Canada’s refugee problems and programs
Posted by Judy K. Warner on March 8, 2008
A report from London, Ontario, bemoans the lack of services for refugees. The woman the reporter chooses to highlight their plight has to have the worst refugee story I’ve ever read. The woman was kidnapped as a 17-year-old nursing student in Congo, and watched while the men killed her friend and ate her flesh. They cut a piece out of this woman’s leg; her life was saved only because they didn’t like the taste of her flesh.
Naturally, she suffers from severe psychiatric problems. So do many, perhaps most, refugees. Canada’s famed national medical system cannot cope. (On the other hand, could any system cope with such deep trauma?)
The article includes a helpful summary of Canada’s refugee program:
WHAT CANADA DOES
- Through Citizenship and Immigration Canada, the federal government spends $44.5 million a year on its Resettlement Assistance Program, it’s humanitarian response to the world’s refugee crises.
- Each year, Canada accepts between 7,300 and 7,500 government-assisted refugees, who receive settlement services and monthly financial support for one year after they arrive.
- Before 2002, those with serious medical conditions were not eligible, but a change of legislation that year opened the program to the world’s most vulnerable refugees. Those with high medical needs are often accepted through Ottawa’s Joint Assistance Program, and generally receive two years of financial assistance while a private organization such as a church assists.
- Canada also accepts about 4,500 privately sponsored refugees each year.
- London’s Cross Cultural Learner Centre accepts and helps settle about 400 refugees a year. About 275 of them come through as government-assisted refugees.
Here is a nice little point: Canada has a population of about 33 million. The United States has about 300 million people, about ten times as many.
Canada’s government accepts and funds about 7,300 refugees each year. The U.S. figure is 70,000, about ten times as many.
Same per capita number. Yet:
Through its Resettlement Assistance Program, Canada accepts more than 7,000 refugees in dire need of resettlement each year — a $44.5-million humanitarian response to suffering refugees.
Because of this program, Canada is regarded internationally as being one of the more compassionate countries, says Susan McGrath, head of York University’s Centre for Refugee Studies.
Hmm, are we regarded as compassionate, internationally?
I’d like to know more about those additional 4,500 privately sponsored refugees. Apparently they come in without government assistance. It would be interesting to know how that works, and how those refugees fare compared with the government ones.
Finally, these numbers are definitive evidence that the report we concluded was false last month, Canada planning to take 85,000 refugees from Kenya, was truly the product of someone’s fevered brain.
6 Responses to “Canada’s refugee problems and programs”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Anon said
I know this is an old post, but in case anyone stumbles across it, Canada generally accepts around 25,000 refugees per year. The numbers are a little off in this article.
Getting our facts straight: numbers of refugees admitted to the US each year « Refugee Resettlement Watch said
[...] by acorcoran on May 1, 2008 A commenter at this post about Canada said that we only ever admit 28,000 refugees a year even though the annual ceiling in [...]
acorcoran said
Sarah said, “The problem in your analysis there is that while the US has “70,000″ refugee slots available we only ever let in 28,000.”
You are wrong. Please go to these figures at the Office of Refugee Resettlement and the annual report to Congress. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/orr/data/05arc2.htm#_Ref532872905
Note that the highest year for refugees entering the US was 1991 with 131,749. So you can’t say we “only ever let in 28,000″.
I don’t have the exact figure for last year but we came awfully close to 70,000.
As for the low years of 2002 and 2003, yes, they were 27,000-28,000 but I believe everyone was understandably freaked out over terrorism. I think most Americans would agree that it was prudent in those years (and frankly its prudent now) to err on the side of caution and not admit so many, especially those from Muslim countries.
linkinm said
@ what acorcoran said “(and frankly its prudent now) to err on the side of caution and not admit so many, especially those from Muslim countries.” you can keep your discriminatory remarks to your self as you’re clearly ignorant and aren’t capable of understanding that not all people coming from muslim countries are terrorists, there are hundreds of thousands of people who have been displaced form their homes because of civil war in many muslim countries, wars that have been ignited by nations out to extort their countries. People, that are very much ordinary, with no extremities about them are only looking for a home, to provide for themselves and for their families. So when you pass such racialized comments think of what you have been socialized into and what your thoughts actually represent. Its people like you who instead of putting a stop to this oppression, fuel it and make the Hitlers of this world.
Simonae said
Let me tell you who is ignorant. I lived in Egypt for two years, and was married to a MUSLIM. Don’t be in such a big dang hurry to call anyone ignorant. MUSlIMS ARE IGNORANT. Do you have any freaking idea what it’s like for a ‘WOMAN’ OVER THERE? YOU ‘flap brain.’
EVER heard of free speech in this country. Acor.has as much right to say what is on their mind as you do.
The problem is that these people WANT to come here for a BETTER life. ONCE here they want to ‘CHANGE’ everything, we can’t please everyone, and change our laws and culture for every country that wants to come here. That’s just plain stupid.
Muslim women want to wear the burqa/naqib, they don’t want their pictures on drivers licenses, or on passports. They WANT all the financial benefits of social programs, but do not want to have their faces shown. EXUSE ME!!!!!!! While I lived IN the Middle east I never saw a muslim woman wear a burqa. My husband lived in Suddan, NOT ONE BURQA. So I suggest these are woman are mostly converts and wannabees. They know nothing about Islam. Ask them what ‘selat’ is. ASK them what “HAJ” is, ask them what a woman MUST do AFTER she has done her pilgrimage to MECCA. NOT ONE I asked knew the answer.
Seniors have paid taxes for 4 and 5 generations, and WE receive less money PER month than does a REFUGEE.
OUR young mothers (and some fathers) receive LESS than refugees do.
Give your head a shake. YOU want to speak your mind but don’t give the other person the same cotton pickin courtesy. What in tarnations is wrong with your head and people like you? Must you all be bullies?
Freedom of speech does NOT mean YOU can have free speech “WHEN AND ONLY WHEN IT’S SOMETHING “I” WANT TO HEAR.” It often includes what we don’t like hearing.
Sarah said
The problem in your analysis there is that while the US has “70,000″ refugee slots available we only ever let in 28,000. Redo your proportions then and you’ll see why Canada is seen as more benevolent. Additionally…the below is why we’re not seen as a leader in refugee protection.
The United States spouts immigration friendly rhetoric, but its policies speak otherwise. The President’s FY 2008 budget called “Presidential Determination 2008,” acknowledged by Congress, would support up to 70,000 arrivals in 2008 identified with enacted levels of the MRA and ERMA account. (State Department, 2007) However, draconian policies prevent refugees from gaining asylum. Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee at the subcomittee on Human Rights and Law Hearing, Jennifer Daskal, senior counterterrorism counsel for Human Rights Watch, explained that asylum seekers are being denied entry to the United States because of overbroad terrorism related bars in the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act. (Daskal, 2007) The ‘material support clause’ denies asylum to any individual who has provided material support to any armed group, claiming that these refugees are linked to terrorist activities. Daskal explained that even if the individual was forced at gunpoint to provide the support –ie rape and kidnapping victims– the United States will still deny them their right to seek asylum.
Furthermore, Philip Peters of the Scripps Howard News Service argues that America should help refugees instead of warehousing them. Confining refugees to “sprawling, dispiriting refugee camps for years, sometimes even decades” hurts U.S. human rights credibility and fosters global acts of violence by non-state actors. He explains:
President George W. Bush has praised refugees because they “contribute so much to our society,” but in the name of fighting terrorism after the 9/11 attacks, America subsequently stopped admitting any refugees at all for six months and subsequently passed emergency anti-terrorism legislation that curtailed legal options for refugees. (Peters, 2004)
Additionally, despite a modest goal of 70,000 allocated refugee admission slots available in 2002 and 2003, only roughly 28,000 were admitted in each year. This post-9/11 mentality and President Bush’s label of refugees as a security threat has not only barred their entrance to the United States but also foced American leaders to only view them in the historical context of security, ignoring the humanitarian reasons for asylum.