Paying the bills

[ShadowHM]

Hi

I just finished reading this article in today's Globe and Mail.

(Text cut'n'pasted below)

My knee-jerk reaction is: I have trouble sympathizing with the balking sponsers. <_< Why should I pay (with my taxes) for their poor judgement in bringing someone here? And, in particular, why should I pay for their attempt to abrogate a responsibility they contracted for?

(Although I did get a chuckle out of one of the reader responses: "Evidently our government believes in never giving a sucker an even break." :lol:)

Sponsors of immigrants balk at paying
Man who says he was used by his former fiancée refuses to repay her welfare costs
MARINA JIMÉNEZ

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail

May 1, 2007 at 4:44 AM EDT

A Canadian contractor is suing Ottawa and the Ontario government for trying to force him to repay thousands of dollars in social assistance collected by his ex-fiancée, a Yugoslav woman he sponsored to come to Canada.

Nedzad Dzihic, a 37-year-old Bosnian immigrant, did not marry Edina Zurko. Instead, according to court documents, she used him as a ticket to Canada and then dumped him almost as soon as she arrived, on Feb. 25, 2003.

An embarrassed Mr. Dzihic promptly informed Citizenship and Immigration Canada, according to the documents filed Friday in Ontario Superior Court of Justice. He says he never saw her again and assumed the government had deported Ms. Zurko.

Instead, Mr. Dzihic was shocked last year to get a bill from the Ontario government to repay thousands of dollars his former girlfriend has been collecting since she went on welfare in June of 2006.

Mr. Dzihic was even more stunned to discover that he must cover her social-assistance costs until 2013 -- the 10-year period of the sponsorship agreement.

"The government is hounding Mr. Dzihic for money, when he was the one who was used and they did nothing to protect him," said Lorne Waldman, his lawyer.

The lawsuit, one of eight similar ones filed Friday, is the first legal challenge to the provincial government's right to recoup welfare costs from delinquent sponsors.

Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, sponsors may bring in spouses, parents, grandparents and dependent children if they agree to support them. Prior to 2002, the obligation was for 10 years. After 2002, support for spouses was reduced to three years and applicants were no longer allowed to sponsor fiancés . (When Mr. Dzihic applied, the obligation extended for 10 years.)

Since Ontario's Ministry of Community and Social Services launched a recovery initiative in April of 2005, it has collected $3.7-million from defaulting sponsors. British Columbia and Quebec have also launched similar plans.

However, many sponsors say it is unfair to come after them when their spouses deceived them, or used them to get into Canada.

Amanda Dodge, a legal aid lawyer in Orillia, Ont., who is representing five of the eight claimants, believes the government has every right to collect from people who breach their financial undertakings. However, Ontario has cast the net too wide and has failed to consider cases where there has been illness, job loss or marital breakdown.

One sponsor was hit with a bill for $148,000 -- the combined amount his estranged parents had collected in social assistance -- unbeknownst to him.

In the case of Mr. Dzihic, Mr. Waldman said the sponsorship agreement is not enforceable because Ms. Zurko didn't live up to her legal obligation to marry him within 90 days. Mr. Dzihic eventually met another woman from Bosnia, whom he married last year. CIC issued her a spousal visa and then revoked it after immigration officials discovered the outstanding bill for Ms. Zurko's welfare.

Many more sponsors across the country are watching the legal challenges closely. Among them is Rebecca Collum, a 35-year-old pastry cook from Toronto. She met and married Rashid Mukare, a Kenyan, in 2005 on Fregate, an island in the Seychelles. At the time, both were working for a five-star luxury resort.

"He had a great sense of humour and was very positive," she recalls. Both left the island for their homelands and she applied to sponsor him, spending $10,000 on air tickets, immigration expenses and care packages -- even footing her mother-in-law's hospital bill.

However, when the man of her dreams finally arrived in January of 2007, he turned out to be an incommunicative layabout, according to Ms. Collum. She felt betrayed when he admitted he had made no attempt to get a job in Kenya to help cover their costs.

Finally, after a few weeks, she told him the marriage wasn't working out, and her sister bought him a plane ticket back to Kenya. However, instead of boarding the flight, Mr. Mukare went to a shelter and signed up for social assistance. Now Ms. Collum, who plans to file for divorce, is on the hook for three years for his $6,000-a-year welfare bills.

Madeleine Meilleure, Ontario's Minister of Community and Social Services, says sponsors must live up to their commitment. The government makes exceptions only if the sponsor dies or falls ill, is living below the poverty line, or if the sponsored immigrant is being abused. Even if a couple divorces, the sponsor must still support the person. Sponsored immigrants have as much right as any Canadian to apply for social assistance, she says.

Sponsors obligations

The sponsorship program allows Canadian citizens and permanent residents to sponsor close relatives or family members. They must promise to support them for three to 10 years. If one has previously sponsored family members who then go on social assistance, the applicant may be disqualified from bringing in another family member.

In 2005, Canada accepted about 63,000 family-class immigrants; half settled in Ontario.

That same year, there were about 6,500 sponsored immigrants on social assistance in Ontario (less than 1 per cent of the total welfare recipients) at a cost of $65-million.

Source: Ministry of Community and Social Services; Citizenship and Immigration Canada

[Delc]

So they sponsor people to move to Canada and they expect the rest of the country to pick up the welfare bill? Personally I don't see why they give them welfare at all, but making the sucker that got them in pay for it seems like a good second choice.

[Rhydderch Hael]

So they sponsor people to move to Canada and they expect the rest of the country to pick up the welfare bill? ...

The going idea is that if she had agreed to stay with the fellow and/or married him, she wouldn't have been mooching money from the welfare office in the first place. But as soon as she got on Canadian soil, she split and struck out on her own— which, in this case, meant latching onto government assistance.

[Chesspiece_face]

The simple solution seems to be not to offer welfare to individuals that are under this sponsorship agreement.

[Occhidiangela]

Hi

I just finished reading this article in today's Globe and Mail.

(Text cut'n'pasted below)

My knee-jerk reaction is: I have trouble sympathizing with the balking sponsers. <_< Why should I pay (with my taxes) for their poor judgement in bringing someone here? And, in particular, why should I pay for their attempt to abrogate a responsibility they contracted for?

(Although I did get a chuckle out of one of the reader responses: "Evidently our government believes in never giving a sucker an even break." :lol:)

In the old West, such a gal was often referred to as

"A Montgomery Ward Wife, Sent on Approval."

I concur with your gut feeling that you should not foot the bill for her.

Occhi

[Doc]

And this is why men chain womenfolk to the stovepipe and beat them daily till they fall in to total submission.

How sad.

And to make it clear, I do not endorse this behaviour at all... But this is why some men feel justified in domestic abuse.

[Concillian]

If you're going to make the sponsor financially responsible in this manner, it only makes sense that they also have the authority to force deportation during their term of responsibility.

Give them an option to report their sponsored as estranged or otherwise non-compliant and be absolved of financial responsibility at the same time as requesting the government deport the sponsored individual.

This would potentially lead to the opposite situation where the person is effectively a slave. There would have to be some boundaries on the reasons for reporting the sponsored... I imagine divorce and not returning phone calls to be acceptable reasons.

This way there are checks and balances. Currently, it sounds like an immigrant's paradise.

[ima_nerd]

Sponsored immigrants have as much right as any Canadian to apply for social assistance, she says.

That same year, there were about 6,500 sponsored immigrants on social assistance in Ontario (less than 1 per cent of the total welfare recipients) at a cost of $65-million.

:blink:

How exactly does that work?

I think the obvious solution is to not let them receive social assistance... they've done nothing to deserve it, after all.

The guy who orders a mail order bride may be a shmuck, but he doesn't deserve a free loader latched onto him.

[Swiss Mercenary]

This would potentially lead to the opposite situation where the person is effectively a slave.

Not really. If they go out and get a job, they won't need any sponsorship money. They should only be deported if they can't sustain themselves.

[Lissa]

In the old West, such a gal was often referred to as

"A Montgomery Ward Wife, Sent on Approval."

I concur with your gut feeling that you should not foot the bill for her.

Occhi

In the case of Mr. Dzihic I think he does have a point. He did report her to the Canadian equivalent of the the US INS. He reported her to be deported, yet the Canadian Government never moved on it, even after she signed up for this welfare. So who's really the one at fault here for her taking tax payer money, Mr. Dzihic who reported her immediately for deportation or the Canadian Government that didn't move on this deportation and revocation of sponsorship. The only failing I see by Mr. Dzihic is not making sure she was deported.

In the case of Ms. Collum's case, she should have made sure that her soon-to-be former husband got on that plane and left on the plane back to Kenya instead of just giving him the ticket and expecting him to use it. Unlike Mr. Dzihic, it doesn't appear that she took steps to report her soon-to-be former husband to the Canadian Goverment for deportation. In this case, the onus was on her to make sure he was out of the country instead of expecting him to just go on his own.

In essence, Mr. Dzihic took necessary steps to get his deadbeat sponsor reported to the Canadian Government to have her removed from the country while Ms. Collum took it upon herself to try and get her deadbeat sponsor out of the country instead of notifying the proper authorities.

[yangman]

How exactly does that work?

I think the obvious solution is to not let them receive social assistance... they've done nothing to deserve it, after all.

It doesn't, but the truth is that it is often notoriously difficult for a immigrant, even with years and years of experience in their field to find a job. My family knows a few people with MSc's and PhD's that has had to work minimum wage for months, even years, before finally finding a job in technical areas they have spent years working in previously.

[ima_nerd]

It doesn't, but the truth is that it is often notoriously difficult for a immigrant, even with years and years of experience in their field to find a job. My family knows a few people with MSc's and PhD's that has had to work minimum wage for months, even years, before finally finding a job in technical areas they have spent years working in previously.

Then they shouldn't have moved there. It's their fault for not checking the job market before up and moving.

[ShadowHM]

Then they shouldn't have moved there. It's their fault for not checking the job market before up and moving.

Not quite.

What if they did move here with a spouse who does have a job? There are many permutations that are perfectly sensible moves, even if one does not have a hope of getting a job within one's previous field of expertise.

[GhastMaster]

Not quite.

What if they did move here with a spouse who does have a job? There are many permutations that are perfectly sensible moves, even if one does not have a hope of getting a job within one's previous field of expertise.

Sounds to me like Life Sucks somtimes. The sooner we realize that the happier we will be. It does not matter how smart you are or what precautions you take, life can screw you over.

That said, I do not think a country should offer welfare to non citizens. Welfare should only be offered for short periods of time to people who pass drug tests and are actively looking for jobs. Certain disabilities however should get full welfare.

[kandrathe]

Sounds to me like Life Sucks somtimes. The sooner we realize that the happier we will be. It does not matter how smart you are or what precautions you take, life can screw you over.

That said, I do not think a country should offer welfare to non citizens. Welfare should only be offered for short periods of time to people who pass drug tests and are actively looking for jobs. Certain disabilities however should get full welfare.

This is the age of abdication of responsibility. The model being implemented worldwide is that the Government takes care of all the problems, and we merely need to work from cradle to grave to pay for it. You don't like your life in your current country? Then, just move to one run by socialists and feed off the state.

Your statement that "Life Sucks Sometimes" is also a bit of a cop out. I'd agree that often there are circumstances beyond our prediction and control, but from my observation of "Life", we all make choices and then reap the consequences of those choices. An example; In my college years I went to a Super Bowl party which was getting out of control, so I chose to leave. 30 minutes later those who remained were arrested and had consequences. I helped to bail out my friends out of jail, but I didn't bear the same pain that they did. So it was not "Life" that sucked that day, but their choice to stay just a little longer. There are times when we are ignorant or heedless of the risks to which we obliviously subject ourselves, but the responsibility still remains with the individual. Another example; Again during college, I chose to live in an apartment in a blue collar neighborhood on a major bus line, while my sister chose to live near campus. Her vehicle was vandalized, and damaged at least once per month. My stuff was never touched. I was willing to take a ten minute bus ride to live in an area where people protect their own property (and consequently mine).

Being a father now, I'm trying to teach this type of common sense to my boys, but they currently don't get it yet. I do understand my own father a bit better now though.

These people that sponsor aliens are probably being led more by their hearts than heads. The sensible thing for the government to do if an alien loses sponsorship would be to deport them. But, the socialists are interested in populating their country with other potential voting socialists. So why not keep them in the country, give them amnesty, and make everyone else pay for it?

[ShadowHM]

But, the socialists are interested in populating their country with other potential voting socialists. So why not keep them in the country, give them amnesty, and make everyone else pay for it?

Aww....

You know me *that* well, do you? :P

As you should be aware, kandrathe, I am both a socialist and an emphasizer of personal responsibility. You really should stop using such a wide brush when you paint others. ;)

Welfare for those who are in need is not something I am willing to give up. Two of my friends were saved by welfare when unforeseen circumstances brought them low. But it should not be and is not enough for high living. In both those cases, it was enough to help them get back on track, get re-educated and back to work. As with any other right, there can be and will be those who abuse it. So be it.

With sponsership, you sign on the dotted line when you bring the person in. And you pay for your mistakes.

[kandrathe]

...
Welfare for those who are in need is not something I am willing to give up. Two of my friends were saved by welfare when unforeseen circumstances brought them low. But it should not be and is not enough for high living. In both those cases, it was enough to help them get back on track, get re-educated and back to work. As with any other right, there can be and will be those who abuse it. So be it.
...

I am happy that your friends were helped. I don't agree with the "Charity by Force" approach of socialism. The assumption by government is that people are to calloused to help the needy, while history has shown the opposite. It is rare that someone looking for help does not find it. People in the US are donating over $300 billion a year to worthy causes. I wouldn't be against the government helping guide the needy people to the resources they need. Hopefully your friends feel compelled to return the graciousness shown to them.

What I see with socialism is a slippery slope that we ARE sliding down. If we can enforce the elimination of poverty, next we can raise the bar on how we define poverty. After that we can tell you how to raise your children, and what they should be learning. Then we can outlaw what you are thinking. The key point is that not all people deserve success, because they've done nothing to earn it. The government takes your money to give to the needy, but also the undeserving. They owe the government nothing in return. No ones wants poor people starving, or homeless, so there does need to be a safety net. I don't feel it needs to be supplied by the government, but rather the government can coordinate and fill in the gaps.

[Swiss Mercenary]

I am happy that your friends were helped. I don't agree with the "Charity by Force" approach of socialism.

Yet, you agree with "Funding policing by force", "Road upkeep by force", and many other things thata re done by "Force"

What I see with socialism is a slippery slope that we ARE sliding down.

And likewise, I can see your ideas as a slippery slope that will ineviatably lead to The Irish Problem with the inevitable Modest Proposal. There's a reason for why this is called the slippery slope fallacy.

[kandrathe]

Yet, you agree with "Funding policing by force", "Road upkeep by force", and many other things thata re done by "Force"
And likewise, I can see your ideas as a slippery slope that will ineviatably lead to The Irish Problem with the inevitable Modest Proposal. There's a reason for why this is called the slippery slope fallacy.

But... I don't. I agree we need a police force and roads. I believe I've expressed before that my views are that those who use the thing should pay for it. So, for police it would be property taxes for my local police. For Highway Patrol and other State officers it would be from the States general funds. For a State tax I would like to see consumption based taxes only. I would like to see no income tax at all. Consumption is a voluntary tax. If you don't like the price of a good or service, then you can choose not to consume it. I would like to see zero sales taxes on farm produce that are for human consumption, and a modest sales tax on processed food. I would also limit taxes on health care and medicine. At the Federal level it would be up to the States to negotiate on how to fund the Federal government, but the apportionment should be based on the States population.

As for the slippery slope... Let's look at France's socialism and its severe back lash, shall we? Great post on Soviet ideological warfare

Better yet, let's explore The Netherlands two social slippery slope issues;

1st opening up the definition of marriage...

The Dutch journey towards the destruction of marriage began when they legalized homosexual civil unions in 1998. This was followed in a mere three year's time by the legalization of homosexual marriage and adoption of children. Now just four years later they have certified the civil union of one man and two lesbians.

With homosexual polygamous civil unions now being permitted can anyone doubt that homosexual polygamous marriage will be far behind? They have gone from the top of the slope with traditional marriage to their current position in just seven years. And given what they've allowed thus far, how could they justify slowing the wheels of "progress"?

and 2nd euthanasia.

When it comes to the sanctity of life, the Dutch have even more to be proud of. In 2001 they began with voluntary euthanasia for people that were terminally ill, but then moved rapidly to expand the franchise to those who were disabled. By 2004 they had moved to the euthanasia of disabled and terminally ill newborn babies and granted twelve-year olds the right to assisted suicide without parental consent. In addition, they began to allow the euthanasia of the terminally ill who were mentally incapable of deciding whether they wanted to live or die.

Dutch hospitals have petitioned the government to allow the killing of terminal infants and young children, as well as the severely mentally retarded. They have also pushed ahead with establishing guidelines to euthanize newborns that are determined to be in pain associated with incurable diseases or severe physical deformities. Hitler would be proud.

Now, I'm not taking a stand on either of these Netherlands socialist items, but using them to illustrate what I mean by a socialist slippery slope. We've hashed out out views on both topics in the past.

Here is a local example from my State. We went along with the "ideological" Federal program labeled "State Children's Health Insurance Program". Which politician could ever be against health care for low income children? The reality is that in Minnesota, 87% of the participants in the program are adults. We have 5 State/Federal health insurance programs in Minnesota. The legislature is trying to pass legislation this session that would extend State low income health coverage to some households that make up to $100K in income.

[Jester]

As for the slippery slope... Let's look at France, shall we?

A slippery slope that leads all the way to stinky cheeses and bad driving?

-Jester