Northward Leading, Still Proceeding: Mexican Migrants and the Lure of Canadian Asylum

Follow the North Star to freedom.

That was the mantra of escaped African ancestored American slaves more than one hundred and fifty years ago as they struggled to reach first northern states and later, especially after the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 took hold, Canada in search of freedom.

Now a similar drama is being played out as undocumented Mexican migrants travel to Canada from the United States in search of a place where they may work and live without fear of deportation. Most such travelers are fueled by the belief that Canada will grant them political asylum. According to a New York Times article, the move northward began a few weeks ago when just a few Mexican families began traveling by car to Windsor, Ontario, and to other land crossings between the United States and Canada and by plane to Toronto. According to many, the journey was suggested by a Florida immigrants’ advocacy group whose core constituency consists of Haitians. In recent weeks, however, the organization has attracted a number of Mexican immigrants.

In order to obtain political asylum in Canada, applicants must show, as they must also show in the United States, that they are unable to return to their home countries due to a well-founded fear of persecution based on one or more of several enumerated grounds, such as political belief, religion, or race. While a large number of Haitians have been granted political asylum in Canada over the years, far fewer Mexicans have succeeded in such applications. Even where Haitians have failed in their claims, they have very often been granted stays of deportation from Canada because of the social, political and economic chaos that has endured in Haiti. (Side note: finally, Haitians catch a break somewhere! Haitians in the United States have long decried the differential treatment of Haitian and Cuban political asylum seekers, with Cubans being given far more favorable treatment than Haitians. Many argue that the difference has to do with race. In the case of Haitians and Mexicans in Canada, the relatively favorable treatment received by Haitians likely has most to do with the large Haitian exile community in Montreal and with Canadian friendliness to fellow francophones in need. ) This has not been the case for Mexicans. Mexican applicants are further hindered by the fact that many persons who proceed to Canada from the United States seeking political asylum may be barred from doing so notwithstanding the merits of their cases because of the operation of safe third country rules which require asylum seekers in most cases to apply for asylum in the first “safe country” which they enter. In short, for Mexicans traveling to Canada in search of freedom via political asylum, the trip is more likely to be bust than boom.

The idea that Canada offers a safer haven than the United States for Latin migrants is not a new one. A documentary by filmmaker Arturo Perez Torres titled Wetback: The Undocumented Documentary, chronicles the journey of five people from Central America and Mexico who seek to travel over multiple national borders in order to reach Canada. Although the typically profiled undocumented alien in North America enters the United States and remains there, the post 9/11 climate in the United States has made the United States even more hostile than it had previously been to such entrants. Canada, in contrast, is often viewed as a bastion of racial tolerance, and is perceived as having a greater number of jobs. Canada has thus become a destination of choice for many persons from various Latin countries. However, such notions are all too often not supported by reality.

Canada will, very likely, staunch the flow of Mexican migrants seeking political asylum, at least for the short term. But the larger problem, that of the very real human rights implications of forbidding our neighbors to the south from accessing jobs, health care and other basic human needs, remains unsolved. If, as W.E.B. Du Bois stated, the problem of the twentieth century was the problem of the color line, then the problem of the twenty-first century is the problem of the borderline[1], or rather, of multiple borders.

[Want to comment? Please do so! Note that comments are moderated and so may not appear immediately.]

---

[1] Lolita Buckner Inniss, Dutch Uncle Sam: Immigration Reform And Notions Of Family, 36 Brandeis J. Fam. L. 177 (1998), citing W.E.B. Du Bois, The Souls of Black Folk 54 (photo. reprint 1969) (1903).

Vote with Your Face: The Canadian Voter Identity Conundrum

When I was younger and experiencing seemingly insurmountable problems within institutions or organizations my mother always said to me: don’t whine, work, and when you get the chance, vote with your feet.

Sound advice, and advice often given to and taken by legions of people of color, women, and migrants of every type. Vote with your feet is a metaphor for addressing problems in a system wherein one has no voice, and where the only option for effecting change is to leave.

So what does it mean to vote with your face?

Canadian Prime Minister Harper would likely say that it means uncovering your face at polling places in order to vote. Harper believes that this is what is required under the changes made to the Canada Elections Act in summer 2007. Bill C-31 amended the Canada Elections Act to require proof of identity at the polls. It requires, among other things, that voters provide one original piece of identification issued by any level of Canadian government or an agency of that government that contains the voter's photograph, name and residential address. In the absence of photo identification, a voter must provide two original pieces of identification from a list authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada. Both alternate forms of identification must contain the name of the voter and one must also contain the voter's residential address. In the absence of any of these forms of identification, a voter may be vouched for by another voter whose name appears on the roster of voters in the same polling place who possesses acceptable forms of identification. In the latter case, both voters must make a sworn statement. Does the principal reliance on photo identification mean showing one’s face at the polling place? Harper says yes, and decries a decision by the Chief Electoral Officer to allow women who are veiled, presumably for religious reasons, to vote without lifting their veils.

It is true that a requirement to provide a photo identification would seem to come with the implicit assumption that authorities will compare it with the face of the voter who proffers it. However, as many have noted, Canadian law both before and after the recent amendment allows for voting by mail, where there is no way of knowing if the person casting the vote is the same as the person who registered. Moreover, one of the principal concerns of legislators in drafting the new identity provisions of Bill C-31 was to address the complete absence of any preliminary requirement that a voter prove his or her identity. Under prior law, voters needed only to state their names and be found listed among the registered voters. Identity became an issue only if the voter was challenged by an election official, a candidate or a representative of a candidate. Even then, there was no clear statement of what constituted satisfactory proof of identity. For example, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs heard anecdotal evidence that in some polling stations, magazine subscription labels were accepted as satisfactory proof of identity and address. This was detailed in the Committee’s report Improving the Integrity of the Election Process, a document which was one of the bases of Parliament’s decision to amend the Election Act. It would thus appear that potential fraud by veiled women was not part of Parliament’s concern in its deliberations to enact Bill C-31 and that accordingly the bill is (I can’t resist) facially neutral in this regard. This is the interpretation adopted by Marc Mayrand, the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada. Mayrand will allow veiled women to vote without showing their faces. Though veiled women will be requested to remove their veils at the polls, they will not be required to do so and may vote using the alternate non-photographic forms of identification permitted under the recent amendments.

It is indeed ironic that veiled women, most of whom are covered for religious reasons, would become the focus of a debate on voting, one of the liberties most crucial to maintaining a free, just, and inclusive society. A number of veiled women have already voted with their feet, seeking refuge in Canada away from places of political, social and economic upheaval. These women should now have the right to expect to vote in elections without their faces becoming an issue.

[Want to comment? Please do so! Note that comments are moderated and so may not appear immediately.]