Liberals use 'illegal' vs. 'irregular' argument as a distraction

The Liberals would rather talk about vocabulary and pick imaginary fights with Conservatives than discuss their record when it comes to the border crisis.

(This column originally appeared in the Toronto Sun)

By: Candice Malcolm

When someone crosses the border illegally, it’s fair and accurate to call them an “illegal border crosser.”

That isn’t controversial. Earlier this year, I visited Roxham Road – the unofficial port of entry where approximately 95% of all illegal border crossers enter Canada. The Canadian government has put up a sign that makes it clear as day.

“STOP: It is illegal to cross the border here or any place other than a Port of Entry. You will be arrested and detained if you cross here.”

Even the Liberals believe border-hopping at unofficial crossings is illegal.

“Crossing the border in between official border crossings is illegal,” said Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau a few months ago in the House of Commons.

It’s bizarre, therefore, that Liberal immigration minister Ahmed Hussen is picking a fight with Conservative Ontario Premier Doug Ford over Ford’s use of the term “illegal border crossers”

Ford has firmly stated that the illegal border crisis is 100% Trudeau’s responsibility, and that Ford’s provincial government refuses to pick up the tab for the already strained social services and housing that asylum claimants are entitled to receive.

The federal government has created a mess – with Trudeau’s open border, all-are-welcome attitude and messaging – and thus, the feds should be responsible for paying for it.

In the past, the Liberals have abandoned resettlement groups, leaving them scrambling to help migrants with strained budgets and limited resources.

This week, Hussen told reporters he believes Ford’s words are inaccurate and “difficult to understand,” emphasizing his preference for the Liberal euphemism “irregular migration.”

This simply distracts from the real issue.

The Liberals would rather talk about vocabulary and pick imaginary fights with Conservatives than discuss their record when it comes to the border crisis.

Under Trudeau, the number of illegal border crossers has proliferated. There have been upwards of 70,000 asylum claims in the past 18 months – a drastic spike over numbers from recent decades.

And while self-selected migrants without a valid visa are streaming into our country at a rate of about 50 per day, the feds have no system to quickly determine who is a bona fide refugee and who is simply trying to jump the immigration queue.

The government makes no distinction between these two very different camps of people, and, once in Canada, both are given the exact same rights, benefits and legal process.

The current wait time to have a refugee case heard before a judge is anywhere between 20 months and 11 years, and, in the meantime, these asylum seekers get gold-plated access to provincially-funded social services.

When someone crosses the border illegally, in an effort coordinated by human trafficking rings, and comes from a safe country (the United States) it’s fair to be skeptical and accurate to call their actions illegal.

True refugees are desperate, and will submit their applications in the first safe country they arrive. The folks crossing at Roxham Road, by contrast, are opportunistic and savvy – more likely queue-jumping economic migrants than refugees escaping persecution and violence.

Words matter, and we should strive to be truthful and accurate in our speech. But that’s the opposite of what Hussen and the Liberals are trying to do here – they’re trying to confuse the issue and enforce politically correct gibberish to water down the truth.

The reality is, this illegal vs. irregular word feud is nothing but a distraction – designed to shift the conversation away from the Trudeau government’s failed record on immigration and border security.