Sunday, May 10, 2009
Hero of the Month: Canada Border Service Agency
Thank you dear maple leafed friends in red suits and giant hats, for serving some syrupy-sweet welfare justice.
OWOSSO, Mich. (AP) - A mid-Michigan woman says she was denied entry into Canada because she is on welfare.
Rose Kelley of Owosso says she has filed a discrimination complaint with the Canada Border Services Agency over its refusal to let her and her two children cross the border via the Blue Water Bridge connecting Port Huron with Sarnia, Ontario.
The 25-year-old Kelley tells The Argus-Press of Owosso that she planned to visit friends and relatives when she arrived at the border May 1. She says she was told to furnish evidence of citizenship, financial support and other documentation, but was denied entry again on May 3.
Kelley says she was told she didn't make enough money and people on welfare shouldn't take vacations.
- via WLNS.com
Comments:
<< Home
You're income's safe, I'm sure. Bear in mind that your tax is as much for the roads you drive on, the water you drink, education, health, blah, blah as for benefits for the honest and dishonest (your story doesn't specify which Ms Keley is). The mythology about benefit fraud in Britain is largely just that, despite the dangerous habit the Daily Mail and friends has of dehumanising those claiming with exception stories of single mums with X number of kids and Y number of designer clothes. If they are spending their benefits on travelling outside their town, buying trainers and DVDs then they are sacrificing some other part of their life to do so. The claimants I have known certainly don't like being on the meagre state handouts that they're entitled to, although reports that they gather together and laugh at working saps for the free money are still being investigated.
The fact that these Canadian border types won't let someone from an unemployment-ravaged US state travel what is actually a very short distance to see relatives just provides further evidence that Michael Moore was always wrong about Canada and that it actually has proportinately as many pathologically self-centered dicks as the USA or any other country. There's a recession, and if there are no jobs you can't work. In fact, I rather hope those uptight border guards join her soon.
The fact that these Canadian border types won't let someone from an unemployment-ravaged US state travel what is actually a very short distance to see relatives just provides further evidence that Michael Moore was always wrong about Canada and that it actually has proportinately as many pathologically self-centered dicks as the USA or any other country. There's a recession, and if there are no jobs you can't work. In fact, I rather hope those uptight border guards join her soon.
Hmm, I'm not so sure my income tax has the value-for-money you claim it to be. Road tax is paid seperately by vehicle owners and I believe part of your council tax also goes to road maintenence. I'm not certain about "free water" neither, since Thames Valley water is kind enough to send me a bill for it. I'll give you education and health, even though I'm not in a position to take much advantage of it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to outright support the abolishment of welfare altogether. In many ways I support a socialist form of welfare and would gladly part with a chunk of my monthly salary so that homeless people don't freeze at night, disabled people have the facilities to enjoy public life just like everyone and so on. But perhaps it is easier to forgive those living on my salary who cross from necessity into luxury if the trains ran on time, the buses unplagued by privatisation outside London, and if the tube could function on all lines for just one day and without extortion. If water would flow endlessly in the summer, bin men would take away ALL your garbage without question, the rest of the public service ran like clockwork free from incompetence, and I could sleep at night with a clean conscience that I was not funding an unpopular war, then yes. Yes I would certainly find it easier to turn a blind eye to the likes of Ms Kelley.
You're right, I do not falsely identify this woman as welfare fraudulent or not. But more of what she represents. The UK is in no position to boast humility of a poverty gap comparable to many 3rd world countries. And I believe for this reason, many lose sight of the line between necessity and luxury. Like a teenager who has grown accustomed to getting everything they want when Daddy loses his job, suddenly unemployed Brits throw a hissy fit when welfare does not afford them sufficient funds to live on their own, have a nice restuarant meal once a week, buy that new xbox game or a ticket to go see family and friends. Damn right living on welfare should be tough. It shouldn't be a social crutch to abuse and in many cases an incentive to remain on. The thing that Canada and many other countries that employ a socialist public service do right is administrating this welfare proportionately to people that actually need it, and where it counts. Free healthcare and maternity stipends to keep working women working is great. But the UK seems all too plagued by a corrupt derivative of socialised welfare that feeds greedy mouths more than hungry ones.
Perhaps Ms Kelley had saved up much to see beloved family unable to visit her instead. But that's not the point. It's the fact that someone who had the power to do something had the courage to stand up and make this woman on welfare justify her trip. Put it in modern terms; If you gave $700 million of federal funds to bail out a crashing group of banks, and one of the CEOs wants to take his private jet somewhere, you're damn right I'd want to know where he's going and what the hell he's doing with a private jet. And regardless of dicks or not, I think it's slightly unfair to try compare the US and Canada dick population. The prevalent patronising of Americans on Canadians does allow at least one dick move on Canada's part, even if they're not paying for Ms Kelley's welfare.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to outright support the abolishment of welfare altogether. In many ways I support a socialist form of welfare and would gladly part with a chunk of my monthly salary so that homeless people don't freeze at night, disabled people have the facilities to enjoy public life just like everyone and so on. But perhaps it is easier to forgive those living on my salary who cross from necessity into luxury if the trains ran on time, the buses unplagued by privatisation outside London, and if the tube could function on all lines for just one day and without extortion. If water would flow endlessly in the summer, bin men would take away ALL your garbage without question, the rest of the public service ran like clockwork free from incompetence, and I could sleep at night with a clean conscience that I was not funding an unpopular war, then yes. Yes I would certainly find it easier to turn a blind eye to the likes of Ms Kelley.
You're right, I do not falsely identify this woman as welfare fraudulent or not. But more of what she represents. The UK is in no position to boast humility of a poverty gap comparable to many 3rd world countries. And I believe for this reason, many lose sight of the line between necessity and luxury. Like a teenager who has grown accustomed to getting everything they want when Daddy loses his job, suddenly unemployed Brits throw a hissy fit when welfare does not afford them sufficient funds to live on their own, have a nice restuarant meal once a week, buy that new xbox game or a ticket to go see family and friends. Damn right living on welfare should be tough. It shouldn't be a social crutch to abuse and in many cases an incentive to remain on. The thing that Canada and many other countries that employ a socialist public service do right is administrating this welfare proportionately to people that actually need it, and where it counts. Free healthcare and maternity stipends to keep working women working is great. But the UK seems all too plagued by a corrupt derivative of socialised welfare that feeds greedy mouths more than hungry ones.
Perhaps Ms Kelley had saved up much to see beloved family unable to visit her instead. But that's not the point. It's the fact that someone who had the power to do something had the courage to stand up and make this woman on welfare justify her trip. Put it in modern terms; If you gave $700 million of federal funds to bail out a crashing group of banks, and one of the CEOs wants to take his private jet somewhere, you're damn right I'd want to know where he's going and what the hell he's doing with a private jet. And regardless of dicks or not, I think it's slightly unfair to try compare the US and Canada dick population. The prevalent patronising of Americans on Canadians does allow at least one dick move on Canada's part, even if they're not paying for Ms Kelley's welfare.
I should probably also mention that the US also reserve the right to turn you away or deny a visa application if you are unable to furnish evidence of 'adequate' income.
And in my opinion, the UK airport immigration do a stand up job in their line of questioning. But maybe that's just if you're in the non-EU line...
And in my opinion, the UK airport immigration do a stand up job in their line of questioning. But maybe that's just if you're in the non-EU line...
You again.
OK, we'll stick just to income tax, but I do hope you are paying the rest - the BBC need your cash to stay so toweringly awesome, and Slough needs to become even prettier.
Right, Income tax. But, umm, who are you quoting when you write "free water"? Not me, that's for sure. I know it's not free from the tap, it was privatised by evil Tories and I've seen the bills for it with my own eyes, but it's regulated through government-funded bodies (by Ofwat). Private companies alone have little incentive to keep prices low or the water pure. Oh, yes, you're in the London area. Relatively pure. It could be worse, I assure you. On that note I'll add the environment into the wonders of taxation. I'm edgy about including police and the military because, well, you know. The day that Trident is killed off will be a happy one for tax payers. All in all, income tax is reasonably good value, though I suspect your beef with the UK system is with tax management, not tax levels. Their value would increase if administration of present levels of money was more efficient, not necesarilly if taxes were cut (remember the metro in Madrid - it functions like a dream). The UK railways are not funded by taxes but run by private companies. They are therefore both expensive and dreadful, and are accountable to little but their profit margins. London transport has been undergoing restructuring after years of negligence and underfunding. Short of bulldozing London and starting again this will be a painful process. It has character, though, unlike the transport in Madrid. No, I'm not convinced by that last argument either.
It's none of my buisiness, nor anyone elses, what someone spends their benefits on. They get a lump sum each week and just as with wages if they use it all up then that's that, no bailout comes. If they want to travel, food takes a hit, they want trainers, something else has to give. The bank bailout doesn't work as an analogy - this was an additional sum given to rescue banks that had already shown themselves reckless with the people's cash. Those on benefits are not sent additional money if their holiday plans cost more than they anticipated or if they mess up their expenses.
I don't see how the fate of people on welfare is tied to how much trash the binmen will take without question, though (itself a council issue rather than a national one).
I don't like this idea that people on benefits should be scraping by. They have rights to an adequate diet and adequate housing and this requires money. They have no cushy existence, but rather have to put up with the social stigma of not working, a restricted social life and the difficulty of reintroducing themselves into the labour force by competing with those who have more complete CVs with no gaps in employment. I wouldn't underestimate the frustration felt by those that want to contribute to society or that want a holiday to the Bahamas but have no means to realise these aims. And those that have just found themselves kicked out of work through no fault of their own deserve the benefits they have been funding through taxation all this time. I should add that benefits amounts to a tiny percentage of public spending. It's not much from our pockets but it has a huge impact on those who need it.
The amount that someone on jobseekers allowance gets a week amounts to a maximum of just under £100 a week. That's not something you can exploit too much after food is taken care of. If you have savings of over £6000 or so then you have restricted access to it, even higher saving grants you no access at all. Those on jobseekers allowance in the UK are reviewed weekly and if they fail to turn up or their reviewer suspects that they are not actively seeking work then this money can be cut immediately. You sound more annoyed with those that exploit benefits than by all those who receive them, but you won't get many better ways in such a densely populated nation to filter out cheats from genuine cases, which is why I get annoyed at generalisations about those on benefits. There doesn't exist any proof that a majority of cases are fraudsters, or that they benefit the greedy over the needy. What we are exposed to is a trickle of inflammatory, exceptional individual cases that distort the picture of a life - and sometimes, through no fault of their own, it is indeed a life - on the dole. People using their benefits prudently does not make news and is therefore reported as often as people not getting murdererd.
All this is actually a whole separate debate from your Canada story. Here somebody on benefits, we don't know whether rightly or wrongly, has been stigmatised and lectured on her lifestyle.
I'm aware of the financial stipulations of entering another country, it's a common one, except, crucially, it's not based on income but on having adequate funds so as not to become a public charge, ie, use up their resources and/or welfare system. Later this year I will be travelling a lot and have no intention of maintaining a job in the UK or Spain as if I do so because I'll exhaust my holiday allowance. What I will be asked to prove is that I have enough money to look after myself. If entry was based on adequate income then gap year kids would never be allowed to go travelling because, paradoxicaly, they lack a job at the time they are going off travelling. Adequate funds it is.
Now, let's get legal. Her relatives and friends in Canada were the ones paying for her stay: http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2009/05/08/9390381-sun.html
And (how sad am I for looking this up...) according to Canadian immigration rules:
"a foreign national is inadmissible for financial reasons if they are or will be unable or unwilling to support themself or any other person who is dependent on them" ...
...BUT...
..."if the person satisfies the immigration officer that adequate arrangements for care and support (not involving social assistance) are in place, then they do not fall within this inadmissibility provision." http://www.americanlaw.com/cdninadmissible.html#financial
(I'm not patronising you when I point out that "social assistance" is Canadian social security, and that this has the same result as UK and US border stipulations: you are not financially inadmissible if you are not a public charge. As a guest she was the family's responsibility and the family were with her to point this out.)
Since we seem to know next to nothing about this lady beyond the fact that she could reach Canada in a friend's car but could not convince a border guard she herself had adequate money (amount not specified) then, I at least, am going to say that I have no idea what she "represents". Cheating, saving up, laziness, a propensity to spend more on travel than food, discrimination...no idea at all. She certainly shouldn't be at home searching 24/7 for jobs that may not even be out there until she can satisfy others with her income. Her life is ticking by, she should get busy living, or get busy...
The attitude the sanctimonoius pricks at the border represent is clearer, assuming the written report submitted by Ms Kelley is true. That they said that people on welfare shouldn't take vacations and that she should stay away from the border until her life changes remains as repugnant to me as it was this morning. They have some questions to answer themselves about their elitist attitude and their interpretation of their own country's law. They are certainly not making a significant stand or demonstrating heroic qualities, nor are they expelling a threat to Canada, but rather shitting on the poor and jobless. Screw them.
Post a Comment
OK, we'll stick just to income tax, but I do hope you are paying the rest - the BBC need your cash to stay so toweringly awesome, and Slough needs to become even prettier.
Right, Income tax. But, umm, who are you quoting when you write "free water"? Not me, that's for sure. I know it's not free from the tap, it was privatised by evil Tories and I've seen the bills for it with my own eyes, but it's regulated through government-funded bodies (by Ofwat). Private companies alone have little incentive to keep prices low or the water pure. Oh, yes, you're in the London area. Relatively pure. It could be worse, I assure you. On that note I'll add the environment into the wonders of taxation. I'm edgy about including police and the military because, well, you know. The day that Trident is killed off will be a happy one for tax payers. All in all, income tax is reasonably good value, though I suspect your beef with the UK system is with tax management, not tax levels. Their value would increase if administration of present levels of money was more efficient, not necesarilly if taxes were cut (remember the metro in Madrid - it functions like a dream). The UK railways are not funded by taxes but run by private companies. They are therefore both expensive and dreadful, and are accountable to little but their profit margins. London transport has been undergoing restructuring after years of negligence and underfunding. Short of bulldozing London and starting again this will be a painful process. It has character, though, unlike the transport in Madrid. No, I'm not convinced by that last argument either.
It's none of my buisiness, nor anyone elses, what someone spends their benefits on. They get a lump sum each week and just as with wages if they use it all up then that's that, no bailout comes. If they want to travel, food takes a hit, they want trainers, something else has to give. The bank bailout doesn't work as an analogy - this was an additional sum given to rescue banks that had already shown themselves reckless with the people's cash. Those on benefits are not sent additional money if their holiday plans cost more than they anticipated or if they mess up their expenses.
I don't see how the fate of people on welfare is tied to how much trash the binmen will take without question, though (itself a council issue rather than a national one).
I don't like this idea that people on benefits should be scraping by. They have rights to an adequate diet and adequate housing and this requires money. They have no cushy existence, but rather have to put up with the social stigma of not working, a restricted social life and the difficulty of reintroducing themselves into the labour force by competing with those who have more complete CVs with no gaps in employment. I wouldn't underestimate the frustration felt by those that want to contribute to society or that want a holiday to the Bahamas but have no means to realise these aims. And those that have just found themselves kicked out of work through no fault of their own deserve the benefits they have been funding through taxation all this time. I should add that benefits amounts to a tiny percentage of public spending. It's not much from our pockets but it has a huge impact on those who need it.
The amount that someone on jobseekers allowance gets a week amounts to a maximum of just under £100 a week. That's not something you can exploit too much after food is taken care of. If you have savings of over £6000 or so then you have restricted access to it, even higher saving grants you no access at all. Those on jobseekers allowance in the UK are reviewed weekly and if they fail to turn up or their reviewer suspects that they are not actively seeking work then this money can be cut immediately. You sound more annoyed with those that exploit benefits than by all those who receive them, but you won't get many better ways in such a densely populated nation to filter out cheats from genuine cases, which is why I get annoyed at generalisations about those on benefits. There doesn't exist any proof that a majority of cases are fraudsters, or that they benefit the greedy over the needy. What we are exposed to is a trickle of inflammatory, exceptional individual cases that distort the picture of a life - and sometimes, through no fault of their own, it is indeed a life - on the dole. People using their benefits prudently does not make news and is therefore reported as often as people not getting murdererd.
All this is actually a whole separate debate from your Canada story. Here somebody on benefits, we don't know whether rightly or wrongly, has been stigmatised and lectured on her lifestyle.
I'm aware of the financial stipulations of entering another country, it's a common one, except, crucially, it's not based on income but on having adequate funds so as not to become a public charge, ie, use up their resources and/or welfare system. Later this year I will be travelling a lot and have no intention of maintaining a job in the UK or Spain as if I do so because I'll exhaust my holiday allowance. What I will be asked to prove is that I have enough money to look after myself. If entry was based on adequate income then gap year kids would never be allowed to go travelling because, paradoxicaly, they lack a job at the time they are going off travelling. Adequate funds it is.
Now, let's get legal. Her relatives and friends in Canada were the ones paying for her stay: http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2009/05/08/9390381-sun.html
And (how sad am I for looking this up...) according to Canadian immigration rules:
"a foreign national is inadmissible for financial reasons if they are or will be unable or unwilling to support themself or any other person who is dependent on them" ...
...BUT...
..."if the person satisfies the immigration officer that adequate arrangements for care and support (not involving social assistance) are in place, then they do not fall within this inadmissibility provision." http://www.americanlaw.com/cdninadmissible.html#financial
(I'm not patronising you when I point out that "social assistance" is Canadian social security, and that this has the same result as UK and US border stipulations: you are not financially inadmissible if you are not a public charge. As a guest she was the family's responsibility and the family were with her to point this out.)
Since we seem to know next to nothing about this lady beyond the fact that she could reach Canada in a friend's car but could not convince a border guard she herself had adequate money (amount not specified) then, I at least, am going to say that I have no idea what she "represents". Cheating, saving up, laziness, a propensity to spend more on travel than food, discrimination...no idea at all. She certainly shouldn't be at home searching 24/7 for jobs that may not even be out there until she can satisfy others with her income. Her life is ticking by, she should get busy living, or get busy...
The attitude the sanctimonoius pricks at the border represent is clearer, assuming the written report submitted by Ms Kelley is true. That they said that people on welfare shouldn't take vacations and that she should stay away from the border until her life changes remains as repugnant to me as it was this morning. They have some questions to answer themselves about their elitist attitude and their interpretation of their own country's law. They are certainly not making a significant stand or demonstrating heroic qualities, nor are they expelling a threat to Canada, but rather shitting on the poor and jobless. Screw them.
<< Home
.jpg)
