There’s much to write about the debacle that is Canada’s response to the Syrian refugee situation and I may get around to publishing a post or two about it but I wouldn’t be writing anything that hasn’t been said in the comments section of the CBC new site or in the commentary of those who share the view that bringing these people here and in such great numbers is a stupid idea. And referring to a past "success" is no guarantee of a repeated future outcome. With that said I’m not too sure if I care to write much about the Syrians since it’s the system I want to focus on and the Syrians are just the current benefactors in a long line of past and future benefactors of our most dysfunctional and easily gameable asylum system.
I will say this. It’s not really Canada’s response in the general sense, as in “we, the people”, but more so the response made by a gaggle of people who occupy influential and privileged positions in the public and private spheres whose inveterate need to virtue-signal compel them to engage in actions that the rest of us will eventually have to pay for in one form or another with no consideration on how we feel about the matter. From what I gather most of us are sick of hearing about the Syrian refugees and can you blame us? It’s infuriating to see our political class, from our civic leaders to our national representatives, foot-drag to address more pressing local and national concerns yet can find the time and resources to help foreigners in trouble especially when the cameras are rolling. Besides, is it really the best idea to bring them here in the first place? Wouldn’t the resources we’re spending to bring 50,000 Syrians (because the 25,000 the Liberals promised to dump into Canada pre-election didn’t piss us off enough it seems) be better spent and aid more people if it was allocated directly to the refugee camps? How is bringing in 50,000 Syrians going to positively affect the crisis they are fleeing aside from making a few misguided Canadians feel good about themselves? It really does lack any rational consideration but that’s par for the course. We expelled logic and reason from shepherding the nation’s immigration policy a long time ago and replaced them with compassion and political necessity as the guiding lights which is why the system has become such an unmanageable monstrous mess.
In any case, and in the spirit of not repeating what has already been said elsewhere, there’s a write-up at Rebel Media about the true costs of private sponsorship of refugees. If you haven’t already read it then do so.
A key point to take away from this is that private sponsors are only liable for up to one year for the upkeep of their charge. After that they become wards of the state if they haven’t become fully self-reliant by then. The sponsors get all the warm feelings and positive press while we, the public, eventually get the joy of having to pay for it all.
Another key point is that privately sponsored refugees are not wholly supported by their sponsors. They are entitled to a bevy of publicly funded benefits like dental and health care which their sponsors are not on the hook for.
This contradicts the official government line that privately sponsored refugees are not a burden to the public when in fact they are but the government hasn’t been very forthright about its Syrian refugee pet project now has it? We learned at first that most Syrians didn’t want to come here. Of those who came to Canada we now know that many weren’t in any immediate danger. In fact many already had accommodations, renting apartments in Lebanon and Turkey, along with gainful employment. That being true these Syrians ceased being refugees having found relative refuge.
What’s bothersome about this whole affair is how it was presented to the public as if this was the only viable course of action when alternative options should have been given considerable weight. Pre-election the Conservative approach appeared to be the most reasonable enjoying healthy public support but our grand-standing left of center parties had to double down on the lunacy and show how out of touch they are with those they want to govern by demanding Canada take an unpopular course of action particularly when that unfortunate boy washed ashore on a Turkish beach. They capitalized on a terrible event to pander to our emotions so as to present themselves to the public as the compassionate choice and therefore the most fit to govern. The whole thing reeked of grandiose moral exhibitionism for the sake of obtaining political capital. And with the election of the Liberals, and thus making a world fame chasing primadonna the national leader (and I use the word "leader" in the loosest sense possible), expect things to get much worse. So if you’re anything like me you may want to remove all sharp objects from your home. But if you want to keep them on hand for, you know, "reasons" then remember it’s down the road not across the street.