Sign In Sign-Up

Welcome!

Close

Would you like to make this site your homepage? It's fast and easy...

Yes, Please make this my home page!

No Thanks

  Don't show this to me again.

Close

US detention



The following article is from The Vancouver Sun newspaper in Vancouver

BC, one of Canada's most respected dailies.  Its website is at

http://www.vancouversun.com/.



How did the U.S. deport migrants so quickly?



Chad Skelton Vancouver Sun



Picture Of: Steve Bosch, Vancouver Sun / UNDER ARREST: Illegal migrants

are lined up on deck of  the HMCS Huron.



Picture Of: Percentage of all refugee claimants that failed to show up

for their hearings 1998: 14.3% Canada, 57.1% U.S.; Percentage of all

refugee claims accepted 1997-1998: 54.3% Canada, 50.4% U.S.

Last week, the United States announced that 141 Chinese migrants picked

up on a boat near Guam on Aug. 15 had been returned to China.

The quick response of America's Immigration and Naturalization Service

seemed the perfect example of how Canada and the United States treat

refugee claimants differently.

While the U.S. was returning boat people less than a month after their

arrival, 37 migrants from the first boat that arrived in B.C. on July

20 have disappeared after being released. And hundreds more from the

three other boats will likely be in Canada for months, if not years,

before a final determination is made about their status.

"The Americans . . . have the ability to deal with the problem a lot

quicker in all cases," Leon Benoit, the federal Reform party's

immigration critic, said in a recent interview. "Canada is seen . . .

as an easy target."

But the "perfect" example is seriously flawed.

Contrary to popular opinion, refugee claimants in the United States

have access to more appeals and are more likely to not show up for

their hearings than those in Canada.

It was only through some jurisdictional sleight-of-hand that the

Americans were able to deal with that one boatload of Chinese migrants

so quickly.

The U.S. Coast Guard redirected that ship to the tiny island of Tinian,

a sparsely populated U.S. territory where immigration laws do not

apply.

That is what allowed the INS to process all the migrants within weeks.

Hundreds of Chinese migrants that have successfully landed in the past

year on Guam, a U.S. protectorate a few hundred kilometres south of

Tinian, are still having their cases heard -- because U.S. immigration

laws apply in Guam.

And the 132 Chinese that landed in Savannah, Ga., in early August are

still in nearby Atlanta awaiting their hearings.

Don Mueller, an INS spokes-man, says the Savannah migrants are unlikely

to leave anytime soon because they have claimed political asylum.

A close look at the U.S. system shows that the widely held belief that

America has the problem of illegal migration under control while Canada

does not is largely a myth.

Many have pointed to the problem of "abandoned" refugee claims in

Canada: thousands of claimants every year who are released pending

their hearings and never show up.

But statistics show the U.S. has a much bigger problem with "no shows"

than we do.

Last year, 4,181 refugee claimants in Canada, 14.3 per cent, abandoned

their claims by not showing up.

In the U.S., more than one in three asylum seekers, 37.1 per cent,

failed to show up for their immigration court hearings.

In fact, the U.S. had almost as many claimants disappear last year

(27,752) as all of Canada's claims -- real, bogus and abandoned --

combined (29,325).

Benoit, who has said in the past the U.S. detains almost all claimants

awaiting a hearing, was surprised when told of those numbers. "That's

different than what I've been told by immigration people there."

(Canada's no-show rate is considerably higher for Chinese claimants in

Vancouver, of which 70 per cent fail to show up. China-specific numbers

were unavailable from the U.S.)

Mueller said the high rate of no-shows in the U.S. is a concern for the

INS.

"It's not a great number," he said. "And I guess it's certainly

understandable if you don't think you have a good case and you're out

there -- you're not likely to show up and risk being removed."

But why are asylum-seekers being let free in the first place?

U.S. immigration has been characterized in Canadian news reports and by

Canadian politicians as having more detention powers than Canada. In

theory, that's true.

In the U.S., detention is at the discretion of INS officials. In

Canada, refugee claimants can argue for release every few weeks before

the Immigration and Refugee Board.

But Mueller said that while the INS has the discretion to detain

everyone, they simply do not have the space to do so.

The agency has more than 20 detention facilities and rents space from

local jails. But they are often full, in part because recent U.S.

legislation requires the INS to detain all claimants with criminal

backgrounds, which, Mueller said, "doesn't leave all that much room for

non-criminals."

Many have criticized the so-called "endless appeals" available to

claimants in Canada -- it takes an average of 11 months until a final

decision is made.

But refugee claimants in Canada actually have only one avenue of appeal

after the Immigration Review Board makes its decision: the Federal

Court. And that court only overturns one per cent of all cases.

In the U.S., on the other hand, all claimants who are rejected by a

U.S. immigration judge can have their appeal heard by the Board of

Immigration Appeals.

After that, claimants can apply to the regular judicial system where

they can take advantage of three more levels of appeal: district court,

Federal Court and Supreme Court.

Mueller said some cases have dragged through the U.S. courts for years.

"If you . . . had the money or lawyers to work the case for you, you

could take a long time before you actually get removed."

Canada has been recognized as interpreting the meaning of the United

Nations Convention on the Status of Refugees very broadly -- accepting

refugee claims by battered women, homosexuals and those fleeing China's

one-child policy in addition to those fleeing political persecution.

But while Canada may accept some claims the U.S. would not, over-all

both countries accept about the same share.

Over the past two years, Canada's IRB has accepted 22,918 refugee

claims and rejected 19,286 -- a 54-per-cent acceptance rate.

At first glance, the U.S. appears much less generous, with its

immigration court accepting 13,795 claims and rejecting 27,644 from

1997-98 -- an acceptance rate of only 33 per cent.

But while all claims in Canada go to the IRB, in the United States an

immigration officer can in some cases accept an asylum claim on the

spot.

And from 1997-98, more than 20,000 people had their refugee claims

accepted by the INS.

When those cases are included in the final number, the U.S. actually

accepts more than half, 50.4 per cent, of all claims for asylum, only

marginally lower than Canada's acceptance rate.

One of the few areas in which Canada is more generous is that it offers

welfare to refugee claimants, something not available in the U.S. But

claimants in both Canada and the U.S. can legally work while their

claims are being heard.

And there are agencies, both government and charitable, in the U.S.

that provide free legal help to asylum seekers.

Which leaves only one way in which the U.S. is significantly tougher:

interdiction.

In a policy criticized by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, the

U.S. Coast Guard intercepts dozens of boats every year to prevent

asylum-seekers from making a claim.

After the coast guard stops a boat, INS officers will often process the

claimants at sea.

They will then take the migrants to countries with restrictive asylum

laws, like the Bahamas, to arrange a flight back.

Last year, coast guard interceptions prevented 4,023 migrants,

including 777 Chinese, from reaching America.

Neither the INS or coast guard have an estimate of how many boats slip

through, but the total number of asylum claims in the U.S. last year --

71,318 -- suggests those intercepted by boat are a drop in the bucket

compared to those that get through by air or other means.

Canada does not intercept boats and redirect them to other countries.

But Immigration Canada says that officers abroad do stop 6,000 migrants

a year from boarding planes to Canada with false documents.

Even if Canada wanted to adopt stronger maritime interception, it may

not be practical. Unlike in Guam or Florida, there are no foreign

countries near the B.C. coast where ships could be easily redirected.

The U.S. would presumably be less than eager to take such ships.

Perhaps the most striking difference of all between the migrant boats

that land here compared with those in the U.S. is the attention they

receive.

The Chinese boat people in this province have been front-page news all

summer in newspapers across the country.

South of the border, the issue usually only receives attention when

political situations in places like Cuba or Haiti lead to tens of

thousands flooding the U.S. at one time.

The hundreds of migrants that have landed in places like Guam and

Savannah over the past few years are barely mentioned in the U.S.

press.

And while the Canadian government is grilled almost daily about how

they plan to send a message to stop human-smuggling, the asylum issue

is well below the political radar in Washington, D.C.

Why? Perhaps because the immigration debate in the U.S. is focused

almost exclusively on a single issue: Mexicans sneaking across the

border.

The INS estimates there are as many as 6 million illegal immigrants

living in the United States -- including 3 million Mexicans. About 80

per cent of California's large Hispanic population is believed to be

illegal.

In short, the Americans have much bigger problems to worry about.





The article you just read is from The Vancouver Sun newspaper in

Vancouver BC. Looking for a job in Vancouver? Try our Careerclick site

at http://www.careerclick.com/bc.  Canucks fan? Follow the team at

http://www.thecanucks.com/.