I found an editorial from Toronto detesting Canada's decision
Canada should put out the welcome mat
Let American war deserters
By any normal measure, Jeremy Hinzman is no refugee. The 26-year-old American does not face persecution if he returns to the United States. He faces court martial and, probably, jail for deserting his regiment in late 2003 just before it was deployed to Iraq. But that is not quite the same thing.
He is not likely to be prosecuted in the U.S. for his political or religious beliefs. He does not face torture. These are the criteria to qualify as a refugee under the United Nations convention that Canada follows
His lawyer, Jeffrey House, argues that Hinzman was being asked to participate in an illegal war (the invasion of Iraq) and that under the U.N. convention this, too, should allow him to qualify as a refugee.
But even that is not entirely convincing. By the time Hinzman was ordered to Iraq, the U.N. had granted the U.S.-led invaders of that country an imprimatur of respectability.
In any case, the point was moot since the immigration officer adjudicating the case refused to let House raise the argument.
Yesterday, to the surprise of few, the adjudicator ruled that Hinzman does not qualify as a refugee and must return home.
The case is being appealed to Federal Court. But I suspect there are few Canadians who truly believe that Hinzman fits the definition of a U.N. convention refugee.
That having been said, there are good reasons why he should be allowed at least the chance to stay.
The main one is that he would probably make a good citizen. Canada did well in the 1970s, when the last flood of war resisters — both draft dodgers and deserters — came across the border. Some went home eventually, but a good many — including House — stayed on.
Most integrated themselves easily and loyally into their adopted country.
Some became quite well-known, and well-respected, figures in Canadian society. Others pursued slightly more disreputable occupations in the media (no, I'm not one).
These draft dodgers and deserters did not come as refugees. They did not have to. In those days, foreigners were able to apply for landed immigrant status once they were in Canada.
House, for example, recounts how he crossed the border, applied to live here and within weeks — after a medical check — got his papers.
Hinzman would have done the same but for one thing. Since 1976, foreigners wishing to immigrate to Canada have been required to apply from outside the country.
For deserters, this is a non-starter. It would significantly increase their chances of getting nabbed.
So, here's an idea. Let's stop bending the very valuable category of U.N. convention refugee into pretzel shapes in order to accommodate people who realistically do not qualify. Let's create new categories instead for people like Hinzman.
During the Cold War, for instance, Canada created a special category for immigrants from Communist countries. We called them defectors and they were almost always allowed in.
So let's consider Hinzman and other U.S. deserters to be defectors from George W. Bush's America. Most Canadians don't agree with his war in Iraq and neither does the federal government. Why not follow through?
Let's allow these defectors to apply for permanent resident status — not as refugees but as immigrants — after they've crossed the border.
And then let's apply the same standards we would for any other immigrant: Do they have useful skills? Do they pass security checks? Are they free of criminal records?
If these standards were applied to Hinzman and his wife, social worker Nga Nguyen, they would almost certainly be accepted. So, why don't we let them make their case as potential immigrants? We can only win.
TORONTO STAR