SHOULD CANADA FOLLOW TRUMP POLICY?
Immigration law
18 Dec
Trump vowed to
begin mass deportations immediately upon taking office because who doesn’t love
a good "you’re fired" moment, especially on a national scale?
Trump reacted to
a social media post by Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch, who had mentioned earlier
this month that there are reports the incoming administration is planning such
a declaration and intends to use "military assets" to deport
migrants.
President-elect
Donald Trump confirmed on Monday that he would declare a national emergency to
fulfill his campaign promise of mass deportations of undocumented migrants
living in the U.S.
On the other
hand, Canada is bracing for an increase in border crossings due to the threat
of mass deportations under Trump. Mass deportations could result in more asylum
requests at official entry points as well as an increase in attempts to cross
into Canada illegally.
Millions of
individuals, some of whom have lived in the United States for many years, now
face a challenging decision. Some may opt to stay where they are, living under
the radar, avoiding law enforcement, and participating in the informal economy.
Others might decide to move to a "sanctuary" city or state that
refuses to cooperate with ICE. Alternatively, some may choose to leave the U.S.
altogether, seeking asylum in countries like Canada, often crossing the border
through unofficial routes.
Canada, like
many countries, faces challenges related to illegal immigration, with a
significant number of undocumented migrants residing within its borders. While
the issue is complex, the question of whether Canada should adopt a policy
similar to that of former President Trump's mass deportations is one that
requires careful consideration.
Trump's
approach, which focused on strict enforcement and the removal of individuals
without legal status, has been controversial, sparking debates about human
rights and broader social impacts-basically, it’s like trying to fix a leaky
faucet with a sledgehammer. It may get the job done, but there are a lot of
broken things in the process.
Canada’s
immigration system, while not without its issues, has historically been more
focused on inclusion and providing pathways to citizenship. Any shift towards
more aggressive deportation policies would need to balance national security
and immigration control with Canada’s commitment to humanitarian values and
international obligations.
Many Canadians
may find themselves sympathetic to Trump's approach on immigration,
with some hoping that Canada adopts similar policies to address illegal
immigration. These individuals argue that stricter immigration controls, such
as mass deportations, could strengthen national security and uphold the
integrity of Canada’s immigration system.
However, while
some support this stance, it remains a contentious issue. Canada’s more
inclusive and compassionate approach to immigration, focused on humanitarian
efforts and refugee protection, has long been a defining characteristic of the
country’s policies. Shifting towards stricter enforcement would require a
careful balance, considering both the practical implications and the values
that many Canadians hold dear.
Now the question
arises - “How many people can be removed
in the first year? Well, how many agents there are?". "Can retired
agents be brought back? How many buses does it take? How much funding is
required for airplanes? Can the Department of Defense help out to take a lot of
the burden off shoulders. There are still a lot of unknowns..."
Certain terms
are accurate, while others are not. Among the most common grounds for
inadmissibility are criminality, health-related issues, security concerns,
financial instability, or misrepresentation. If you entered Canada unlawfully
as an inadmissible individual, deportation may be a consequence - though, in the world of immigration law,
"may" is a bit like saying "there’s a chance" you’ll get a
free upgrade on your flight. It’s possible, but don’t book your ticket just
yet.
The use of
"May" indicates potentiality, which is often used in legal contexts
to account for varying circumstances; however, in my opinion - in illegal
instances, deportation should indeed be certain.
With growing
public opposition to immigration and an already strained housing supply in
Canada, the country is ill-equipped to handle a large influx of people arriving
from the south. Municipalities are struggling to address the homelessness
crisis, and provincial service agencies are already overwhelmed by current
demand. An additional one million arrivals would quickly escalate into an
unmanageable disaster.
Canada is
bracing for a mass exodus next year, expecting 1.2 million temporary residents
to pack their bags and head out. Guess it’s time for a serious game of
"Who’s Staying?" A few weeks ago, the Government of Canada (GoC)
decided to give its population a little "trim," mainly by cutting
back on permanent resident visas.
In Canada, the
expiration of 1.2 million temporary resident visas next year is causing a major
issue, resulting in a spike in refugee claims from residents. Despite some
opposition to the plan, the country is still expected to witness the departure
of hundreds of thousands of people.
Given the
significant risks, Canada must take immediate action. To avoid a chaotic
outcome, we must prepare as if the worst-case scenario is inevitable.
While we can
hope that this situation doesn’t materialize in the near future, it’s clear
that Canada can no longer afford the luxury of remaining in a state of
complacency unless, of course, we’re
talking about napping in a hammock on a quiet beach, but that’s probably not
the solution we need right now.
Now the question arises: should Canada follow Trump’s
policy?
What do you
think? It’s important to carefully consider the potential consequences, both
positive and negative, of adopting such an approach.