March 1, 2006
THE UGLY RIGHT
Study calls for values oath for immigrants (Stewart Bell, National Post, March 1st, 2006)
Canada needs to do more to make sure new immigrants embrace Canadian values, a former diplomat says in a study of counterterrorism policies released yesterday.Former senior Foreign Affairs official Martin Collacott writes that Ottawa should "demand a more explicit commitment to Canada and Canadian values on the part of newcomers."
Special attention must be given to working with the Muslim community because radical Islamic terrorists are currently the greatest danger to Canada's security, says the Fraser Institute paper.
While Canadians are committed to welcoming diverse immigrants from around the world, newcomers must understand that they are expected to accept core Canadian values, it says.
"If they find such acceptance difficult, they should not come here in the first place," Mr. Collacott writes in Canada's Inadequate Response to Terrorism: The Need for Policy Reform.
The paper proposes that those who apply to immigrate to Canada should be told "what is expected of them and that, if they fail to live up to our expectations, they will be removed from Canada."
In addition, before becoming citizens, immigrants should be required to take an oath "swearing that they are not only fully committed to Canadian values and will give their complete allegiance and loyalty to Canada, but that their actions in the future will reflect these commitments."
Mr. Collacott argues like the radical feminist who believes her marriage will succeed if she gets her poor sap of a fiancé to swear endless vows that specifically cover just about every male sin and malfeasance since the dawn of time. What does he think the immigration and security services are for? Forget the impossibility of reaching any consensus on what constitutes “Canadian values” (and the line-up of special interest groups who would demand their cause be included), one wonders what kind of mind imagines potential Muslim terrorists would be dissuaded by prior loyalty oaths to a Western country or what failure “to live up to our expectations” would justify deportation other than committing a crime. An immigrant’s oath of allegiance is an important ceremony. Like marriage vows, it should be short, general, solemn and joyful. To put immigrants under Klieg lights with an oath that screams suspicion of potential subversion based entirely upon nationality or faith is futile, degrading and racist. Indeed, one might say completely contrary to Canadian values.
Posted by Peter Burnet at March 1, 2006 1:59 PMMr. Burnet;
Ah, you almost get it. It is precisely because there is no possibility of deportation regardless of how flagrantly an immigrant flouts Canadian values that the paper shufflers want to have these oaths sworn. It's actually more akin to people who think that passing laws will stop people from doing bad things, without the bother of enforcing those laws.
P.S. What constitutes such flagrant behavior? I'd say something like this does, or anything openly seditious.
AOG:
It's too bad some of the folks (apparently some men along with women) are wearing headscarves -- that makes them harder to identify in case the British ever wise up and decide to deport them.
Posted by: Matt Murphy at March 1, 2006 4:34 PMAOG/Matt
Let's agree the picture embodies everything we don't want in an immigrant. Let's also assume that, under our laws protecting free speech, it is perfectly legal. What basis are you going to use to deport him?
Posted by: Peter B at March 1, 2006 5:33 PMPeter B:
If they're citizens, there's probably nothing we can do. However, one would think with all our ingenuity we could find a way to keep at least some Islamists from entering in the first place.
If they're not citizens but are only residing as guests, they should be deported. In allowing them to live here, it's surely fair to attach some basic caveats to our generosity. For the folks who enter legally, there should be a stipulation that you waive your right to continue living here if you advocate overthrow of the government or call for the ritualized murder of your fellow citizens. Here in America, we do this to naturalized citizens who turn out to be former Nazis; why not do it for these people?
I don't know about you, but anybody who wants to kill me gets taken off my dinner list. In this respect, countries should behave no differently than people do.
I can't speak for the northern dominion, but I'll reiterate my position that I welcome any immigrant from any place whatsoever, as long as he thinks of himself as an American and agrees to obey our laws.
Posted by: Matt Murphy at March 1, 2006 5:56 PMMatt, me too.
Posted by: erp at March 1, 2006 6:24 PMMatt:
Well, they aren't citizens or guests. They are immigrants, who have the right to work, to due process and are taxed, as well as the promise of citizenship if they obey the law. If they commit a crime, they are out, but I don't see how you are going to deport for lawful acts because they disgust or frighten us.
What would you say about a a native-born American who was carrying those signs? If you say that should be illegal, you have solved your problem, but if not, on what basis would you distinguish and who would make the call? An immigration bureaucrat? The Brothersjudd regulars?
Also, first generation immigrants don't "think of themselves as American" by and large, at least not in the unqualified sense I think you mean. Their kids do. My mother-in-law came from Romania in the early 1950's and still gets embarassed and dismissive(in a delighted way)when I say she is as Canadian as I am. Are you going to test them on what is going on in their minds?
Posted by: Peter B at March 1, 2006 6:37 PMLet's also assume that, under our laws protecting free speech, it is perfectly legalI am unwilling to concede that. Some of those signs, at least, are incitement and others are seditious. Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at March 1, 2006 6:38 PM
Peter B:
I understand that it may not be legal under current law to deport immigrants who are not citizens (at least for holding up those signs), I'm just saying that it should be. Citizenship is not a right for them; we can refuse to grant it. Similarly, residence here is not a right; we should revoke it for actions that demonstrate clear unwillingness to accept the virtues on which we have built a decent society.
I'm sure you're right that there are borderline cases, and I'm equally sure there's nothing borderline about holding up signs calling for the slaughter of large numbers of innocent people.
As noted, I "make the call" based on whether or not the invididual is a citizen. An American citizen does not have to uphold any requirements to continue living here, but an immigrant who is not yet a citizen should be required to do so, or at least to refrain from certain abominable actions, whether legal or illegal.
Posted by: Matt Murphy at March 1, 2006 6:56 PMMatt:
Let's suppose a crowd of angry young Muslim males are demonstrating in Washington. Half are citizens and half landed, official immigrants. They all look as tolerant, thoughful and self-controlled as we have come to expect from angry young Muslim males. Throughout the crowd, you can see the following signs:
"Death to all Jews"
" Israel must be destroyed"
" Bush is a murderer"
"To Hell with Freedom"
"Gays are an abomination to Allah"
"USA=Nazi Germany"
"Sharia for all"
"The Infidel must die"
"A monarchy for America"
"Ban cars now"
Upon investigation, they claim they were there at the behest of the America-Muslim Friendship Society, who just put the signs in their hands willy-nilly. They also claim to have been incited by a mysterious New Hampshire blogger in mufti.
Who stays and who decides?
Posted by: Peter B at March 1, 2006 8:19 PMPeter B:
Investigate the claim. Does the story check out? Is it really possible that somebody else put those signs in their hands and they had no comprehension of what they were doing? Also, this is quite hypothetical and arguably one of those borderline cases: It's just not likely that young angry Muslims males will be holding up Juddite signs along with the usual "kill Westerners" stuff.
If the story doesn't check out, it's reasonable to deport the ones holding signs calling for the murder of innocent people. Although perhaps it would be wise to keep an eye on these fellows and see if they're repeat offenders, just to be fair and all.
Posted by: Matt Murphy at March 1, 2006 9:10 PMMatt:
No, the Juddite reference was poetic licence. But we're in a bit of a bind here, aren't we? We are mentally at war against an enemy we can't define or agree upon, but, c'mon, we're not really at war. If we were truly at war, we would find the way (legally) to punish these kinds of frightening and menacing threats on the basis that they are the enemy. But because we are not at war, there is no political or legal outlet to distinguish these guys from the rest of the world's crazies. How the heck do you distinguish raving Islamicists from raving Irish sectarians?
If we were really at war, the cartoon debates around here would have been different. Everyone would have accepted that freedoms are circumscribed in the cause of the national interest in a national emergency. The Government would have both silenced the Islamicist marchers and told editors the cartoons hampered the war effort, and we all would have basically gone along with it as we knitted socks for the troops and waived our sons goodbye. But, no, distracted by American Idol, Paris Hilton and the state of our home equity, we decided to let freedom ring and make a form of near-hate speech the lodestar of Western values. Then, when the favour is returned by the objects of our contempt, we mutter about deporting people who offend our values with absolutely no care about the rule of law or due process. It's down to: "You disgust and frighten us, so be gone. But we are still the land of the free".
I have no answer, but it doesn't add up.
Posted by: Peter B at March 1, 2006 10:03 PMPeter B:
I'm sorry, but I just don't get your freedom argument. Coming here is a privilege that can be revoked. We would seek to keep a potential immigrant with these views out of the country, wouldn't we? Why does this change once they're in the country? If it's a due process charge you're making, then fine -- I have no problem with setting up procedural safeguards to make sure we aren't deporting the pro-American Muslim fellow down the street.
My argument is that, at least in this respect, we should be treating this more like a war. And while I agree that it would be nice if the cartoonists would have refrained from rudely mocking the Islamic religion and offending actual or potential friends of ours, the slight seemed relatively mild in comparison to some of the "art" western religious believers have to put up with, but which are not met with violence of any kind. I certainly know better than to condemn all Muslims for this sort of thing (which is silly and shortsighted), but it's scary enough watching this kind of stuff happening half a planet away and I don't think we should have to put up with it here.
Posted by: Matt Murphy at March 2, 2006 2:09 AMPeter:
The cartoons were offensive to a certain population segment, but they didn't call for the annihilation of Muslims. Surely you can see the difference between opining that Islam oppresses women and fosters violence, and supporting these ideas:
"Death to all Jews"
"Israel must be destroyed"
"Ban cars now"
Why do I feel I'm talking to the wall? Of course I see a difference. I'm simply saying I see no way you can say it is perfectly lawful for native born Americans to wave such signs but a deportable offence for immigrants.
Matt:
It's not about freedom at all. It's about due process and equality before the law.
Posted by: Peter B at March 2, 2006 2:51 PMPeter B:
I beg your pardon, that's what I meant to say. I'm all in favor of applying some kind of due process to these guys before deciding to deport them. But I don't think it's a violation of their rights to deport them for holding up signs like that, assuming that we stipulate in advance that doing such things will get them kicked out of the country.
Posted by: Matt Murphy at March 2, 2006 7:09 PMPeter B:
OJ will tell you that I'm pretty loose with the term "freedom": I too frequently use it to mean anything in a democratic society that is widely conceived as a good thing.
Posted by: Matt Murphy at March 2, 2006 7:12 PMI'm simply saying I see no way you can say it is perfectly lawful for native born Americans to wave such signs but a deportable offence for immigrants.
Like family, we don't choose who gets born in the U.S., we're just stuck with them.
But non-citizen immigrants are friends, whom we DO get to choose, and guests, of whom it behooves to behave.
Once they're citizens, they may say any crazy thing that they like; until then, they're biting the hand that feeds.
Is this not a Canadian concept, that you have control over which adults are allowed to join your society ?
Posted by: Noam Chomsky at March 3, 2006 12:13 AMOne last time.
Do you think it should be lawful, however distasteful, for citizens to march with placards saying "Death to Muslims" or "Nuke Mecca"? If not, we don't have a disagreement, but, if so, on what basis would you deport Muslims chanting "Death to Jews" or "Destroy Israel"?
Immigrants aren't guests at a dinner party. You have to have lawful reason to deport. "I don't like you" doesn't cut it.
Posted by: Peter B at March 3, 2006 4:37 AMPeter B:
No, but it should be lawful to deport immigrants who hold up those kinds of signs. If we don't currently treat them as "guests," then we should. Again, we're stuck with the citizens who do things like this, but not with people whose residence here depends on our willingness to accommodate them.
My thinking doesn't revolve around "I don't like you," because there are surely immigrants who I dislike that don't merit deportation. I'm talking about extreme, anti-American, hateful actions that raise a major red flag as to whether the individuals involved can acclimate themselves to our free society. If we haven't yet committed to taking them into our country as permanent citizens, then we ought to deport them.
If we don't yet draw that distinction, we should -- and I have a feeling the majority of people, at least in America, would agree with me. The opposite position seems eerily close to a death-wish, ala Muggeridge.
Posted by: Matt Murphy at March 3, 2006 3:39 PM