Marni Soupcoff: Earthquakes make bad laws
Posted: January 18, 2010
Marni Soupcoff
The devastation in Haiti is breaking the world’s heart. Politicians, media commentators and ordinary Canadians are all looking for ways to help the earthquake victims. The instinct is natural, good, commendable and wholesome — but it’s producing several bad ideas.
Canada’s government is suggesting that significantly relaxing requirements (family-reunification requirements, in particular) for Haitians to come here as immigrants and refugees would be a good way for us to lend a hand. They should know better. For reasons obvious to anyone familiar with the Mariel boatlift (in which Fidel Castro emptied his jails, and the U.S. was suddenly flooded with a host of Cuban refugees who... well, just see Scarface), issuing a blanket welcome to all citizens of another country is a dangerous proposition.
But even if some of the Haitians who’d be granted status here would be criminals, and we’d strain to fund the extensive health care, housing and social assistance they would need, it would still be a good deal for the wretched of the Earth, right?
Not necessarily: The move would be tantamount to a lottery — one that ignores the massive problems faced by all the other millions of human beings the world over who suffer in equally perilous and excruciating circumstances.
Why would we choose to embrace a crushed, suffering individual from Haiti over a crushed, suffering individual from Darfur, where hundreds of thousands have died? Or Congo, where millions have perished? Because the pictures from Haiti are more graphic and top of mind? Because on a gut level we’re more sympathetic to the casualties of natural disasters than we are to the casualties of man-made conflicts?
Our immigration system is supposed to reflect our priorities and choices about who gets to come to, and stay in, Canada. The system includes refugee provisions to protect people who are at risk of political persecution in their home countries. The victims of Haiti’s earthquake don’t fall into this category. In fact, there is no legal provision in Canada, or any other nation I know of, that systematically admits foreigners simply on the basis that their nation is poor, dysfunctional and afflicted by tragedy. If there were such a provision, literally billions of people from all over sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia would be entitled to enter Canada tomorrow.
If we admit thousands of Haitian immigrants now, we’ll feel good about ourselves for a few months, and help some people. But what happens the next time there is an earthquake — or a war, typhoon, tsunami, or drought? What happens when those victims come knocking? On what basis do we say no?
Hard cases make bad laws, as they say. The same principle applies to natural disasters: Horrible calamities lead to misguided policies.
In the short term, we should do everything we can to bring life-saving food and medical care to Haiti. But changing our immigration system’s rules — or creating massive, on-the-fly loopholes to existing rules — isn’t something that should be done while images of the dead still appear on our front pages. Instead, our lawmakers should think carefully about whether, in light of this tragedy and others like it, our system needs changing. Any changes we do make should be rules of general application — applying to the victims of this and future crises in equal measure.
Our reaction to the Haitians’ plight is a reminder that we care. The best way to put that care to good use is to ensure our immigration system truly reflects our values.
National Post
msoupcoff@nationalpost.com
