PINDER: Who gets to come to Canada?

The issue of immigration has become one of the leading political and economic issues in the developed world. With many countries, including Canada and the US, in large part built by immigrants, the current waves of immigration in North America, Europe, Australia, and elsewhere are both a necessity and a problem.During the first few centuries of the Industrial Revolution, the foundation of Canada and the US was established by the determination of hardy souls from many parts of the world plagued by poverty, lack of freedom, discrimination, and limited prospects. Our current demographic problem — the combination of aging boomers and declining birth rates — still makes immigration critical to the economic wellbeing of most developed countries.Most historical immigrants brought similar beliefs to their new country including, for example, Christianity, family values, a work ethic and the desire for freedom. Regrettably, the current and recent waves of immigration are not so homogeneous.Refugees, hopefuls assuming eventual immigrant status, are flooding the southern shores of Europe. In Europe and North America, disruptive and anti-democratic immigrant behaviour is growing.Many citizens support untrammelled immigration as it satisfies their emotions and needs to express their generosity and help others. At the other end of the spectrum, the political imperative is to maintain the fundamental values of the country such that it is not just an option, but rather a responsibility of government.Refugee status and immigration are now, and will likely be, top of mind for voters this November for our southern neighbours, and the following October here at home.Past approaches in Canada include a points system and another to unite families. The latter led to abuse with often many unqualified (sometimes with expensive medical needs,) following the admission of a single family member.Recent obvious overwhelming border refugees (some disappearing probably in favour of the US) and purposeful admissions have resulted in a difficult self-made problem. This identifies the need for a principle-based rethink to both limit the problem and capture the benefits. What follows is a starting point for consideration.Surely the first principle is that the level and content of immigration is the prerogative of the receiving country. What rights, for example, entitle the boatloads of refugees arriving on the southern shores of Europe to demand entry and attendant services and perquisites? Anathema it may be to those described as “bleeding hearts”, and no matter the circumstances potential immigrants are escaping, there is no moral or legal obligation to accept those who show up uninvited.For those with self-appointed moral superiority (a big tent these days,) do they accept uninvited and unwelcome visitors, with expectations of permanence and associated obligations, who show up at the front door of their homes? Certainly not, nor should they. So why should any country welcome those who just show up? Isn’t Canada our collective home?But Canadians and Americans do have a moral obligation to honour those who came before and built our countries, instilling values but also with a determination to fit. Political leadership and immigration policies should respect our current culture with expectations that so will immigrants. There is also a strategic opportunity, recognizing that Canada, the US, and others are highly desirable destinations, that present an important competitive advantage — a second principle to consider. This means determining the number of annual immigrants. With roughly 750,000 new homes in Canada each year, accepting well north of a million immigrants and students is the primary reason that today we have a housing crisis. It is irresponsible for any government to allow, even encourage, a dynamic highly detrimental to Canadians by unnecessarily contributing to inflationary pressures that limit both ownership and rental housing possibilities for so many citizens.Our political leaders should prioritize those they represent, ahead of outsiders. It is as easy as it is inappropriate for residents of New York, Boston, and Martha's Vineyard to support high levels of immigrants who arrive on the doorstep of Florida and Texas. It is not unfair to suggest elites are influencing policies mostly impacting those less fortunate and less powerful. It was more than just symbolism that led to Florida and Texas sending full buses and airplanes to the neighbourhoods of those advocates of undocumented immigrants.Another component of a strategic approach is to select those who bring needed skills supportive of economic and social progress. Why should Canadians accept immigrants who create problems ahead of those ready and able to accept Canadian culture and values, able to perform important roles, and less likely to become disruptors?So another test, perhaps the most important in the long run, is to carefully review the value systems of those who want to become Canadians. One feels for Palestinians for example, controlled and manipulated as they are by Hamas, but does that justify entry into Canada? Already too many are illegally occupying public spaces at universities and elsewhere and attacking our fellow Jewish Canadians.Is it acceptable or smart to welcome those who soon demand outcomes potentially detrimental to historical Canadian political, democratic, religious, and economic values?Yet our federal government has just announced another 3,000 Palestinian immigrants.This is a current example of new immigrants transporting past country issues into Canada. Gaza issues are complex, perhaps even intractable, but should not play out with newcomers attacking (sometimes even physically) citizens of Canada.So, another suggested principle — acceptance into our country should be conditional and subject to recission. That is, those occupying public spaces and threatening institutions such as universities and certain groups because of their religion, or any other reason, should be sent back from whence they came.Just as parents in large part shape the values of the next generation, so should our politicians and civil service protect what makes Canada democratic, prosperous, and worthy of our pride and support.It is also important to recognize that occasional refugee arrivals are appropriate notwithstanding strategic parameters.We need immigration — but the future of our country depends upon thoughtful policies, in the context of our significant competitive advantage and identified needs. Canada is our country. Citizenship also brings a responsibility to maintain our culture, prosperity, democracy, and harmony. Is it not possible for our leaders to develop immigration policies that are strategic, discerning and retractable when justified?Food for thought.

PINDER: Who gets to come to Canada?

Related Stories

MACLEOD: Fortress America leaves Ottawa behind — Alberta must align directly with Washington

BRULOTTE: The North Atlantic is a strategic front again — Canada is not ready

Edmonton makes international list of 'cities to watch'

MACLEOD: Canada faces a choice — Beijing or Washington