Let's be clear, hostility toward those seeking asylum in Canada is rooted in xenophobia or bigotry or racism (recognizing again, there is, for example, far less antipathy for the European migrant) or all three, with a thick layer of foul icing to top it off.
Whatever language one employs in discussing refugee issues, characterizing those who seek asylum and refugees with a broad brush slur is what it is: bigotry.
Perhaps there are a misguided few who fail to understand or otherwise conflate the use of derisive labels to denigrate a class of people, such as refugees and asylum seekers. It is apparent (assuming they are not being disingenuous), for example, that some hang on to the propriety of labeling people as "illegals" based on some purported technical breach of certain immigration regulations, even though it is overwhelmingly evident that employing this label is INTENDED to denigrate, to belittle, and NOT to deepen our understanding or elevate the conversation. It is NOT to add historical or sociological context to the discussion or debate. The use of the term "illegals" is INTENTIONALLY used to debase.
A fraud is a fraud is a fraud, doesn’t matter if it’s fake refugee or fake FSW or fake family reunion, they are the main reason the whole process is taking so long and so many resources are wasted verifying their information, while other applicants suffer from being honest
Precisely. A fraud is a fraud. Whether the fraud is committed in pursuing an application for status as a member of the family class, skilled worker class, or as protected persons. Those committing fraud are committing fraud. And not only should they be investigated and prosecuted, but for the most part they are being interdicted, investigated, and prosecuted.
That has absolutely nothing to do in particular with whether a person is a refugee or skilled worker, except, however, there are far fewer asylum seekers engaged in fraud than the number among the skilled worker and family class engaged in fraud.
The fact that some asylum seekers or those otherwise seeking refugee status may be involved in fraud DOES NOT warrant the use of slanderous labels to characterize the whole class. No more than the higher incidence of fraud among the family and skilled worker class warrant slandering all immigrants (recognizing, unfortunately, there are some who do; recognizing that while asylum seekers tend to be the target of more hostility, there is an undercurrent of antipathy toward immigrants in general among some Canadians, not nearly so much as among our neighbours to the south, but too much so nonetheless).
Again, however, there are far, far fewer asylum seekers engaged in fraud than the number among the family class and skilled worker. So any effort to particularly characterize asylum seekers or refugees with broad brush fraud accusations is clearly rooted, at the very least, in hostility toward the class of people seeking refuge in Canada. Persistent efforts of this sort are clearly rooted in xenophobia or bigotry or racism (recognizing again there is, for example, far less antipathy for the European migrant).
(It warrants noting that there is a widespread practice of padding work experience among the skilled worker (Express Entry) class, which tends to not be prosecuted as fraud. This often tends, depending on the extent to which the work history is misrepresented, to be treated as merely compromising the applicant's credibility. This is a bias (favourable to skilled worker applicants) which appears to be rooted in a willingness to look the other way a bit in order to avoid discouraging skilled worker immigration . . . despite the strong historical evidence, over the course of generations, that it is actually immigrants seeking refuge who tend to become more established in Canada and whose families become the more prolific contributors to the workforce and Canadian society; in contrast to the rather high percentage of the skilled worker class who come, make their money, and take it elsewhere, many back home, many to the U.S. There are rather few refugees, especially compared to the skilled worker class, who for example pursue citizenship for the purpose of obtaining a passport of convenience.)
I find it ridiculous to justify fake refugee claim with fake FSW and fake family sponsorship : just because they do it, it must be ok for us to do it too - do we really want to sink that low?
What? Who justifies fraud? Fraud not only should be interdicted, investigated, and prosecuted, it is being interdicted, investigated, and prosecuted.
As for equivalency: are you seriously suggesting that fraud among a few of those seeking refuge in Canada is more serious, more egregious, than fraud committed by FSW or family class applicants, and should not be treated the same? You just said "A fraud is a fraud is a fraud." IT IS EQUIVALENT.
Fraud by any class of immigrant is equivalent: grounds to deny the application and prohibit future entry, and when egregious grounds for criminal prosecution. As it should be.
Or are you suggesting it is OK to characterize the class of people seeking refuge based on some involved in fraud? To disparage the many for the sins of the few? Why? Because they are refugees and refugees deserve to be treated with less dignity, fewer due process rights, than the FSW and family class applicants? That would be the very definition of bigoted discrimination.
Let's be clear, the use of the word "fake" here is overtly disingenuous IF it is intended to describe an asylum claim which is ultimately denied because it fails to meet Canada's requirements. Unless there are misrepresentations in the application,
it is NOT fraud, it is NOT fake, even if it turns out the applicant fails to make a sufficient case for Canadian protected person status, and the application is ultimately denied. It is no more fake than a landed PR who has failed to meet the PR RO making an application for a PR Travel Document based on H&C reasons (or appeals a 44(1) Report based on H&C reasons). The applicant (in either case) honestly presents his or her reasons for why the application should be granted. It is up to the Canadian government (IRB and IRCC respectively) to assess whether the applicant qualifies for the requested relief. Neither is "fake," even if denied.
Yeah I think the term "illegal" can be applied here. I mean if someone is doing what the law says one can't do (entering a country without proper invitation/visa) then that's illegal is by definition. Now the seriousness of this can be up to debate: it's somewhere between jaywalking and murder.
Really. The mere failure to comply with a regulation warrants labeling people as "illegals?" How about having committed an actual offence then? Like speeding. Should we label 95 percent of the GTA commuters who drive as "illegals?" They not only have committed one offence, but almost all of them have repeatedly committed the offence of speeding. Perhaps every person who drives should be labeled a "criminal" unless and until they prove they never rolled through a stop sign or went five K over the speed limit, since virtually everyone who drives has done these things. And make no mistake, running a stop sign or speeding is an actual OFFENCE. A mere breach of regulations is NOT necessarily so (some are, most are NOT). Speeding is actually the more serious breach of the law.
Moreover, any breach of the regulations by an asylum seeker crossing the border is CURED upon reporting to authorities and any alleged illegality is CURED when the asylum seeker makes a claim for asylum.
The asylum seeker is then LEGALLY allowed to remain in Canada pending the outcome of the process to adjudicate the claim. This is the typical, intended route, among the vast, vast majority of those crossing the border from the U.S. to find refuge in Canada.
In any event, again, EVEN IF there is some technical lack of compliance with the letter of the law,
MAKE NO MISTAKE the use of the label "illegals" is INTENDED TO MALIGN these people as a class. Recognize this for what it is. BIGOTRY. Recognize this for what it is NOT: it is NOT used to deepen our understanding or elevate the conversation. It is NOT used to add historical or sociological context to the discussion or debate. It is used as a SLUR. And the use of terms to slur a class of people meets the very definition of bigotry.
It would be similarly offensive, for example, to label Americans "bigots." Sure, there are way too many who are. That does not make it OK to casually refer to Americans as bigots. To paraphrase one particular American, a buffoon of infamous breadth and orangeness, "some of them are good people."
Skip the derisive labels and focus on real issues and matters of substance.
but at least he's pumped some money into our economy.