Worth sharing

It's so unfair, it's just politics.  Happy International Women's Day Mr. Alexander

While this topic is not about Canadian citizenship, it is about policies and practices at CIC generally, about philosophical issues underlying Canadian immigration and citizenship policy, and recognizing that lives are often complicated and the impact of policies will affect more than just the individual whose status is at stake, and will thus oft times have a direct impact on Canadian citizens.

A hard to accept outcome is illustrated by a recent Removal case, linked here (I am deliberately not posting names, even though they are public information). The case involves a woman who had a removal order issued against her nearly a decade after she came to Canada, after she had been in a very stormy relationship and had had three children. The situation is severely aggravated by what appears to be a conflict of interest in the only legal assistance this woman had in dealing with her abusive partner and family law proceedings. Perhaps I should say "allegedly" abusive, as that is how the court characterizes it, but there is a criminal conviction for either assault or domestic violence, a conviction which is dismissively described by the court as a conviction for "slapping," but for which there is no such crime in Canada and which in itself reveals the court's (and probably CBSA/Public Safety & Emergency Prep Ministry) all-too-cavalier attitude regarding abusive relationships and how vulnerable women often are in such situations.

There is no discussion in the case about the reason for removal. I do not understand this. I do not understand why there is not a balancing of interests in the H&C assessment. In a case involving H&C considerations, and in particularly in one where the outcome can (as it does here) result in separating a mother from young children, it makes a huge difference if the reason for removal is based on criminal or security inadmissibility versus merely a lack of status. (Caveat: this is one H&C consideration in which, apparently, the best interests of children is not given much weight -- more regarding this below, the kicker one might say.)

There is no explanation for how, why, there were removal proceedings initiated against this person to begin with. (Speculation: someone trying to exert domination over her?)

What we do know is that a man convicted of domestic abuse has preliminarily obtained custody of the woman's three children pursuant to court proceedings in which the woman was inadequately represented, and the woman is being deported without her children. These three young Canadian citizens will thus be, in terms of the practical impact, totally separated from their mother, even though there has been no conclusive determination as to the best interests of these children.

The court's rationalizations for what I would describe as minimal weight given to the best interests of the minor children, all Canadian citizens, disturbs me.

It is possible that there is more to this case than appears in the published decision, such as something warranting removal from Canada more serious than a mere lack of status. But none is so much as hinted.



Bottom-line: A more or less hard and fast policy to, in effect, punish women without status who have children in Canada.

The court states it unashamedly:

The jurisprudence of this Court has made it clear that illegal immigrants cannot avoid execution of a valid removal order simply because they are parents of Canadian-born children. . . . an enforcement officer has no obligation to substantially review the children’s best interest before executing a removal order.”

Ouch. To hell and the devil with the impact on Canada's most vulnerable citizens, minor children. Wow. Hurts to read this case.