What has come to light, thanks to the National Post, is a peek into the behaviour of a former Immigration and Refugee board member and what appears to be a case of "the fox in charge of the hen house." IRB members decide who is and who is not a refugee or, to put it more accurately, who is telling the truth and who is lying. Since there is no science involved in this process a lot of these decisions are based on politics, gut feeling, naive compassion fueled by ignorance, and in Mr. Mouammar's case pure ethnic bias and favourtism. You can read the whole article here.
Ottawa urged to review immigration board cases
Arab group's chief accepted 100% of refugees from Middle East
John Ivison, National Post Published: Saturday, March 07, 2009
Mr. Mouammar, an outspoken supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah, recorded an acceptance rate of 100% when it came to refugees from North Africa and the Middle East during his time with the IRB between 1995 and 2005, according to statistics obtained by the National Post. Although cases from the Middle East represented only a tiny fraction of his overall caseload, the 68-year-old orthodox Christian, who was born in Palestine, also accepted each claim he heard against Israel during the period, while the rest of the IRB accepted just 10% of Israel claims.
"I would like to see some close scrutiny of who this fellow accepted because his numbers are off the radar screen, even in comparison to the generally questionable record of the IRB. Obviously no one was monitoring his performance because he was there for 10 years," said Martin Collacott, a former diplomat who follows immigration and refugee issues for the Fraser Institute.
In his first few years with the IRB, the norm was for two or three members to sit on a panel and hear refugee cases. In those years, Mr. Mouammar heard 912 cases, recording an acceptance rate of 50%, compared to an IRB average of 30%.
After the IRB streamlined the hearing process to one member, Mr. Mouammar's acceptance rate rose dramatically. Of the 1,092 cases he heard on his own, he accepted 88%, compared to a 49% average for the rest of the IRB. When it came to cases from Algeria, Iraq, Israel, Morocco and Tunisia, that number rose to 100%.
"My conclusion is that, statistically, you definitely wanted him in the room with you if you were from Algeria or Iraq, or if you were making a claim against Israel," said immigration policy analyst and lawyer Richard Kurland.
Mr. Collacott noted that Canada accepts three times as many refugees as most other countries.
I don't know what was going on in Mr. Mouammar's head nor do I know the details of the cases he heard so I cannot comment with much certainty. But the numbers, if they are accurate, do tell a tale.
It appears Khaled Mouammar, an Arab immigrant from Palestine, let his politics against Israel and his racial preference for Arabs cloud his judgment and this is concerning. Can we truly have an objective refugee determination system when people like Khaled Moummar are the ones making the decisions? Who are we to assume that racial or ethnic preference does not play a factor in the decisions made by IRB members or driving the arguments of mass-immigration proponents from ethnic minority groups? In Khaled Moummar's case it seems he was intent on bringing more Arabs, more people of his shared ethnicity into Canada. Were the white majority of Canada to demand preferential consideration for white immigrants it would immediately be deemed racist. Is it also racist then when members of Canada's visible minority groups, including immigrant and visible minority MPs in Ottawa, demand the steady and increasing importation of people from their home and ancestral countries by increasing immigration targets?
I wonder how many Khaled Mouammar's are sitting on the IRB right now, giving preference to those of shared racial or ethnic heritage. It would be interesting to see an in depth investigation of all the refugee decisions made by members of the IRB and if it reveals a pattern like that of Mr. Mouammar's. It may very well assuage my fears and reassure me the Mr. Mouammar is an anomaly but right now I doubt that very much.
Of greater concern is that it shows how the IRB weakens Canada's sovereignty. Immigration is a sovereignty issue because immigration controls the influx of non citizens into the country and it gives us the power to decide who can stay and who cannot. If we lost control of that power then we have lost control of our borders and our national sovereignty. If immigrants with agendas are in positions to weaken Canada's ability to control its borders and do so by their actions are they truly standing on guard for Canada and doing what is best for the country? Or are they driven by ethnic and/or racial allegiances that compel them to act in a way that strengthens their respective ethnic communities at the expense of the host majority?