OK, this is just plain weird -- an Israeli family living in Canada is refusing to be deported ... back to Israel? What's up with that?
Immigration authorities say they are still determined to deport an Israeli family who have sought sanctuary in a Newfoundland church basement.
So what's the problem? Some sort of threat to life or well-being if they return to Israel?
A humanitarian application filed on behalf of the Portnoy family was rejected this week, just days after Angela Portnoy gave birth to the family's fifth child.
"Humanitarian?" OK, so no life-threatening issues here. Then what?
A key element of the Portnoys' appeal is the future of the five children. Three of them were born in Canada, although Cohen emphasizes that three of the children require medical attention — including one for cystic fibrosis and another for language therapy.
I'm sorry -- they want to stay because they'll get better medical care? What, they don't have doctors and health care and language therapists in Israel? Here, let me give you Israelis some advice -- stop spending so much fucking money every year on tanks and guns and missiles and bullets and fighter jets and attack helicopters, and invest more of it in a decent health care system, and stop leaching off of ours.
I love the irony: "Support Israel," but not to the extent of actually, you know, wanting to live there.
THE PRE-EMPTIVE IRONY STRIKE. I figured it wouldn't take long before someone picked up on that "kids were born in Canada" meme, but I thought I'd be polite and wait for it to surface first.
I haven't seen any mention of this story over at Assclown Central yet but, if any of them try that rationalization for fighting the deportation, that will be irony of the highest order.
See, if you read the article, you'll notice that the family has been resisting the deportation since 2004, but the mother just gave birth to a son. So, to begin with, one can fairly ask what kind of mother decides to get pregnant and have yet another child in the midst of fighting a deportation order? But that's not the best part.
The idea of non-citizens coming into the country and having children just for the sake of the subsequent citizenship is absolutely infuriating to right-wing Americans, to the extent that they've coined a derogatory phrase for such children -- "anchor babies." And from that article, you can tell that America's wankers are none too happy with what they see as a gaping loophole in the citizenship laws.
So it's going to be entertaining to see if Canada's wankers pick up on this story and actually take advantage of this feature to criticize the deportation order. After all, you know as well as I do that, if the mother in question had been Nicaraguan or Guatemalan or Vietnamese, all of those same Blogging Tories would be fighting for the chance to personally drive that woman and her squalling brats to the airport for the first flight out. But since she's Israeli ... now what? Oh, man, you can just smell the cognitive dissonance from here, can't you?
How about we all just grab a coffee, pull up a chair, lean back and, with any luck, watch the BTs tie themselves in knots arguing against their normal, anti-immigrant tendencies. Where else are you going to get that kind of entertainment without having to pay for it?
9 comments:
It's not even clear that that last child should count towards citizenship anyway. From the article, the family should have been deported by now, but they got a "reprieve" so the mother could get pre-natal care and deliver her baby in Canada.
If that's true, then it would be pretty tacky to suddenly turn around and express your gratitude for that by now demanding the right to stay based on child citizenship.
Dear bushismycousin:
You're missing the larger point here. Regardless of what position you take in terms of citizenship, the hypocrisy is that, on the one hand, the anti-immigrant right is furious with the entire idea of "anchor babies" and citizenship by geographical luck while, on the other hand, I'm willing to bet that those same right-wingers would have no problem using that same rationale to argue that this mother should be allowed to stay in Canada.
You don't need to take a position to point out the hypocrisy in someone else's.
What's the problem?
Deport 'em!
and, yes, I'd drive them to the airport myself!
Now, now, Ti-Guy ... I'm actually somewhat impressed by his attitude. I was expecting at least a small display of outrage from the BTs over this deportation thing but, so far, it's all quiet on the wanker front.
Perhaps this won't even register on their radar screens. Curious.
What's to outrage CC?
They're abusing the system.
Deport 'em asap.
Their 'anchor child' (good term, that) can come back when he's grown and sponsor 'em.... all according to the law.
There's a bigger story, CC. She doesn't want to go back because she's opposed to having her children being forced to serve in the IDF when they're of age.
catnip:
Ah, I was not aware of that as the CBC piece doesn't mention that. Got a link for that? (He asked, being too unspeakably lazy to go look for it himself.)
uh oh. I see Liberal "Elmo" Catnip is on the case.
Looks like this is leftie issue and not a 'Blogging Whories' one.
hoist petard. you know the rest.
backseat, this all went right over your pretty lil' head, dinnit?
Post a Comment