minister Day. “With this expansion, the Rigaud
facility will play an even greater role in training
and qualifying officers, including offering the new
firearms training.”

This project is a key component of the $101 million
initiative announced by Canada’s New Government in
Budget 2006 to begin arming CBSA officers and
eliminating work-alone situations. The expansion will
allow the CBSA to incorporate firearms training into
its Port of Entry Recruit Training program at the
Centre.

The CBSA Learning Centre is the Agency’s national
training facility, and it currently employs some 260
employees and contractors. Some 850 new recruits are
expected to be trained per year once the renovations
are complete, up from the 630 new recruits currently
being trained annually.

“The CBSA Learning Centre is a major local employer,
and the expansion project will bring even more
benefits to the local community,” said Minister
Fortier. “I am pleased that Canada’s New Government
has invested in this region’s future prosperity and in
Canada’s border security.”

The CBSA is responsible for facilitating the access of
people and goods to and from Canada, and for providing
integrated border services that support national
security and public safety priorities.

For more information, please visit the CBSA’s Web Site
at www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca.

-30-

For media information:

Mélisa Leclerc
Director of Communications
Office of the Honourable Stockwell Day
Minister of Public Safety
(613) 991-2863

Immigration raid a crisis school hadn't planned for

Cincinnati Enquirer:

DENISE SMITH AMOS

At Heritage Hill Elementary, where 65 percent of the students are Hispanic, the first day of school was nearly a crisis.

That day, Aug. 28, immigration agents raided Koch Foods, a poultry packing plant in Fairfield, and arrested 161 suspected illegal immigrants from Mexico, Guatemala, Peru and other countries.

Tianay Outlaw, principal at Heritage Hill, knew that some of her 310 students would be affected. With 45 percent of her students designated as "limited English proficient," Outlaw feared some youngster would be related to the detained workers.

"We found out almost immediately about the raid, because parents who worked there ... they called Heritage Hill," Outlaw said.

"One father said, 'Please, take care of the children,' " said Sonia Velez Rodriquez, a parent liaison and education aide at the school.

But which students? Who was going home after school to an empty house or apartment because of the raid? Whose families would be packing and leaving in fear, Outlaw wondered.

She tried to find out discreetly.

Because it was the first day of school, most parents hadn't yet filled out contact cards, indicating place of employment and emergency numbers.

Outlaw visited classrooms and asked students to raise their hands if they had parents working as a nurse. Or as a teacher. In a restaurant. Or elsewhere in the food business.

When she asked about Koch foods, five students raised their hands, though Outlaw suspected there were more.

"I was really trying to get information from them without alerting them or getting them nervous," she said.

When school ended and students boarded buses, teachers and school staff followed in cars, watching as children disembarked in neighborhoods and apartment complexes with high immigrant populations.

"We wanted to be sure of how many students would be affected and how many are not coming back," said Lynn Yosua, school psychologist.

Every child was met by a parent or relative, Outlaw said.

"We did see parents who had loaded up their cars and were ready to leave," Outlaw said. "They met us at the bus stop."

Some parents said they were unsure if their child would return to school; they didn't feel safe going home, said Velez Rodriquez.

"They took the most important things and they were gone," she said.

The next day at school about 20 kids were absent, but Outlaw said it was unclear how many absences were because of the raid.

Over the next few days, most students returned to school, Outlaw said, even though a few were not living at home but with relatives or friends.

Teachers talked with classes about how the raid affected some families, saying that some children may have to go back to the country their parents came from.

Only one student asked to speak with a school counselor.

"One student had nightmares because a family member was detained," said Lynn Yosua, school psychologist.

Yosua said Heritage Hill has crisis plans in place for most conventional threats to schools, such as natural disasters, but there's nothing in the crisis books about immigration raids.

"The unnerving thing was that this was the first day of school," Outlaw said. "But everyone went above and beyond the call of duty. Everyone had a common focus; it was the safety of our children."

Immigrants welcome - as long as they conform

Most Quebecers against open expression of non-Christian religion

Support for a "code of conduct" for minorities is one of the paradoxes found in our poll about issues related to reasonable accommodation. Part 3 in a five-day series, Identities.

Quebecers think of themselves as tolerant, open-minded people. They think immigration is a good thing and that minorities have a strong role to play in society.

But beneath the surface, many fear the changes that immigrants and other minorities bring - especially non-Christian ones, according to a wide-ranging poll commissioned by The Gazette of attitudes over the reasonable accommodation debate.

There's also a paradox: Some of the very same Quebecers who say we are strengthened by cultural and religious diversity also say immigrants should be more like the majority.

Seven out of 10 Quebecers say Quebec society has been enriched by diversity, that immigrants should have as much say in the future of Quebec as anyone, and that minorities should be given a chance to take part in public decisions, the Lger Marketing poll of 1,001 Quebecers found in late August.

The flip side of the picture was less encouraging.

One in three people polled said Quebec society is under threat by the arrival of non-Christian immigrants, two out of five said Quebec society is changing too fast because of the minorities living here, and more than half said immigrants should abandon their customs and traditions and be more like the majority, the poll found.

An even higher proportion - 58 per cent - said Quebec should adopt a "code of conduct" for minorities to follow when it comes to practising their religion and culture - the kind of code the village of Hrouxville did last year that stirred up a storm of controversy.

The poll reveals a passive double standard: a large majority of Quebecers disapproves of open expressions of religion, unless it's Christian.

"There's a large reservoir of guilt among French Canadians about the rapid rejection of Catholicism during the Quiet Revolution - that's a fact," said

sociologist Morton Weinfeld, who runs McGill University's Canadian ethnic studies program.

"And an easy way to assuage that guilt is by symbols - it's what I call religion-lite," Weinfeld said.

"People say, 'We don't have to go to church, we don't have to follow the dictates of the church, but we're very comfortable with all the visual imagery around us that reminds us of our heritage and reinforces our identity.'"

On specific issues, the poll found that Quebecers on the whole are against non-Christian accommodations:

They don't think Jews or Muslims should get time off work to pray (72 per cent are against).

They don't think religious minorities should get special meals at a traditional cabane sucre (69 per cent).

They don't want the government to subsidize religious schools (67 per cent).

They don't want Muslim women to walk around with their faces covered (63 per cent).

They don't want Muslim teachers to cover their hair with a

hijab (61 per cent);

They don't want Muslim girls to wear the hijab in school (61 per cent).

And they don't want prayer rooms in colleges and universities (59 per cent).

About the only thing they are willing to concede is hijabs in public. Two in three - 66 per cent - think it's OK for Muslim women to dress like that.

But when it comes to the most common expression of the Catholic religion - the crucifix that's displayed seemingly everywhere in Quebec, in schools, in nursing homes, in the National Assembly, Quebecers are happy it's there. About six out of 10 - 59 per cent - approve of keeping crucifixes on the walls of public schools.

"Quebecers widely agree that diversity enriches Quebec society but they're much less at ease when this diversity is expressed through religious symbols coming from outside Catholicism," said Lger research vice-president Christian Bourque, who oversaw the survey.

Jack Jedwab, executive director of the Association for Canadian Studies, analyzed the Lger data for The Gazette. Co-relating people's answers to the poll question, Jedwab found that even those who say they're most open to religious and cultural diversity draw the line at public displays like hijabs, while approving of crucifixes in school.

For example, of the people who totally agree that diversity enriches society, only 22 per cent completely accept Muslim girls wearing hijabs in school. And of those who have no problem with crucifixes in schools, only 25 per cent would allow hijabs to be worn there, either by students or teachers.

The most worrisome part of the poll is that a majority of Quebecers appear to favour some kind of "code of conduct" for minorities, Weinfeld said.

"It's troubling, because there's an action component to it - people want the government to regulate the problem. That attitude reflects a certain kind of tatisme in Quebec, which may include telling minorities how to live. It's objectionable, it's unconstitutional and it violates the Charter (of Rights and Freedoms)."

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/story.html?id=fee092fd-5859-48c7-a46e-0a0a43700b73&k=38180&p=1

Canada looks to Mexico for more workers

JENNIFER DITCHBURN

Canadian Press

August 16, 2007 at 4:56 PM EDT

OTTAWA — While the United States Congress turns up its nose at immigration reform, Canada is poised to start negotiations that would bring even more Mexican workers into this country.

An agreement to strike a commission into increased labour mobility is expected to be among the key accomplishments connected with next week's summit of North American leaders in Montebello, Que.

Mexico's ambassador to Canada, Emilio Goicoechea, said in an interview that the idea is to expand an already successful program that brings in thousands of Mexican agricultural workers every year.

Mexican President Felipe Calderon and Prime Minister Stephen Harper will hold a private meeting Wednesday.

“The first step will be a declaration from the leaders and the political will to do it, and the question of how it will happen will be up to a working group that will work out the details with Mexican and Canadian legislation,” Mr. Goicoechea said Thursday.

In June, the U.S. Senate rejected a bill that would have allowed more Mexican workers to legally enter the country and would have granted citizenship to some of the millions already there illegally. Since then, Washington passed a bill cracking down on illegals, sparking an outcry from American farmers who depend on the workers.

Canada currently takes in 12,000 Mexican workers through the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program, but is examining ways it could bring in even more people to fill low- or semi-skilled jobs. There has also been talk about more mobility for energy workers, especially for Alberta.

Mexico is also expected to raise with Canada the issue of contraband weapons flowing north and south from the United States, and what can be done collaboratively on the issue.

The discussions are another indication of the deepening relationship between Canada and Mexico, a hemispheric success story for both countries. Bilateral trade has been increasing, and there has been more co-ordination in areas such as energy, defence and security.

Canadian prime ministers, including Stephen Harper, have cultivated closer personal ties with their Mexican counterparts over several years.

Mr. Harper was one of the first leaders to congratulate Mr. Calderon on his victory last year,
and attend his November inauguration.

“They're becoming good friends, they trust each other, and that's something really important in order to develop better relations in the future,” said Mr. Goicoechea.

Still, a few irritants remain.

Canadian officials acknowledge that the number of Mexican visitors turned away at airports and land crossings is increasing, a sore point with the Mexican government. Last year, a high-profile Mexico City lawyer was turned away at Vancouver's airport when attempting to visit a client.

And some Mexican agricultural workers have complained of ill-treatment by Canadian employers. The issue has gained a high-profile particularly in Quebec, where news reports say the Canadian government has done little to investigate the allegations.

Mr. Goicoechea said his country would like to see a system set up to protect and assist seasonal workers when they're in the country. He said for example that a worker who is fired with or without cause has little recourse, and few resources sometimes to even buy a ticket home and settle accounts.

“Basically, what Mexico wants is that the human rights of Mexican workers who come to Canada are respected, and that there exist mechanisms that can quickly resolve disagreements between parties.”

Video- Scrap the Security and Prosperity Agreement

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tlyc6EysAcY

The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) was founded
in March 2005 at a summit of the Heads of State of Canada, the US, and
Mexico. SPP is not an official treaty; therefore it has been able to
escape any public scrutiny. The major drive behind the SPP is a CEO-based
organization, which is the only official advisory group to governments on
the SPP. The SPP is a NAFTA-plus-Homeland-Security model and will involve
the harmonization of over 300 areas of regulation. On August 20th Bush,
Harper, and Calderon are meeting in Montebello, Quebec at a SPP Summit.
Resist the SPP on this continental day of action.

Blackwater Mercenaries on the USA-Mexico Border

By Nancy Conroy

In San Diego County, California, a firestorm has erupted over plans to build a Blackwater mercenary training camp in the hills behind Potrero, a remote area east of the city. The residents of San Diego are opposing the idea on the grounds that firing ranges are noisy and mercenaries would be undesirable neighbors. So far the controversy has been a localized, "not in my backyard," type of debate involving planning commissions and citizen's action groups.

Americans tend to think in an American way, and therefore nobody seems to have noticed that the location of this camp is right on the US-Mexico border, just a few miles from Tecate.

From an international perspective, there are a number of geopolitical reasons that could explain why this border location was selected. This is probably not merely an issue for the local planning commission, given that the idea of mercenaries along the border has broader international implications.

Blackwater USA is a private army based in Louisiana that has received billions of dollars in US government contracts to assist with the Iraq war. These "contractors" are highly trained ex-military specialists, many of whom come from foreign countries with poor human rights records.

Blackwater, at its website, identifies itself as "... not simply a 'private security company.' We are a professional military, law enforcement, security, peacekeeping, and stability operations firm who provides turnkey solutions."

The presence of Blackwater in Iraq has generated controversy over the concept of an "outsourced" war, using mercenaries instead of regular US troops. The mercenaries do not answer to US military commanders, their conduct is not governed by the Geneva Convention, and they answer only to the people who are signing their paychecks.

Critics often compare them to the Nazi brownshirts.

A Blackwater camp on the border may be a covert attempt to militarize the border without going through congressional oversight or public debate. A so-called "training camp" could probably also function as an operational base. Perhaps Blackwater will obtain government contracts to patrol the border, gradually edging out US agents and putting border security into the hands of a private army away from public scrutiny.

And Blackwater could run immigrant detention camps using the same methods they use in the Middle East. Even if this is not the plan, the Mexicans would have good reason to suspect this motivation.

The proposed training camp is located near international drug supply routes controlled by the Sinaloa Cartel. The remote, mountainous terrain is like Afghanistan, where Blackwater has years of experience running covert operations.

Six miles from the proposed Blackwater camp, northern Mexico has a serious problem with "Men in Black" who coincidentally look, dress, and act just like the Blackwater people. In Mexico, the Men in Black are kidnappers, corrupt police officers, fake federal agents, or Zetas, a narco-paramilitary group. Although Americans may still be swallowing the argument that Blackwater is a "military auxiliary" outfit, the Mexicans are not fooled about who the Men in Black are, what they do, and who they work for. That these same people are now camped out on the US border, or are somehow involved in border enforcement, will lack credibility in Mexico.

Since the Iraq war, business at Blackwater has been booming, which is why they need the new "Blackwater West" facility. Most of Blackwater's contracts come from the US government, at least those that are publicly disclosed. But, Blackwater is a private army that is available to run "corporate security" missions for anyone that can afford it. This suggests another possible motivation for the border location: to serve emerging markets in northern Mexico.

There are surely plenty of possible clients with money in the Baja California area who need special operations. Since Blackwater personnel look just like the Mexican Men in Black, they should have no trouble blending in.

Another possible reason for the border location is the potential to perform "extraordinary renditions" into Mexico. "Extraordinary renditions" is a euphemism for off-the-record prisoner processing, the subjects of which are known in Latin America as "los desaparecidos" ("the disappeared"). Blackwater conducts extraordinary renditions in the Middle East, quietly transferring prisoners to third countries where interrogation techniques are not monitored. From their new border location, Blackwater could perform extraordinary renditions into northern Mexico far away from prying eyes.

Blackwater has said that the reason for the site selection is to be close to the San Diego area, where many branches of the US military need extra training. Still, the location so close to the US-Mexico border raises international issues that local San Diego citizen's groups are not aware of and generally do not think about. Americans should consider the possible international dimensions, and responsible Mexican citizens should evaluate the potential impact of this camp on their own country.

As well, if Mexicans were more informed about this issue, the specter of mercenaries along the border has the potential to create an international controversy.

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2007/06/361609.shtml

Canada’s Policy on Immigrants Brings Backlog

Salman Kureishy said Canada provided little support to immigrants.

By CHRISTOPHER MASON and JULIA PRESTON

Published: June 27, 2007

TORONTO, June 26 — With an advanced degree in business management from a university in India and impeccable English, Salman Kureishy is precisely the type of foreigner that Canada’s merit-based immigration system was designed to attract.

Yet eight years went by from the time Mr. Kureishy passed his first Canadian immigration test until he moved from India to Canada. Then he had to endure nine months of bureaucratic delays before landing a job in his field in March.

Mr. Kureishy’s experience — and that of Canada’s immigration system — offers a cautionary tale for the United States. Mr. Kureishy came to this country under a system Canada pioneered in the 1960s that favors highly skilled foreigners, by assigning points for education and work experience and accepting those who earn high scores.

A similar point system for the United States is proposed in the immigration bill that bounced back to life on Tuesday, when the Senate reversed a previous stand and brought the bill back to the floor. The vote did not guarantee passage of the bill, which calls for the biggest changes in immigration law in more than 20 years.

The point system has helped Canada compete with the United States and other Western powers for highly educated workers, the most coveted immigrants in high-tech and other cutting-edge industries. But in recent years, immigration lawyers and labor market analysts say, the Canadian system has become an immovable beast, with a backlog of more than 800,000 applications and waits of four years or more.

The system’s bias toward the educated has left some industries crying out for skilled blue-collar workers, especially in western Canada where Alberta’s busy oil fields have generated an economic boom. Studies by the Alberta government show the province could be short by as many as 100,000 workers over the next decade.

In response, some Canadian employers are sidestepping the point system and relying instead on a program initiated in 1998 that allows provincial governments to hand-pick some immigrant workers, and on temporary foreign-worker permits.

“The points system is so inflexible,” said Herman Van Reekum, an immigration consultant in Calgary who helps Alberta employers find workers. “We need low-skill workers and trades workers here, and those people have no hope under the points system.”

Canada accepts about 250,000 immigrants each year, more than doubling the per-capita rate of immigration in the United States, census figures from both countries show. Nearly two-thirds of Canada’s population growth comes from immigrants, according to the 2006 census, compared with the United States, where about 43 percent of the population growth comes from immigration. Approximately half of Canada’s immigrants come through the point system.

Under Canada’s system, 67 points on a 100-point test is a passing score. In addition to education and work experience, aspiring immigrants earn high points for their command of languages and for being between 21 and 49 years old. In the United States, the Senate bill would grant higher points for advanced education, English proficiency and skills in technology and other fields that are in demand. Lower points would be given for the family ties that have been the basic stepping stones of the American immigration system for four decades.

Part of the backlog in Canada can be traced to a provision in the Canadian system that allows highly skilled foreigners to apply to immigrate even if they do not have a job offer. Similarly, the Senate bill would not require merit system applicants to have job offers in the United States, although it would grant additional points to those who do.

Without an employment requirement, Canada has been deluged with applications. In testimony in May before an immigration subcommittee of the United States House of Representatives, Howard Greenberg, an immigration lawyer in Toronto, compared the Canadian system to a bathtub with an open faucet and a clogged drain. “It is not surprising that Canada’s bathtub is overflowing,” Mr. Greenberg said.

Since applications are not screened first by employers, the government bears the burden and cost of assessing them. The system is often slow to evaluate the foreign education credentials and work experience of new immigrants and to direct them toward employers who need their skills, said Jeffrey Reitz, professor of immigration studies at the University of Toronto.

The problem has been acute in regulated professions like medicine, where a professional organization, the Medical Council of Canada, reviews foreign credentials of new immigrants. The group has had difficulty assessing how a degree earned in China or India stacks up against a similar degree from a university in Canada or the United States. Frustrated by delays, some doctors and other highly trained immigrants take jobs outside their fields just to make ends meet.

The sheer size of the Canadian point system, the complexity of its rules and its backlogs make it slow to adjust to shifts in the labor market, like the oil boom in Alberta.

“I am a university professor, and I can barely figure out the points system,” said Don J. DeVoretz, an economics professor at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia who studies immigration systems. “Lawyers have books that are three feet thick explaining the system.”

The rush to develop the oil fields in northern Alberta has attracted oil companies from around the world, unleashing a surge of construction. Contractors say that often the only thing holding them back is a shortage of qualified workers.

Scott Burns, president of Burnco Rock Products in Calgary, a construction materials company with about 1,000 employees, said he had been able to meet his labor needs only by using temporary work permits. Mr. Burns hired 39 Filipinos for jobs in his concrete plants and plans to hire more. He said that many of the temporary workers had critically needed skills, but that they had no hope of immigrating permanently under the federal point system.

“The system is very much broken,” Mr. Burns said.

Mr. Kureishy, the immigrant from India, said he was drawn to Canada late in his career by its open society and what appeared to be strong interest in his professional abilities. But even though he waited eight years to immigrate, the equivalent of a doctoral degree in human resources development that he earned from Xavier Labor Relations Institute in India was not evaluated in Canada until he arrived here. During his first six months, Canadian employers had no formal comparison of his credentials to guide them.

Eventually, Mr. Kureishy, 55, found full-time work in his field, as a program manager assisting foreign professionals at Ryerson University in Toronto. “It was a long process, but I look at myself as fairly resilient,” Mr. Kureishy said.

He criticized Canada as providing little support to immigrants after they arrived.

“If you advertised for professors and one comes over and is driving a taxi,” he said, “that’s a problem.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/27/washington/27points.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Lack of data on illegal workers skews U.S. economic picture

BARRIE MCKENNA

June 5, 2007 at 5:59 AM EDT

Washington — In this country, at least, the sounds of power hammers and Spanish banter are inseparable.

That's because Hispanic immigrants, legal and illegal, make up such a huge chunk of the U.S. construction work force. They've become a vital but elusive cog in the U.S. economy.

And therein lies the dilemma for economists: Everyone knows they're there, and yet they can't be adequately counted or tracked. As the U.S. economic behemoth slows, we're getting a disturbingly fuzzy snapshot of what's happening because the industry most responsible is producing some quirky data.

Housing starts and sales have plunged in the past nine months. Under normal conditions, you would expect massive layoffs and a surge in the jobless rate. Instead, the U.S. labour market seems pretty healthy for an economy that is flirting with no growth (0.6 per cent annualized in the first quarter). The jobless rate is at 4.5 per cent, its lowest level in six years, and the economy continues to create jobs (157,000 in May alone).

It's a puzzle that Ben Bernanke and his colleagues on the Federal Reserve Board acknowledged in the minutes of their May 9 meeting.

You would barely know there was a recession in construction. Even while housing starts have tumbled by more than a third, the number of jobs was stagnant in May, and down an average of just 3,000 per month this year.

Economist Maury Harris of UBS Securities in New York warned in a report yesterday that investors need to be mindful that the jobs numbers are suspect. Undercounting of illegal Hispanic workers offers a credible hypothesis for what he called "one of this year's most intriguing economic puzzles."

Some of these illegal workers may have moved into commercial construction. Some have simply vanished from the ledger, uncounted by either the household survey or the survey of employers because - technically - so many were never there.

The result, Mr. Harris suggested, is that the U.S. economy could prove to be even weaker than it looks. Unemployment may be higher and job losses more sizable if illegals aren't being picked up in the U.S. Labour Department's household survey.

"With potential measurement problems possibly clouding the meaning of labour market data, spending data - especially by households - should become relatively more important," he concluded.

If these workers don't have jobs, they don't get paid, and they and their families can't spend.

Enormous as it is, the hidden work force may have been badly undercounted as the economy boomed, and now too as it cools. The Pew Hispanic Center has estimated that foreign-born Hispanics - legal and illegal - accounted for half the increase in total U.S. employment between 2000 and 2006. Two-thirds of all Latinos who joined the work force in recent years may be here illegally. All told, there are some 11 million to 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States - men, women and children.

Now, there is some evidence already that many of them are already returning to their home countries - and many others are not making the dangerous trip north to work, because the work has vanished.

This all matters, of course, to more than just a picture of where the economy is headed. The U.S. Congress is wrestling - once again - with an immigration reform package that George W. Bush has vowed will bring 12 million people out of the shadows.

The debate is emotionally and politically charged. But it's also a debate about economics and fairness. And, like it or not, the massive and highly mobile Hispanic work force has become an integral part of the U.S. economy.

Critics complain that illegal immigrants are a drain on government expenditures and create a downward spiral in low-skilled wages.

Most credible evidence suggests that isn't so. Millions of them work, pay their payroll taxes, pay local taxes through rents or property taxes, and contribute massively to the economy by spending their money on taxed consumer goods and services.

And because they are illegal, many of them will never collect the fruits of their labour - social security and Medicare when they retire.

In the meantime, this vast and flexible labour pool has helped make the U.S. economy a powerhouse.

Americans owe it to themselves to acknowledge reality and bring their illegal population into the light of day.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070605.wibworld05/BNStory/International/