I'm not sure if Tom Kent knows what a Hotel is...
I was surprised by the Globe and Mail when I read Tom Kent’s essay from the April 26th Saturday edition. It’s racists undetones and its less than worldy ideas about immigration reform are surprisingly uncanadian. As much as I might call myself a conservative, I still love Canada’s multiculturalism and our mosaic analogy.
”After three years as residents they may… become citizens. But if not, their permission to reside and work here continues. So does access to the hospitality of our multiculturalism. Legally, we minimize the meaning and responsibilities of citizenship.”
First of all what exactly is the “hospitality of our multiculturalism”? Without immigrants we are not very multicultural at all, so, isn’t it Canadians who are “accessing” immigrants “multiculturalism”?
Second, how can we “minimize the meaning and responsibilities of citizenship” if the people he is complaining about CHOOSE not to be citizens. Isn’t it in fact strengthening citizenship, since only the most dedicated to Canada choose to give up their first citizenship to become Canadian citizens?
We give substance to the jibe that, by making so light of being Canadian, we are the hotel among countries: a place to which you come and go at your convenience, in escape from the obligations of a household.
He continues: “we are the hotel among countries: a place to which you come and go at your convenience, in escape from the obligations of a household.” What is this even reffering to? Should we limit immigrants travel rights into, and out of Canada? Should we force people into being Canadian by not letting them return home for a visit? Even after we’ve given them a Canadian passport?
He would like to give immigrants the “right to live here for three years. Within that time, the immigrant could either become a citizen or leave. A review panel would have final authority to determine whether the modest language and knowledge requirements were satisfied. There would be no provision either for making exceptions by ministerial permit or for appeals.”
No provision for appeals?!? He has already decided that his review panel has higer authority that Canada’s elected officials or the court system. Infact, “If this procedure were to be challenged before the Supreme Court, Parliament should use the “notwithstanding” provision of the Constitution to uphold the law against the arrogance of lawyers.”
How arrogant these lawyers must be to deem themselves to somehow be above Kent’s immigration plan. He won’t let a piddly little thing like the constitution or Supreme Court stop him. He knows what’s best.
He is surprised by “thousands of people living in Lebanon but expecting to be rescued at Canadian taxpayers’ expense” (at the time of the 2006 war between Lebanon and Israel) But he fails to realize that it was the middle of the summer, prime time for families and students to return to to visit relatives. And what is wrong with someone holding Canadian citizeship living in Lebanon anyway? I don’t think he’d have such a big problem with Canadians living the USA.
He goes on to attack our tax system, forgetting that the immigrants he dislikes aren’t even citizens and everything he says doesn’t even apply to them.
“The duty to pay taxes should be inherent in citizenship. Where the citizen chooses from time to time to live is irrelevant. The obligation is to the state that provides the rights of citizenship. Taxation is the price you pay to have those rights.”
Sure, part of my taxes goes towards my rights of citizenship, paying for border security officials, airports, online services and embassys. But a signifcantly larger portion goes towards infrastructure, public healthcare, welfare and subsidies for milk, things I certainly am not accessing while outside of the country. I don’t mind paying part of my Canadian taxes while I’m out of the country, but paying all of them would be ridiculous.
And his penalty for those who don’t pay? “international notice that the offender’s passport has become invalid. That would apply equally to citizens by birth and by naturalization.” What a ludirous concept. We have existing laws for dealing with people who don’t pay their taxes, why do we need to revoke their passport? And what would happen to people who don’t have a second citizenship? Would they become stateless people, forced to sneak across borders to travel?
It seems like Kent is surprised that immigrants to Canada would not want to become Canadian citizens, but maybe it’s because people like him write articles like this for our national newspapers.