logo
GOLDSTEIN: Questioning Canada's immigration policies is not racist

GOLDSTEIN: Questioning Canada's immigration policies is not racist

Yahoo02-07-2025
The Mark Carney government will be performing a public service to Canadians if it abandons the reflex position of the Justin Trudeau government that any questioning of federal immigration policies is racist.
A report by The Globe and Mail that said 17,600 foreigners had their criminal convictions forgiven by the Immigration Department over 11 years, up to and including 2024 — thus removing a ban on them coming to Canada — is a case in point.
If five years have passed since a foreign criminal's conviction or completion of a sentence, the Immigration Department has the power to deem them 'rehabilitated,' meaning they can apply to enter Canada through work and study visas, as permanent residents or visitors.
Last year alone, 1,390 people had their criminal convictions forgiven, while 105 applications were refused, according to The Globe and Mail report.
There can, of course, be legitimate cases where, for example, an individual has been convicted by a dictatorial foreign government on false or trumped-up charges of criminal offences or where the convictions are for relatively minor offences.
Lax immigration vetting makes Canada prime target for Iranian infiltration, says Secure Canada
Federal minister plans to hold consultations this summer on immigration intake
But the problem is the Immigration Department won't provide any breakdown of what crimes were forgiven, other than to say that in the most serious offences the immigration minister would be involved in the decision.
As Conservative immigration critic Michelle Rempel Garner told The Globe and Mail, this lack of transparency has to end 'if the public is going to have any confidence in the immigration system's vetting process.'
(Also of note here is that since the data covers an 11-year period up to and including 2024, it means it was in place during the Harper Conservative government, which was in office up until 2015, although the bulk of the decisions would have been made under the Liberals.)
This isn't the first time Canadians have had a reason to ask legitimate questions about who is allowed into Canada and why.
Last year, in answering an order paper question by Conservative MP Laila Goodridge, which was reported by Postmedia, the Canada Border Services Agency responded that the federal government had lost track of almost 30,000 people who failed to appear for deportation proceedings.
Similarly, auditor general Karen Hogan reported in 2020 that the federal government had lost track of the whereabouts of over 34,000 foreigners ordered deported from Canada, including almost 3,000 criminal cases.
All the way back in 2003, then-auditor general Sheila Fraser reported that Ottawa had lost track of 36,000 people the federal government had ordered deported, adding that mismanagement of deportees was encouraging illegal immigration.
Obviously this is a chronic problem within the federal government that never gets resolved, but concern about losing track of foreign deportees is but one reason to be concerned about Canada's immigration system.
In 2024, for example, internal government documents obtained by The Canadian Press revealed that in announcing a significant boost to its immigration targets in 2022, the Trudeau government ignored warnings from its own public servants that doing so would increase the cost of housing and negatively impact Canada's already beleaguered health-care system.
That, of course, is exactly what happened with then-prime minister Trudeau eventually conceding the higher immigration targets had gone 'far beyond what Canada has been able to absorb' and was 'something that we need to get back under control,' which the Liberals belatedly attempted to do.
One presumes Trudeau and the Liberals didn't consider themselves to be racists in doing so.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The former NBC host blasted the former president's son for a series of media appearances in which he blasted Joe Biden's critics.
The former NBC host blasted the former president's son for a series of media appearances in which he blasted Joe Biden's critics.

Yahoo

time4 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

The former NBC host blasted the former president's son for a series of media appearances in which he blasted Joe Biden's critics.

Former NBC host Chuck Todd says Hunter Biden isn't doing himself—or Democrats—any favors with his media tour. The wayward member of the Biden family sat down for two interviews—with Andrew Gallaghan's popular Channel 5 podcast last weekend, and then with former Democratic National Committee chair Jaime Harrison on the At Our Table podcast on Tuesday—going off on an expletive-laden rant against his father's detractors and opening up about his alcohol and drug addictions. 'I don't think this does Hunter Biden any good. I don't think this does Joe Biden any good. It certainly doesn't do the Democratic Party any good,' Todd said Friday on his podcast, adding that he's generally an advocate for going to therapy, 'but let's not do it public. Try to deal with your issues amongst yourself.'

Trump's Battle With Sanctuary Cities Dealt Major Blow
Trump's Battle With Sanctuary Cities Dealt Major Blow

Time​ Magazine

time6 minutes ago

  • Time​ Magazine

Trump's Battle With Sanctuary Cities Dealt Major Blow

Donald Trump has been dealt a significant setback in his ongoing battle over sanctuary cities, after a U.S. federal judge threw out the Administration's lawsuit which looked to block legislation in Illinois that limits local law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration authorities. The Trump Administration argued that existing so-called 'sanctuary laws' in the state run counter to federal laws because they restrict local officials from sharing information with federal agents, stopping immigration officials from identifying people who 'may be subject to removal.' But those concerns were dismissed by Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins, who said finding sanctuary policies as 'impermissible regulation'would run counter to the Tenth Amendment. 'It would allow the federal government to commandeer States under the guise of intergovernmental immunity—the exact type of direct regulation of states barred by the Tenth Amendment,' said the judge. Jenkins, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, added: 'Because the Tenth Amendment protects defendants' sanctuary policies, those policies cannot be found to discriminate against or regulate the federal government.' Trump's war with sanctuary cities began on day one in office, with an Executive Order, titled 'Protecting the American People Against Invasion.' In the Executive Order, Trump argues that sanctuary jurisdictions 'seek to interfere with the lawful exercise of Federal law enforcement operations,' and calls on the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security to withhold federal funding from these cities. In April, Trump then signed an Executive Order asking Attorney General Pam Bondi and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) identify cities and states that don't sufficiently comply with Trump's federal immigration laws within a month. It is a continuation of Trump's first term, during which he also signed an Executive Order that looked to ensure sanctuary jurisdictions did not receive federal funding. At the time, though, multiple cities sued Trump, and the courts subsequently upheld the legality of such provisions. Read More: What Are Sanctuary Cities and Why Is Trump Targeting Them? Though Trump's battle might be lost in Illinois, his Administration continues to fight across the country. The day before the lawsuit in Illinois failed, Thursday, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced new legal action against New York City for its sanctuary laws. Earlier this week, Louisville, Kentucky chose to acquiesce to the administration's immigration policies and cease its designation as a sanctuary city. As human rights organizations argue for the importance of sanctuary and some cities push back against what they view as federal government overreach, the question remains which cities are fighting back against the crackdown. Chicago's and Illinois leadership was very clear in its desire to challenge Trump's immigration policies. Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker celebrated the ruling on X, saying that, 'Illinois just beat the Trump Administration in federal court.' 'This ruling affirms what we have long known: that Chicago's Welcoming City Ordinance is lawful and supports public safety,' Chicago's Mayor Brandon Johnson said in a statement responding to the ruling, saying he was 'pleased' with the decision. 'Chicago cannot be compelled to cooperate with the Trump Administration's reckless and inhumane immigration agenda.' Chicago's status as a sanctuary city is just one iteration of the term—though the long-time Democratic city has been designated as such cities that limit information shared with federal immigration officers. Though there is no specific definition for a sanctuary city, the term refers to jurisdictions with a wide range of laws in place to limit their cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. For Chicago in particular, their 'Welcoming City Ordinance,' argues that 'partnering with [Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE)] would go against our mission to make Chicago the most immigrant friendly city in the country and turn ours into a community of fear for immigrants.' The Trump Administration, though, also has ongoing suits against not just New York City but also Los Angeles, Denver, Rochester, and four cities in New Jersey. Tom Homan, President Trump's 'border czar,' also has laid out the administration's plans to continue combat sanctuary cities. Read More: Sanctuary Cities Are Not New 'Sanctuary cities are sanctuaries for criminals—hard stop,' Homan said. 'And President Trump made a commitment a couple weeks ago that we're going to prioritize sanctuary cities.' Simultaneously, certain cities designated 'sanctuary cities' have been less strong in their pushback against the federal Government. Louisville's Department of Corrections will now notify the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) at least 48 hours before an inmate with an immigration detainer is scheduled to be released from custody. The city's mayor, Craig Greenberg cited 'a terrifying increase in raids by ICE, including mass raids' on cities designated as sanctuary cities—claiming that by taking Louisville off the designated sanctuary city list, he prevents risking ' the safety of our broader immigrant community.' While New York City has remained the country's largest sanctuary city, its status as such and Mayor Eric Adams' desire to push back against the federal government has come into question. Even before the latest lawsuit issued by the Trump government, Adams' Administration had been embroiled in a battle with the New York City Council and court system to allow ICE agents into Rikers Island. Though he has said he will 'without a doubt' keep the city's sanctuary status. Adams has called for changes to the city's sanctuary laws after the Justice Department suit, saying that they 'go too far' in some places. 'I think we need to tweak the current laws to allow us to coordinate with the federal government when it comes down to removing those dangerous people from our streets," Adams told CBS New York. Back in February, Adams' cooperation with the federal government came under questioning after the Justice Department ordered federal prosecutors to drop corruption charges against the Mayor, stating that the case was interfering with the Democratic mayor's ability to follow through with the President's agenda to crack down on illegal immigration. The move pushed Gov. Kathy Hochul to consider removing Adams from office.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store