Should illegal aliens get our sympathy?

Failed refugee claimant Laibar Singh, who was twice stopped from being deported by his supporters, is now hiding in the sanctuary of a Sikh temple in Surrey, British Columbia since December 15, 2007.

He has only himself to blame for his predicament. His poor police record in India and contradictory statements before Canadian authorities made him suspect, leading to the rejection of his case for refugee status. Singh, a former soldier, was originally arrested in the Punjab for alleged possession of illegal weapons. Residents of his village arranged for his release. Later, a fugitive who had escaped from police custody was reportedly found at his home, leading to Singh’s arrest again. This time he was kept in police custody for five days, but released again when his neighbours vouched for him.

Unable to meet his legal expenses for his trial in India, Singh is said to have fled from the Punjab to the neighbouring Rajasthan state. He was to pay Rs.50,000 in legal fees in Punjab to fight his case when he fled to Rajasthan. There, he paid 800,000 Rupees to an agent to come to Canada on a fake passport. Many people are asking how someone who could not raise 50,000 Rupees to pay lawyers could raise 800,000 Rupees.($1,304 & $20,837 Canadian respectively)

Singh later entered Canada on a fake passport in 2003 and sought refugee status before he suffered from an aneurysm. (bulge of a blood vessel caused by disease or weakening of the vessel wall. Aneurysms most commonly occur in arteries at the base of the brain) As a result of the aneurysm, it left him paralysed in 2006.

Sources familiar with Singh's case said there are as many 35 reasons that go against him that justify his deportation back to India. His statements to immigration authorities are contradictory. For example, when he entered Canada, he originally said he was not affiliated to any organization in India. But when he applied for refugee status, he said he was affiliated with the Bahujan Samaj Party. That organization’s letterhead he gave had phone numbers that turned out to be phony. Having lost his case and exhausted all his appeals, he was ordered deported in July 2007.

Since then, his supporters have kept him hidden in different gurdwaras, (Sikh temples) he has won three court stays on his deportation order and twice foiled police bids to deport him. His supporters say that Singh should be allowed to stay in Canada on compassionate grounds since he will not get proper medical care in India.

Meanwhile, the president of the Surrey Sikh temple in British Columbia where Singh is currently sheltered said that they are 'ready for the long haul' to keep the disabled man in Canada.

A widower, Singh has four children in Punjab. I don’t know if his children are grown up.

There are two issues that the government of Canada must decide. Each of them is important. They are; do the authorities have the right to arrest this man while he is in a Sikh temple seeking sanctuary and is it inhumane to deport him to India where he will not get the same medical care he would get in Canada if he remains here?

The principle of sanctuary dates back to antiquity and is based on the belief that houses of worship are sacred places and that violating the sanctity of such a place to enter and remove someone by force is a sacrilege. It is a tradition that different faith groups have that is afforded to those whom they believe are about to be unjustly deported. It's considered by those that offer sanctuary as a moral act of conscience. It's an act that people take in order to stand up to unjust laws and unjust government decisions where applicants seeking sanctuary will suffer from those unjust laws and decisions if they are deported back to where they came from.

A growing number of people are taking refuge in churches, mosques and temples around the world as a last resort against deportation. There's no law protecting those seeking sanctuary in Canada, but historically the right to sanctuary has been protected as a moral position and for this reason, there has never been a breach of a religious sanctuary in Canada. There have been about 34 cases of sanctuary in Canada over the past few decades. Although technically speaking, Britain has not recognized a legal right to sanctuary since the 17th century, nevertheless, immigration officials in that country rarely go after people once they have fled into a church or any other religious place of worship.

It is clearly an act of civil disobedience, and for ordinary law-abiding, church-going Canadians, the choice to break the law and grant sanctuary to a refused refugee facing deportation is an agonizing one. A church or any other place of worship that has agreed to offer sanctuary has most likely been approached by an individual or family who is facing removal and has asked to be allowed to seek refuge in the church building. The religious leaders of the places of worship (after consulting with their members) make the decision after they are convinced that the persons needs protection and that no other alternative exists.

Another important consideration is that the refugees need to be fully aware of the implications of their request. These include the physical limitations of living in a building that is not designed as a residence, with little privacy, perhaps without basic necessities such as a shower and of course without any opportunity to go outside. Children will be denied formal schooling.

Canada, like other countries, has an obligation in international law not to deport someone to be tortured or suffer from other forms of persecution. Canadians look to its government to live up to this obligation to ensure that refugees fleeing their countries are protected by giving them refugee status. In some situations, many Canadians, especially religious leaders feel that when the government denies protection to these refugees, they feel morally compelled to step in and provide the protection that the government has failed to offer.

India does not have a pristine history of humane treatment of its suspects by its police. There have been terrible abuses in the past by police in that country; abuses that are so gross, even a former prime minister felt compelled to make a public apology when learning of them. The Human Rights Watch, an international human rights organization has publicaly stated that Indian street children are routinely detained illegally, beaten and tortured and sometimes killed by police in India. That by itself would justify Singh’s reason for seeking sanctuary, that being that if he was deported, he may be beaten and tortured and possibly, but even though not likely; killed.

Although the crimes that Singh is accused of are serious, they aren’t so serious that he should be deported if there is a risk that he will be subject to torture if he is returned to India, even if that possibility of being tortured is unlikely. With respect to India, one cannot be absolutely sure.

However, suppose he was charged with terrorism and mass murder because he was seen planting a bomb in a building where a large number of people gathered and as a result of the ensuing explosion, twenty people were killed and fifty were seriously injured, some maimed for life.

Should Canada have any qualms about deporting such a man to India or any other country he may have come from to face trial and possibly life in prison or even execution? I think not. Although Canada doesn’t have the death penalty, and generally won’t send someone back to a country where he may be subject to the death penalty, there has been exceptions, albeit rare.

If he has in the meantime, sought and obtained sanctuary in a place of worship, should the government authorities ignore the tradition of sanctuary and go into the place of worship and arrest him for the purpose of deporting him? I certainly think so. There has to be a limit as to how far Camadians will respect sanctuary and I think the limit will be reached if the person seeking it is suspected of being a terrorist or a murderer. To do otherwise is a slap in the face of all decent persons who respect life and justice for victims and surviving families of victims.

But what do we do if the suspect is to be deported to a country that is known to abuse its suspects in a manner that would outrage Canadians?

I believe that there is a way to resolve the problem. Let me regress to a situation that took place many years ago. I was asked by a person that needed a divorce in order to remarry. His wedding was to take place in less than a month. The problem facing him was that he didn’t have enough money to go back to what was then Yugoslavia and participate in the divorce proceedings in that country. I met with Yugoslavian authorities in the Yugoslavian counsulate in Toronto and they agreed to my propostion that he could participate in the divorce proceedings in Yugoslavia while still being in Toronto. It must be remembered that every embassy and consulate in the world is part of the country it represents so in effect, if he was in the consulate in Toronto, he would be in Yugoslavia. Then through a conference call made to the court in Yugoslavia with him in Toronto and his wife in the Yugoslavian court, he was divorced and the order pertaining to his divorce was faxed to him at the Yogslavian consulate and thusly after he filed it at city hall, his marriage certificate was given to him and he was remarried as scheduled.

I propose that if it would not be in the best interests of Canada’s perception of justice to deport a person back to the country where he came from because of the risk of him being tortured, he should have his trial here in Canada.

There are two ways that this can be done. First, have the judge, jury, prosecutor, defence lawyer and witnesses flown to Canada from India. The trial will take place in the Indian Consulate in the city where the accused person is residing or in a Canadian city where there is such a consulate. Since every suspect is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, there is no reason why the suspect should be questioned as its unlikely that such as suspect would willingly talk to the police anyway.

The second way would be cheaper. Simply have the trial conducted by a conference call that is televised via closed-circuit TV systems in the consulate in Canada and the criminal court in India. The accused person’s lawyer would be in the consulate with his client so that anything discussed between them would be protected from disclosure.

Now let’s presume that he is found guilty. The trial judge would sentence him and either he would be returnd to his country that tried him to serve his sentence or alternatively, he would serve his time in prison in Canada. If he is sent back to the country that sentenced him, there must be a written confirmation by that country that the man will not be abused and a binding understanding between both countries that people from a human rights organization would have access to him periodically to make sure that the agreement is being adhered to.

Now comes the problem of what to do with his family if they are also in Canada while such a person is serving his time in prison; be it in Canada or the country that sentenced him.

There are two problems with this. First, if he came into this country illegally, so did his family. For this reason, they can be deported. However, suppose the family has been here for years and the children are going to school and if they and their mother are deported to India or elsewhere and this would create a terrible hardship on the family, would it be just that they be deported? The answer is no and yes. From a compassionate point of view, the answer would be no, it wouldn’t be. However, from a legal point of view, it would be. The law is the law and illegal aliens are prone to being deported.

But if the family sought sanctuary in Canada as refugees because of abuses they suffered from in their own country, and can prove the existenc of those abuses, then they should be permitted to stay. However, in the Singh case, if he had a family in Canada, I don’t think his family would succeed on that premise because he lied when he gave phony reasons as to why he was fleeing India because he was a fugitive from justice who was seeking sanctuary as a refugee in order to escape justice that awaited him in India.

There is another problem that would have to be dealt with. Suppose one or more of the children were born in Canada. Legally they would be Canadian citizens even if their parents brought them to Canada under false pretenses.

Children should not be forced to suffer for the illegal acts of their parents. If they were too young to go to school, they could be sent back to India with their mother but at the same time, maintain their right to apply for Canadian citizenship and be eligible to return to Canada as Canadian citizens after they turn eighteen years of age if they so wish. If the children are going to school, it certainly would be a hardship for them to be yanked out of the school and sent to India where they might not get the same education. If they have relatives in Canada who will accept them, they should have the option of remaining in Canada if that is their wish. If they are over sixteen years of age and wish to remain in school or leave school and work, they should be permitted to remain in Canada if that is their wish.

If they were not born in Canada, then the aforementioned privileges should not be made available to them.

Now I wish to deal with the issue of aliens becoming ill after they have lied their way into Canada.

Quite frankly, I have no sympathy for illegal aliens who become ill after they lie their way into our country. An exception would be if they were in an accident in which no responsibility could be attributed to them. We as a nation have empathy for those who suffer from accidents or illnesses brought upon them through no fault of their own, even if they are here in Canada illegally.

The suggestion that he would not be cared for in India has some merit but even if he hadn’t come to Canada, he would be in the same dilemma had he been in India when the aneurysm struck him.

There is no doubt in my mind as in others, that life is sometimes difficult in the best of times but Canada as a nation, must look to the best interests of its own people before it comes to the aid of illegal aliens, especially if they are wanted criminals in their own countries.