illegal immigration
A blanket amnesty for illegal migrants would be a disaster for Canada: David L. Thomas for Inside Policy

From the Macdonald Laurier Institute
By David L. Thomas
The prospect of a general amnesty for illegals in Canada will be the final straw. How can there be any shred of integrity left in our immigration system if we reward those who broke the rules?
The Liberal government’s proposal to grant a pathway to citizenship to “undocumented” people who are in Canada illegally is a risky strategy and likely to backfire. It will be seen as an open invitation to billions of people around the world to come here, break our immigration laws, and eventually be rewarded for it.
In my years as an immigration lawyer, I met countless people who dreamed of one day possessing a Canadian passport. Holding one would unlock a world of opportunity in Canada. But it also has another attractive feature: Canadian passport-holders can travel visa-free to 188 countries. When I began my legal career, we used to say there were only about 20 “good passports” in the world – passports that allowed unrestricted travel abroad and a good standard of living in the home country. Given general rises in prosperity and geopolitical progress (think the fall of the Berlin Wall), I would argue the number of “good passports” has risen to about 45.
Of course, that means there are still around 155 “not-so-good passports” issued by other countries, where the majority of the world’s population happens to reside. Given that only a few countries actively promote immigration (Canada leads in this respect, followed closely by Australia and New Zealand) it is easy to see why Canadian citizenship is in such high demand.
Some activists argue there should be no borders – that “no one is illegal.” They are grossly underestimating the demand. If a border-free world popped into existence tomorrow, many estimated 250 million people would immediately choose to relocate. Some have put that number as high as 750 million. I believe these estimates are outdated and perhaps naïve. Surely the number today would be in the billions.
A recent survey suggested that 69 million Chinese would like to move to Canada, if they could. The same survey showed 137 million Chinese are considering moving to the US (Canada would be their second choice). Another survey indicated that almost 75 percent of Indians are seeking to emigrate, and 35 percent are actively working towards it (India has a population of 1.4 billion). A Gallup World Poll in 2017 showed a growing worldwide trend in the desire to relocate to a new country. In Sub-Saharan Africa, with a population of 1.24 billion, 33 percent indicated a wish to emigrate. In Nigeria alone, 48 percent indicated a desire to emigrate permanently (the population of Nigeria is 229 million).
Prior to 2017, Canada – surrounded by three oceans and neighbouring the United States – had reasonable control of its borders. Illegal border crossings were not that common. Some might recall in 1999 when four rusty ships washed ashore on western Vancouver Island, having transported 599 illegal migrants from Fujian, China. The federal government responded quickly – deporting 330 migrants and granting three dozen refugee status. As for the rest, well, they just disappeared.
Even though more than two hundred migrants slipped through the cracks during that 1999 event, that seems like a tremendous success compared to the open invitation Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made to the world in an infamous January 2017 tweet. In response to the inauguration of President Donald Trump and his promise to clamp down on illegal immigration, Trudeau posted on Twitter: “To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength #WelcomeToCanada.”
Many undocumented migrants in America saw this as an open invitation to simply walk across our border. By the end of 2018, more than 50,000 people had crossed into Canada illegally, most of them through Roxham Road in Quebec, at the border with upstate New York.
In 2019, a CBC reporter made these observations about the Roxham Road crossing:
But the majority of those who come here to Plattsburgh, N.Y., by bus, train or plane have spent little time in the U.S., arriving on tourist visas with the intent of treading the footpath to Canada. When CBC News visited the crossing recently, in one day we met families and single travellers from Pakistan, Turkey, Yemen, Lebanon, Nigeria, Sri Lanka, Eritrea, as well as a Palestinian family from the occupied territories. Some arrived with what appeared to be fresh baggage tags from overseas flights into New York. Others had made their way north from Mexico, South and Central America.
In 2017, Haitians who had overstayed their 2010 earthquake disaster-related visas in the United States formed the largest group of migrants illegally entering Canada. Trump had specially targeted this group, although, in the end, his administration made few deportations. By 2018, however, nearly 75 percent of illegal migrants at Roxham Road had freshly arrived from Nigeria. They had obtained valid US visitor visas in Nigeria, but it was widely believed to be part of a scheme in which the visa recipients understood they had to immediately leave the US by walking into Canada.
Trudeau could have easily stopped this charade at any time by amending the Safe Third County Agreement with the US (which he eventually did in 2023). But at the time, he instead dispatched then Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen to Nigeria to try to persuade US officials to stop issuing so many dubious visas.
Even though authorities have since closed Roxham Road and similar illegal crossing points, Canadians are still feeling the repercussions of this open-border policy – and will be for years. There are still about 7,300 refugee claimants being housed in 36 hotels, mostly in southern Ontario, who on average each cost Canadian taxpayers about $208 per day. The total price tag for Trudeau’s 2017 tweet is already in the billions of dollars and ongoing.
Without question, surely some of the 113,000 people who walked into Canada since 2017 are legitimate UN Convention-definition refugees. Equally clear is that many are economic migrants, and others are just queue-jumpers looking for an easy way in. Moreover, if you were an undocumented person in the US with criminal charges outstanding, a swift exit into Canada across Roxham Road would seem extremely attractive. You could arrive without identification and make up a new identity. Why not? We have no idea how many criminals or terrorists may have walked in.
In the 2000s, when I was still actively practicing immigration law, there were many Mexican citizens working illegally in Vancouver. It was the same in Toronto. Some years earlier, the Liberal government had dropped the visitor visa requirement for Mexican citizens. It resulted in a flood of people over-staying their lawful period of admission as well as a deluge of Mexican refugee claims made within Canada. In 2009, Prime Minister Stephen Harper put an end to the madness and required Mexican citizens to apply for visitor visas.
Canada has established, objective standards in place for determining which countries should be exempt from our visitor visa requirement. In 2016, Trudeau hosted Mexican President Enrique Nieto in Ottawa. Nieto urged Trudeau to remove the visitor visa requirement for Mexican citizens. Trudeau ignored the objective standards and promised Nieto he would do so. (This resulted in immediate protests from Bulgaria and Romania, who also didn’t meet our standards. To avoid controversy, Trudeau removed their visa requirements as well.)
Unfortunately, removing the visitor visa requirement for Mexicans turned out to (again) be an unmitigated disaster. For instance, in 2023, there were more than 25,000 inland refugee claims from Mexico alone. Fast forward to 2024, and Trudeau had no choice but to reverse his decision – since February of this year, most Mexicans are required to apply for a visitor visa.
Canada also has a poor record for removing failed refugee claimants as well as non-Canadians who have committed crimes in Canada. Most people who have been issued deportation letters since 2016 are still in Canada. Moreover, if Donald Trump is elected this fall, he has promised a massive deportation effort to deal with illegal immigrants in the US, many of whom may be tempted to illegally escape into Canada.
Marc Miller, the current immigration minister, estimates there are between 300,000 and 600,000 people living illegally in Canada –- but even he’s not sure. Unlike many other countries, Canada does not track the departure of non-Canadians. Therefore, it is quite easy for someone whose visitor visa, study permit, or work permit has expired to simply remain in Canada. No one will be knocking on their door because they just aren’t on the radar.
We could begin tracking departures as other countries do, or we could start seriously enforcing our deportation orders. However, this seems to be too much effort. The federal government is apparently attracted to a much easier solution: just let them stay.
Lobby groups like the Migrant Rights Network (MRN) are pressuring the government to offer an amnesty for all “undocumented” migrants in Canada, and to grant permanent status to their family members upon arrival in the future. At a recent press conference calling for amnesty, the MRN estimated that between 20,000 and 500,000 people without immigration status are currently living in Canada.
Since 2017, the City of Toronto has celebrated “Undocumented Residents Day” and this year the City hosted a forum where activists spoke up to encourage the federal government to grant permanent residence to people living in Canada without authorization. Some of the speakers blamed “white supremacy” for shortcomings in our legal immigration system. However, the majority of legal immigrants to Canada have been non-white in every year since 1971.
Shortly after the 2021 federal election, Trudeau issued a mandate letter for his new Immigration Minister, Sean Fraser, that ordered him to explore an amnesty solution. More recently, Minister Miller commented, “There is no doubt that we have made a conscious decision to be an open country.” In May, Trudeau told reporters, “People who aren’t here regularly need to be supported and taken care of. There needs to be either a pathway towards regularization and citizenship, which I know the (immigration) minister is working on.” These recent comments by Trudeau and Miller suggest the Liberals are seriously considering an announcement of an amnesty in the near future.
Until recently, most Canadians were in favour of Canada’s immigration system. The reality today is that most Canadians feel that our immigration levels are too high, with the highest anti-immigration sentiment in decades. Even 42 percent of recent immigrants feel the numbers are excessive. Recently, the Bank of Canada also sounded the alarm, blaming record levels of immigration for driving up the cost of housing.
It is reckless, and possibly, dangerous for the federal government to ignore these warnings. Without broad public support, Canada’s immigration system is doomed. It also risks heightened levels of racism and xenophobia once the broad support is gone.
The prospect of a general amnesty for illegals in Canada will be the final straw. How can there be any shred of integrity left in our immigration system if we reward those who broke the rules? I spoke recently to a retired government immigration program manager who concurs: “An amnesty is pure madness,” he said, “and crushing in its unfairness to all those who have played by the rules.”
What message would a general amnesty send to legal migrants to our country? Why would others go through normal channels to come here? Would an amnesty now undermine future deportation orders? Why would failed refugee claimants or convicted criminals depart Canada? If Canada grants amnesty once, surely Canada will do it again, once the number of illegals bloats again.
If there is any doubt about that, consider the current illegal immigration crisis gripping the United States. In 1986, President Ronald Reagan signed a sweeping immigration reform bill into law. Sold as a crackdown on illegal immigration, it called for tighter security at the Mexican border, with employers facing strict penalties for hiring undocumented workers. As part of the bill, the US government offered amnesty with a path to permanent status to about 3 million undocumented migrants. Supposedly a one-time amnesty, it was to be followed up with strict border controls and other measures to make sure the number of illegals never grew to such a large number again.
Reagan’s amnesty plan was anything but a panacea. Rather, it acted as an invitation to billions of would-be migrants to come to America and break its immigration laws. Although it’s impossible to know the exact number, some estimate the number of illegals in the US today to be around 22 million. Canada is on the cusp of making the very same mistake.
David L. Thomas is a lawyer and mediator in British Columbia and a senior fellow with the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. From 2014–2021, he served as the chairperson of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in Ottawa.
Daily Caller
DOJ Releases Dossier Of Deported Maryland Man’s Alleged MS-13 Gang Ties

From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By Katelynn Richardson
The Department of Justice (DOJ) released documents Wednesday demonstrating Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia’s membership in the MS-13 gang.
Abrego Garcia’s police interview, immigration court rulings and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) deportable/inadmissible alien record highlighting his membership in the gang, which he has disputed in court, are included in the release.
In a December 2019 decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed Abrego Garcia’s challenge to an immigration judge’s factual finding that he is “a verified member of MS-13.”
The board found the immigration judge “appropriately considered allegations of gang affiliation against the respondent in determining that he has not demonstrated that he is not a danger to property or persons.”
Officers found Abrego Garcia loitering in a Home Depot parking lot on March 28, 2019, wearing “a Chicago Bulls hat and a hoodie with rolls of money covering the eyes, ears and mouth of the presidents on the separate denominations,” the initial Prince George’s County Police Department Gang Field Interview Sheet states.
“Wearing the Chicago Bulls hat represents that they are a member in good standing with the MS-13,” the document states. “Officers contacted a past proven and reliable source of information, who advised Kilmar Armando ABREGO-GARCIA is an active member of MS-13 with the Westerns clique. The confidential source further advised that he is the rank of ‘Chequeo’ with the moniker of ‘Chele.’”
The administration became embroiled in a legal dispute after Abrego Garcia, who entered the country illegally in 2011, was deported in March to El Salvador as a result of an error. In court records, they argued Abrego Garcia could not “relitigate the finding that he is a danger to the community.”
A lower court ordered his return, but the Supreme Court required it to clarify the order and directed the administration to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) indicated Wednesday that it would appeal the amended order Judge Paula Xinis issued which directed the government to “take all available steps to facilitate the return of Abrego Garcia to the United States as soon as possible.”
During a Monday meeting with President Donald Trump, El Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele said he would not “smuggle” a terrorist into the U.S.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) also released court filings Wednesday showing Abrego Garcia’s wife requested a domestic violence restraining order against him.
illegal immigration
Despite court rulings, the Trump Administration shows no interest in helping Abrego Garcia return to the U.S.

By Greg Collard
With research assistance from James Rushmore
Timeline: The Case of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia
With President Trump sitting next to him, El Salvador President Nayib Bukele told reporters in the Oval Office on Monday that no, he is not going to release Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia from his country’s Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT), despite a Justice Department lawyer admitting in a court filing that Abrego Garcia’s deportation last month was an “administrative error.”
No matter, Bukele said when asked if would return him to the U.S.:
Bukele: Of course I’m not going to do it. The question is preposterous. How can I smuggle a terrorist into the United States. I don’t have the power to return him to the United States.
Reporter: But you could release him inside El Salvador.
Bukele: Yeah, but I’m not releasing, I mean I’m not very fond of releasing terrorists into our country. We just turned the murder capital of the world into the safest country in the Western hemisphere, and you want us to go back into releasing criminals so we can go back to being the murder capital of the world? That’s not going to happen.
Not that there was any doubt what Bukele would say. Attorney General Pam Bondi set the tone early on in the meeting. She explained what the Supreme Court meant last week when it said a lower court ruling “properly requires the government to ‘facilitate’ Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador.”
The Supreme Court ruled, president, that if El Salvador wants to return him … we would facilitate it, meaning provide a plane.
It brings to mind President Clinton’s infamous grand jury testimony when he said: “It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”
Abrego-Garcia left El Salvador and illegally entered the U.S. in 2011. His status as an illegal immigrant changed after he was arrested in 2019 and the Department of Homeland Security accused him of being a member of the MS-13 gang. Abrego Garcia fought the accusation and applied for asylum. Instead, an immigration judge granted him “withholding of removal” status.
A federal judge wrote in an April 6 opinion that in El Salvador “the Barrio 18 gang had been targeting him and threatening him with death because of his family’s pupusa business.”
The Justice Department argues its hands are tied. It doesn’t matter that the U.S. is paying El Salvador $6 million a year to house U.S. deportees at CECOT.
“The United States does not have control over Abrego Garcia. Or the sovereign nation of El Salvador,” says one court filing.
Below is a timeline of the case since Abrego Garcia was arrested last month, leading up to Monday’s Oval Office meeting with Bukele.
March 12-15, 2025
ICE agents stop Abrego Garcia and tell him that he is no longer under “withholding of removal” status. The Trump administration says he is a member of the MS-13 gang, which the president has designated a foreign terrorist organization.
Abrego Garcia, who denies he is part of MS-13, is sent to an ICE detention facility in La Villa, Texas, and from there he is deported to El Salvador on March 15 along with 260 others, primarily Venezuelan nationals. He is being held in CECOT, a prison that has a capacity of 40,000 inmates.
March 24, 2025
Abrego Garcia and his wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, file a lawsuit that notes Abrego Garcia has been in the U.S. legally since 2019 under withholding of removal status, and that the designation was never lifted.
They also accuse the government of sending Abrego Garcia to El Salvador despite “knowing that he would be immediately incarcerated and tortured in that country’s most notorious prison; indeed, Defendants have paid the government of El Salvador millions of dollars to do exactly that. Such conduct shocks the conscience and cries out for immediate judicial relief.”
The lawsuit requests the court order the U.S. government to tell the government of El Salvador to release and deliver Abrego Garcia to the U.S. Embassy in San Salvador.
March 31, 2025
The Justice Department acknowledges in a court filing that “although ICE was aware of his protection from removal to El Salvador, Abrego Garcia was removed to El Salvador because of an administrative error.”
Still, the Justice Department argues the motion should be denied because the court “has no power” over El Salvador. Justice Department attorneys argue:
Under their (plaintiffs) logic, this Court may assume jurisdiction to decide whether the order is legal, but if the order were determined legal, then jurisdiction would disappear again.
The government also says there’s no proof that Abrego Garcia will be tortured or killed in CECOT:
Plaintiffs point to little evidence about conditions in CECOT itself (focusing primarily on its capacity for detainees), instead extrapolating from allegations about conditions in different Salvadoran prisons. While there may be allegations of abuses in other Salvadoran prisons—very few in relation to the large number of detainees—there is no clear showing that Abrego Garcia himself is likely to be tortured or killed in CECOT. More fundamentally, this Court should defer to the government’s determination that Abrego Garcia will not likely be tortured or killed in El Salvador.
April 4, 2025
U.S. District Court Judge Paula Xinis orders the Trump Administration to return Abrego Garcia to the U.S. by 11:59 p.m., April 7. She writes:
Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits because Abrego Garcia was removed to El Salvador In violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act…and without any legal process; his continued presence in El Salvador, for obvious reasons, constitutes irreparable harm; the balance of equities and the public interest weigh in favor of returning him to the United States; and issuance of a preliminary injunction without further delay is necessary to restore him to the status quo and to avoid ongoing irreparable harm resulting from Abrego Garcia’s unlawful removal.
April 5, 2025
The Justice Department appeals the order, calling it “indefensible” that “a federal district judge ordered the United States to force El Salvador to send one of its citizens—a member of MS-13, no less—back to the United States by midnight on Monday. If there was ever a case for an emergency stay pending appeal, this would be it.”
More from the appellate motion:
Foremost, [the order] commands Defendants to do something they have no independent authority to do: Make El Salvador release Abrego Garcia, and send him to America. That is why Plaintiffs did not even ask the district court for an order directing Abrego Garcia’s return. As Plaintiffs themselves acknowledged, a federal court “has no jurisdiction over the Government of El Salvador and cannot force that sovereign nation to release Plaintiff Abrego Garcia from its prison.” That concession is all that is needed to order a stay here. No federal court has the power to command the Executive to engage in a certain act of foreign relations; that is the exclusive prerogative of Article II, immune from superintendence by Article III.
April 6, 2025
Judge Xinis issues a follow-up memorandum opinion to her April 4 order:
Although the legal basis for the mass removal of hundreds of individuals to El Salvador remains disturbingly unclear, Abrego Garcia’s case is categorically different—there were no legal grounds whatsoever for his arrest, detention, or removal. Nor does any evidence suggest that Abrego Garcia is being held in CECOT at the behest of Salvadoran authorities to answer for crimes in that country. Rather, his detention appears wholly lawless.
The judge also writes that in 2019, Homeland Security “relied principally on a singular unsubstantiated allegation that Abrego Garcia was a member of MS-13.”
April 7, 2025
A three-judge panel of Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously denies the government’s motion for a stay of Xinis’ order that say Abrego Garcia must be returned to the U.S. by 11:59 p.m. Judge Stephanie Thacker writes:
The United States Government has no legal authority to snatch a person who is lawfully present in the United States off the street and remove him from the country without due process. The Government’s contention otherwise, and its argument that the federal courts are powerless to intervene, are unconscionable.
The Trump Administration appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court, and Chief Justice John Roberts grants an administrative stay to give justices time to consider the case.
Following the stay, Bondi accuses Abrego Garcia of being a “violent gang member”:
We will continue to fight for the safety of Americans and get these people out of our country to make America safe.
April 10, 2025
The Supreme Court rules against the Trump administration but directs Judge Xinis to “clarify” a portion of her ruling. From the Supreme Court’s decision:
The order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority. The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs. For its part, the Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps.
April 11, 2025
If the Supreme Court said, ‘Bring somebody back,’ I would do that. I respect the Supreme Court.
President Trump says that aboard Air Force One a day after the Supreme Court upholds a lower court ruling and says the government should “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return to the U.S.
Meanwhile, Judge Xinis issues a new order that directs the government to “take all available steps to facilitate the return” of Abrego Garcia. In a hearing, she also makes clear her frustration with the Justice Department.
“The record, as it stands, is, despite this court’s clear directive, your clients have done nothing to facilitate the return of Mr. Abrego Garcia,” she says.
Xinis also orders the administration to provide daily updates on the status of Abrego Garcia’s return. She also criticizes Justice Department attorneys in her order:
During the hearing, the Court posed straightforward questions, including: Where is Abrego Garcia right now? What steps had Defendants taken to facilitate his return while the Court’s initial order on injunctive relief was in effect…? Defendants’ counsel responded that he could not answer these questions, and at times suggested that Defendants had withheld such information from him. As a result, counsel could not confirm, and thus did not advance any evidence, that Defendants had done anything to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return. This remained Defendants’ position even after this Court reminded them that the Supreme Court of the United States expressly affirmed this Court’s authority to require the Government “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return. From this Court’s perspective, Defendants’ contention that they could not answer these basic questions absent some nonspecific “vetting” that has yet to take place, provides no basis for their lack of compliance.
April 12, 2025
A State Department official reports to the court that Abrego Garcia is “alive and secure” at CECOT. “He is detained pursuant to the sovereign, domestic authority of El Salvador,” the State Department’s Michael Kozak says in a filing.
However, he does not give an update on the status of Abrego Garcia’s return to the U.S.
-
Business2 days ago
Trump: China’s tariffs to “come down substantially” after negotiations with Xi
-
Business2 days ago
Trump considers $5K bonus for moms to increase birthrate
-
Business2 days ago
Chinese firm unveils palm-based biometric ID payments, sparking fresh privacy concerns
-
COVID-192 days ago
RFK Jr. Launches Long-Awaited Offensive Against COVID-19 mRNA Shots
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
Conservatives promise to ban firing of Canadian federal workers based on COVID jab status
-
Business1 day ago
Is Government Inflation Reporting Accurate?
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
Carney’s Hidden Climate Finance Agenda
-
Environment1 day ago
Experiments to dim sunlight will soon be approved by UK government: report