Greek Exodus: Workers Flee to Canada and Australia

[Razgovory]

You are mixing apples and oranges there Jacob.  Of course we can take people that have the skills we need.  What we dont want are the people that are unemployable in their own country to come here under the guise of a refugee claim so that they can become unemployable in this country.

Real refugees yes.  Fake refugees no.

So this is basically aimed at gypsies, gay Polish lawyers and opponents of the Hungarian regime like HVC says? I guess that makes sense too.

This is aimed at people who try to get in to Canada claiming they are a refugee when there is no valid refugee claim.  Those people are normally referred to as economic refugees - people who try to game the refugee system because they realize they would not get in as a bona fide immigrant. Seems pretty clear.

Thing is, I suspect that the economic refugees are more likely to have useful skills.  Like doctors and scientist and engineers.  Someone who has the drive to put himself through school to get a useful degree, is probably the first to become dissatisfied when economic prospects get poor and the first to have the resources to move across the ocean.

I imagine that Greece will be suffering from a "Brain drain" for the next few years.

[Jacob]

This is aimed at people who try to get in to Canada claiming they are a refugee when there is no valid refugee claim.  Those people are normally referred to as economic refugees - people who try to game the refugee system because they realize they would not get in as a bona fide immigrant. Seems pretty clear.

Well duh! 

Who are those people?

I mean, I can see the HVC analysis having something to it - Roma and people of other traveller communities - could (and may have) make the argument that they are being discriminated against or even persecuted in Europe and thus have a valid refugee claim. I suppose, too, that gay people from some of the more retrograde East European countries may be able to make such an argument. In that case this law that says "you can't be a refugee from Europe. Full stop" makes a lot of sense.

But to guard against your average Giorgos or Yannis from Greece claiming they're refugees? That doesn't really make sense to me. What grounds - even outlandishly spurious ones - could they have to claim that?

[crazy canuck]

Thing is, I suspect that the economic refugees are more likely to have useful skills.  Like doctors and scientist and engineers. 

Interesting suspicion of yours.  Do you have anything to base that on? 

fyi, as Jacob has already mentioned there is a separate way for people with actual skills to enter the country - like doctors, scentists and engineers.

[crazy canuck]

This is aimed at people who try to get in to Canada claiming they are a refugee when there is no valid refugee claim.  Those people are normally referred to as economic refugees - people who try to game the refugee system because they realize they would not get in as a bona fide immigrant. Seems pretty clear.

Well duh! 

Exactly.

[Jacob]

Exactly.

What I was trying to get at is that when you said:

Coincidence that the Government just introduced legislation to make refugee claims from safe European countries more difficult?

Exactly.  That is perhaps why the new refugee rules are being put into place - the Eurozone coutries are all considered "safe" in terms of human rights abuses.  We dont want a flood of economic refugees posing as legitimate refugees.

That seemed to imply that you think that the new legislation to make refugee claims from safe European countries more difficult is in response to the economic crisis there, because it is likely that there'll be a significant increase in people wanting to immigrate for economic reasons posing as refugees.

Now, I think that it is unlikely to happen and thus I think that the Government has other reasons - most likely reasonable ones - for introducing the legislation. However, I'm not terribly informed on the legislation so I could very well be wrong. I was hoping to hear your reasoning if you do indeed believe what I thought you implied.

[crazy canuck]

Jacob, there was a story on the CBC morning show this morning about local immagration agencies being overwelmed with calls from Greece.  I think the main purpose of the legislation is to ensure that as things get worse in Europe that procedures for separating legitimate refugees from those claiming refugee status for economic purposes - ie non legitimate claims are put in place.  This seems a good start.

[Jacob]

As an aside, CC, I was mildly confused by your use of the term "economic refugee." I've always taken it to mean just another way to say "someone who immigrates for economic reasons" (whether it's an investor immigrant or someone who sneaks across the border to get fruit picker jobs) whereas you're using it to say "someone who claims to be a political refugee, but in reality is looking for refugee status because they want the economic benefits of immigration."

[crazy canuck]

As an aside, CC, I was mildly confused by your use of the term "economic refugee." I've always taken it to mean just another way to say "someone who immigrates for economic reasons" (whether it's an investor immigrant or someone who sneaks across the border to get fruit picker jobs) whereas you're using it to say "someone who claims to be a political refugee, but in reality is looking for refugee status because they want the economic benefits of immigration."

You are confusing the word refugee with immigrant.  There is nothing wrong with economic immigrants.  As you know we have a specific system for those people and as you may recall I have often argued that we need more such immigrants.

Refugees are a different matter completely.  Refugees must be able to establish not that they are a political refugee but that their human rights are being violated to such an extent that they have a fear for their life.  What I object to, and what I think the legislation aims to address, are people who have no such valid claim (ie they live in a country where their rights are not violated) and they are simply coming because they see greater economic opportunity.  If that is the reason they want to come they should not pose as a refugee. They should apply as an immigrant like everyone else.

[Jacob]

Jacob, there was a story on the CBC morning show this morning about local immagration agencies being overwelmed with calls from Greece.  I think the main purpose of the legislation is to ensure that as things get worse in Europe that procedures for separating legitimate refugees from those claiming refugee status for economic purposes - ie non legitimate claims are put in place.  This seems a good start.

I have no doubts that lots of Greeks would want to immigrate. This would explain the many calls to the local immigration agencies which, as far as I'm aware, deal with non-refugee immigration. I've seen no indication at all (but could've missed it), that Greeks have or are going to start claiming refugee status; I can't fathom what the claim would be based on such that you need extra legislation to say "because you're from Greece, you don't qualify." I think it's much more likely aimed at marginalized groups within Europe who might have more legitimate claims of being ill treated, but whom the Government considers undesirable or undeserving.

I was just wondering if you have something more to go on when you think this is a good start to prevent a future surge in spurious refugee claims originating in Europe - something in the legislation or some other developments that you're aware of. If not, I'll just disagree with your hunch and go with my own, that it is targeted at pre-existing groups that tend towards spurious refugee claims already (or who might have legitimate claims, but are seen as undesirable by the Government). In other words, when you ask if it's a coincidence, my immediate answer is "yes, probably." Not the end of the world, of course 

[Jacob]

You are confusing the word refugee with immigrant.  There is nothing wrong with economic immigrants.  As you know we have a specific system for those people and as you may recall I have often argued that we need more such immigrants.

Refugees are a different matter completely.  Refugees must be able to establish not that they are a political refugee but that their human rights are being violated to such an extent that they have a fear for their life.  What I object to, and what I think the legislation aims to address, are people who have no such valid claim (ie they live in a country where their rights are not violated) and they are simply coming because they see greater economic opportunity.  If that is the reason they want to come they should not pose as a refugee. They should apply as an immigrant like everyone else.

No disagreement here, except on the usage of the term "economic refugee". I don't really like the term used the way you use it because it sort of impugns both "economic" (a perfectly legitimate reason to immigrate) and "refugee" (someone fleeing something bad) to make a compound that means something bad. Of course, if it's widely used I'll just have to suck it up, but your usage is the first time I've noticed that particular meaning. Is it a National Post thing?

Well, and I disagree with your hunch about the reason for this legislation, but all I have is a hunch of my own.

[crazy canuck]

I can't fathom what the claim would be based on such that you need extra legislation to say "because you're from Greece, you don't qualify."

Not sure what you base that on.  Apparently upward of 95% of refugee claims from Europe are rejected as invalid.  The problem under the old system after being rejected they still got to stay in the country pending an appeal which can take years to complete.  Under the new system they are removed pending their appeal.

The old system allowed a gateway for people to enter the country and stay on a bogus claim.  Surely you see the attaction of people trying to gain entry in this way when they would have no chance of gaining entry through the legitimate immigration process?  Make a bogus claim - stay for years.  Where is the down side in that system? 

[crazy canuck]

You are confusing the word refugee with immigrant.  There is nothing wrong with economic immigrants.  As you know we have a specific system for those people and as you may recall I have often argued that we need more such immigrants.

Refugees are a different matter completely.  Refugees must be able to establish not that they are a political refugee but that their human rights are being violated to such an extent that they have a fear for their life.  What I object to, and what I think the legislation aims to address, are people who have no such valid claim (ie they live in a country where their rights are not violated) and they are simply coming because they see greater economic opportunity.  If that is the reason they want to come they should not pose as a refugee. They should apply as an immigrant like everyone else.

No disagreement here, except on the usage of the term "economic refugee". I don't really like the term used the way you use it because it sort of impugns both "economic" (a perfectly legitimate reason to immigrate) and "refugee" (someone fleeing something bad) to make a compound that means something bad. Of course, if it's widely used I'll just have to suck it up, but your usage is the first time I've noticed that particular meaning. Is it a National Post thing?

Well, and I disagree with your hunch about the reason for this legislation, but all I have is a hunch of my own.

Like the phrase or not a person who claims they are a refugee but they are doing so only for economic reasons has to have some label.  What would you call them?  fyi, it has been a term used for years.  I am surprised you have not heard it used before now.

edit: and a National Post thing?  Really?  More of your feared hidden agenda?

Here is as good a description as any for where economic refugee comes from

The use of term "economic refugee" can be tracked as far back to the late 1990′s and replaces all other terms (such as "illegal immigrant", "undocumented immigrant", "illegal alien", etc.) when discussing immigration policy.  It is not clear who originally coined the term "economic refugee" (see side bar for links to various publications across decades that have used the term), but it was perhaps best personafied in the 2001 film UPROOTED: Refugee of the Global Economy and in the 2006 "The Framing of Immigration" essay that was written by Professor of Linguistics George Lakoff and his colleague Sam Ferguson.  The essay served as the inspiration behind the launch of Project Economic Refugee and was originally published on the now-defunct Rockridge Institute.  In that essay, the American public was urged to recognize that the "issue of illegal immigration" is first and foremost a HUMANITARIAN matter that has many layers of complexity

[Jacob]

I can't fathom what the claim would be based on such that you need extra legislation to say "because you're from Greece, you don't qualify."

Not sure what you base that on.  Apparently upward of 95% of refugee claims from Europe are rejected as invalid.  The problem under the old system after being rejected they still got to stay in the country pending an appeal which can take years to complete.  Under the new system they are removed pending their appeal.

The old system allowed a gateway for people to enter the country and stay on a bogus claim.  Surely you see the attaction of people trying to gain entry in this way when they would have no chance of gaining entry through the legitimate immigration process?  Make a bogus claim - stay for years.  Where is the down side in that system?

Ah, okay that makes sense then.

Kinda sucks for the 5% though. I wonder if there are any provisions for them

[Jacob]

Like the phrase or not a person who claims they are a refugee but they are doing so only for economic reasons has to have some label.  What would you call them?  fyi, it has been a term used for years.  I am surprised you have not heard it used before now.

Here is as good a description as any for where economic refugee comes from

The use of term "economic refugee" can be tracked as far back to the late 1990′s and replaces all other terms (such as "illegal immigrant", "undocumented immigrant", "illegal alien", etc.) when discussing immigration policy.  It is not clear who originally coined the term "economic refugee" (see side bar for links to various publications across decades that have used the term), but it was perhaps best personafied in the 2001 film UPROOTED: Refugee of the Global Economy and in the 2006 "The Framing of Immigration" essay that was written by Professor of Linguistics George Lakoff and his colleague Sam Ferguson.  The essay served as the inspiration behind the launch of Project Economic Refugee and was originally published on the now-defunct Rockridge Institute.  In that essay, the American public was urged to recognize that the "issue of illegal immigration" is first and foremost a HUMANITARIAN matter that has many layers of complexity

Convincingly argued and supported. Point conceded.

edit: and a National Post thing?  Really?  More of your feared hidden agenda?

Yes

[crazy canuck]

Kinda sucks for the 5% though. I wonder if there are any provisions for them

The new legislation does not prevent them from applying.  The legislation changed the appeal process only.  So presumably those 5% of valid claimants will be unaffected.