Mexico, according to Canadian prime ministers, is an "amigo," a North American partner, a friend. Certainly all was sweetness and light when President Felipe Calderon met Prime Minister Stephen Harper this week. Mr. Harper even invited the Mexican leader to his summer residence before the summit at Montebello.
Why then do we slap Mexico in the face? Indeed, why do we slap other friendly countries in the face?
We slap them with Canadian laws and elastic interpretations that allow easy claims to refugee protection. By admitting Mexican refugees, we are saying that Mexico cannot or will not protect its people from persecution, so Canada should.
Between January of 2005 and June of 2007, Mexico was the top source country for refugees to Canada. There were 6,745 Mexicans in the Canadian queue as of the end of June, more than Haitians, Chinese, Colombians and Sri Lankans combined.
In Mexico's network of gossip, Canada has therefore become an increasingly good place to try your luck as a refugee. Yes, a majority of claimants are rejected, but given Canada's limited deportation success, even the unsuccessful ones can go underground and stay. Or, with a good lawyer, appeal to the minister. Or, as a last resort, a news outlet may provide a sympathetic front-page story.
You can never tell how a decision will go. Consider two refugee panels about homosexual Mexicans.
One Montreal-based panel produced a report on Jan. 24 documenting all the steps Mexico had taken to improve protections for gays. It said the "situation is far from perfect for homosexuals in Mexico," but appeared impressed by existing protections. The panel turned down the application.
Two weeks earlier, another Montreal panel accepted a gay man's claim, brushing aside Mexico's efforts and calling it a "homophobic society."
While the Canadian government calls Mexico an "amigo," a panel calls the country "homophobic," corrupt, drug-ridden, violent.
Mexico is plagued by corruption, drugs and violence. Mr. Calderon has even called out the army in the fight against the drug trade. But refugee status depends on a well-founded fear of persecution and no reasonable prospect of protection at home.
The fact that someone might be the subject of a random violent attack, or that the police force is less than pure, is not grounds for refugee protection. If these were proper grounds, they would apply to a majority of the world's countries.
But the way Canada has stretched its laws opens the gates for claims from countries with which we purport to be friends and where the overwhelming evidence suggests reasonable attempts to comply with human-rights norms.
Because anybody who puts a toe on Canadian soil and claims to be a refugee has the right to Charter protection and the whole panoply of the refugee-determination system, the country is essentially helpless to do things more efficiently - and to assist genuine, certified refugees.
Helpless to deal with claimants when they land, the government has been forced to impose visas on all visitors from some friendly, democratic countries such as Costa Rica, Chile and some in Eastern Europe. Mexico might be next.
Today, among the top 10 source countries for refugees, we have Colombia (where Mr. Harper just made an official visit), India, the United States and Israel. A majority of claimants from those countries, except Colombia, eventually get turned down - but they chew up money and time, and send awful signals to other countries.
We ought to have an annual list of countries from which Canada does not accept refugees, period. The list can be compiled from a variety of public sources. Arrive from one those countries and claim refugee status? Adios. But, of course, our laws won't allow it.
Meanwhile, the United Nations estimates that there are about eight million bona fide refugees around the world. We take a trickle of them. The Iraq war, for example, has created two million refugees. Canada will accept 900 this year, while almost 7,000 Mexicans are in the Canadian queue. Explain that.
If we had a different system, tougher in one respect, softer in another, we'd have more genuine refugees, fewer bogus ones, and better relations with friendly countries such as our "amigo," Mexico.