Cure (Immigration Reform) Worse Than Disease (Disease) - N. American Political Elites...

By Michael Monastyrskyj

Recently, Canadian newspapers reported that a Congolese woman entering Canada might have been infected with the deadly Ebola virus.  This was not confirmed and the woman was released from a Hamilton, Ontario hospital after receiving treatment for her (still unexplained) symptoms. But the fear was well-founded. A few months before, a Caribbean immigrant carrying a contagious drug-resistant strain of tuberculosis had infected at least fourteen Hamiltonians and forced more than a thousand others to be tested. 

The story reveals a lot about the way immigration issues are discussed in North America. For several years now, the ruling Canadian Liberal party has been threatening to raise the immigration level to an astounding 300,000 per year, or one percent of the Canada’s current population. This would be the equivalent of the United States allowing in 2.8 million as opposed to 8-900,000 immigrants annually. So far, however, Ottawa has hesitated to fulfill its promise. One widely reported reason is that in 1998 and 1999 Canada wasn’t able to meet its current target of 225,000 immigrants.

However, concerns about a public backlash have also been an important factor. Despite some polls allegedly showing that Canadians support immigration, the pollsters themselves have expressed concern that this attitude could change quickly. And of course, polling data has to be treated with caution given the torrent of abuse that meets even the slightest criticism of immigration in Canada. 

Ottawa’s fear of the Canadian people can be seen in the way it reacted to the “Ebola” story. Buried near the bottom of a Toronto Star article is this telling comment: “the immigration department was scrambling (. . .) to deal with the news, fearful it could cause a major backlash against immigrants.”

When Ontario’s health minister Elizabeth Witmer asked for an immediate review of immigrant screening procedures, federal immigration minister Elinor Caplan was quick to respond: “It’s impossible to shrink wrap our borders” and “(w)e have a system, it's in place and it's working.” Ever vigilant in protecting current policy from inconvenient facts, she dismissed as impractical suggestions that visitors be screened, citing civil liberties and the high volume of border crossings each year.

Caplan’s argument didn’t impress a Toronto Star reader who argued the government would only have to introduce special measures for people from high-risk areas.   

More importantly, the president of Hamilton’s ambulance workers’ union reports that some of his members question their choice of profession, because of the constant exposure to deadly viruses. Ironically, the labor leader is quoted in a news report that dismisses the risk posed by the woman’s illness.

Considering the government’s reluctance to address the issue of disease and borders, it’s no wonder local white nationalists were able to claim success after they distributed leaflets outside the hospital where the Congolese woman was being treated. When mainstream parties won’t address voters’ legitimate concerns, others will fill the vacuum.

Oh, one final thing. The visitor once thought to be infected with Ebola is being investigated for diamond smuggling.