EXCLUSIVE: Canada had every reason to deport him. Then a minister intervened
https://thestateofthingsca.substack.com/p/exclusive-canada-had-every-reason
EXCLUSIVE: Canada had every reason to deport him. Then a minister intervened
https://thestateofthingsca.substack.com/p/exclusive-canada-had-every-reason
4 Comments
He and Blinky have to go. I have no idea why despite their dismal and clownish performance at their very critical and important jobs, they are still allowed to continue sending the country into the doldrums.
Ukranian man with serious and expensive health issues fails to declare them, gets a DUI and then has an anchor baby. Now, good old Gary has intervened to stay his deportation.
Ukranians generally make for good immigrants; they have high language uptake rates; decent education; high employability and compatible values.
In this case, hell no. Where’s your bag? I’ll help you pack.
Oh what a mess. I see two separate issues really:
1) He’s a refugee, but he’s not really a refugee. I had assumed the Ukrainians were granted refugee status, but the Canada-Ukraine Authorization for Emergency Travel Program is more like a work visa (?) with health requirements (?!)
2) The MInisterial power to admit people or reject applicants is capricious and arbitrary. I’m still outraged Conrad Black was allowed back into the country as a convicted foreign felon, let alone re-granted citizenship. But if you know the right people please, walk right on in. On the other hand I’m reluctant to argue it should be abolished because it’s the last resort of clemency in these cases. Though it doesn’t seem deserved in this one.
> The public service whistleblower doesn’t agree with the minister’s decision to issue a reprieve to Mr. X.
> “We’re doing everything as required by the law and then this minister is basically using his ministerial powers of relief to circumvent the law as designed.”
well, no, the minister is acting entirely within the law here, if you don’t approve of it, the law is what needs to change.
dude had a DUI, i can certainly see how the minister might grant a temporary reprieve for someone in his circumstances. really, the deeper problem that the article points to is the unequal access to ministerial discretion (and the arbitrary nature of it) and also inconsistently hash treatment in *other* cases.