Can we talk about condition 51? (Discussion)

[nope]

The danger with all of the data listed here is that it is 1) anecdotal and 2) everyone posting here is Canadian and extremely conversant with English, and it is likely that this is a statistical artifact. Thirdly, people are, naturally, testifying to happy marriages. Would it affect anyone's opinion if a woman from an abusive marriage, who was terrified both of her husband and of being deported back to her home country, had an alternate view?

 

[Ponga]

The danger with all of the data listed here is that it is 1) anecdotal and 2) everyone posting here is Canadian and extremely conversant with English, and it is likely that this is a statistical artifact. Thirdly, people are, naturally, testifying to happy marriages. Would it affect anyone's opinion if a woman from an abusive marriage, who was terrified both of her husband and of being deported back to her home country, had an alternate view?

Wrong.


If a person is in an abusive relationship, they should have a right to maintain their PR, with or without Condition 51.

 

[nope]

And finally, everyone here -- being Canadian -- looks on this from the perspective of foreigners tricking honest Canadians into marrying them, and then escaping to live on their own, eat up social services, and cause their sponsor financial and personal heartbreak. It's true, that happens. It also happens when Canadians marry Canadians, and in that situation, it is not usually thought of the responsibility of the government to protect either party.

However, from the perspective of someone who has lived in SE Asia for many years, married a woman from there and who speaks Thai fluently, the opposite happens as well. Many of the men who marry Thai women are, quite frankly, controlling and socially warped. They believe that Asian women are submissive and subservient (in Thailand the opposite is more true), and that they are marrying a 'traditional' woman (which means that she is a combination of a maid and an unspoiled sex object).

In Thailand, conversely, traditional marriage is considered somewhat transactional. There is a dowry that the man pays to the woman's family, and courtships are usually quite short. A foreigner can get married very quickly, without even sharing a language, and neither he nor the woman have experience living with each other. When she lands in Canada, she is isolated, speaks no English, and for the first time has to fit into her husband's idea of what their life is like. Abuse in this situation is not rare, and the costs to her to go back to Thailand can be quite high financially, socially, and emotionally.

 

[nope]

Wrong.


If a person is in an abusive relationship, they should have a right to maintain their PR, with or without Condition 51.

Yes, I agree with both your points. However, the people in abusive relationships will frequently not know how to exercise this right.

 

[Ponga]

And finally, everyone here -- being Canadian -- looks on this from the perspective of foreigners tricking honest Canadians into marrying them, and then escaping to live on their own, eat up social services, and cause their sponsor financial and personal heartbreak. It's true, that happens. It also happens when Canadians marry Canadians, and in that situation, it is not usually thought of the responsibility of the government to protect either party.

However, from the perspective of someone who has lived in SE Asia for many years, married a woman from there and who speaks Thai fluently, the opposite happens as well. Many of the men who marry Thai women are, quite frankly, controlling and socially warped. They believe that Asian women are submissive and subservient (in Thailand the opposite is more true), and that they are marrying a 'traditional' woman (which means that she is a combination of a maid and an unspoiled sex object).

In Thailand, conversely, traditional marriage is considered somewhat transactional. There is a dowry that the man pays to the woman's family, and courtships are usually quite short. A foreigner can get married very quickly, without even sharing a language, and neither he nor the woman have experience living with each other. When she lands in Canada, she is isolated, speaks no English, and for the first time has to fit into her husband's idea of what their life is like. Abuse in this situation is not rare, and the costs to her to go back to Thailand can be quite high financially, socially, and emotionally.

What exactly is your definition of `being Canadian', since you're convinced that everyone here is one?

 

[nope]

Dude, I just wrote that I agreed with both your points -- I wrote quickly and inaccurately. Is that minor detail your only interest in this debate?

 

[keesio]

And finally, everyone here -- being Canadian -- looks on this from the perspective of foreigners tricking honest Canadians into marrying them, and then escaping to live on their own, eat up social services, and cause their sponsor financial and personal heartbreak. It's true, that happens. It also happens when Canadians marry Canadians, and in that situation, it is not usually thought of the responsibility of the government to protect either party.

When you think about it, the Canadian government should prioritize their own citizens over a foreigner... should they not? It's why there was a class action lawsuit by Canadians against their government in the first place - basically demanding protection from their government.

 

[Ponga]

Dude, I just wrote that I agreed with both your points -- I wrote quickly and inaccurately. Is that minor detail your only interest in this debate?

I'm just curious why you're so convinced that everyone here is Canadian, which simply isn't true. That assumption could lead one to believe that we are all biased.

 

[flx2015]

hey settle down guys

 

[p0ppet]

As someone whose sponsor turned out to be pretty horrendously abusive, I guess I'm going to be one of the very very few dissenting voices here and say that it's a bad policy that deserves to go. (Sorry, this is going to be a little long because I have ~feelings~ about C51.)

If you're in a marriage that starts healthy and stays healthy and you could not care less about Condition 51, that's lovely and I'm happy for you! But some sponsor spouses become abusive (or are abusive from the start) and Condition 51 puts sponsored spouses (especially women) in a very vulnerable position. If you're in a healthy marriage, it's whatever, but if your spouse is abusive and controlling, it just makes it harder and scarier for you to leave and hands them another tool of control (the threat of reporting to CIC and deportation).

There was a thread from someone in this kind of situation not too long ago - husband controlling everything she did, abusing her, in-laws holding the threat of deportation over her head - and coming from things like that and my own experience, it's pretty disheartening seeing people (especially men) go 'well i've never worried about this, why would you get rid of it/why would you care at all unless you have something to hide hmmm?'

There's an abuse exception, but it puts a high burden of proof (which gets even trickier if it was psychological abuse or if there were no photos/police reports, and calling the cops on your abuser tends to escalate things) on already traumatized people, and there's the risk that the exception gets denied no matter what documentation is there because it's entirely up to the discretion of whoever looks at the victim's submission to CIC. So someone coming forward has to worry about getting whatever kind of proof they can (without arousing suspicion if they're still living with their abuser) *and* the chance that it doesn't matter either way and they get deported for trying to come forward *and* working out a way out *and* the risk that their sponsor preemptively reports them to immigration if they try to leave.

I am lucky because I had a lot of support and documentation, but it's incredibly exhausting and revictimizing having to go back through every horrible thing you've been through and get proof together while trying to hold yourself together immediately after getting away from an abusive relationship and trying to hold back fears that 'oh god if i come forward and some complete stranger doesn't believe me i get deported.'

It is a policy that treats victims of spousal abuse who try to leave their abusers as guilty (and subject to removal) until proven innocent, and several immigrant/refugee groups, legal aid organizations, and women's groups have said from the moment it was proposed that it would only make new immigrants more vulnerable and lead to more domestic violence! And...that's exactly what happened. There have been a number of articles and studies/reports about this. (And nothing from the government about the positive impact it has had, which, um, make of that what you will.)

Long story short, it's a bad policy that never should have gone into place (especially since it is literally the job of CIC officers to pick out fraudsters *before* issuing PR) and it's heartening that Min. Mccallum outright said "we're getting rid of CPR because it enabled domestic violence."

 

[keesio]

Long story short, it's a bad policy that never should have gone into place (especially since it is literally the job of CIC officers to pick out fraudsters *before* issuing PR) and it's heartening that Min. Mccallum outright said "we're getting rid of CPR because it enabled domestic violence."

CIC is often stuck between a rock and a hard place. Your "especially since it is literally the job of CIC officers to pick out fraudsters *before* issuing PR" was echoed by jilted sponsors who filed a lawsuit against CIC for failing to protect them from bad spouses who abandoned them upon obtaining PR and getting stuck with their welfare bill for 3 years. It was big news 6-7 years ago here - all this "the government doesn't care about helping abused sponsors get justice". The government promised action. Now the sentiment is going the other way where the government is getting blasted for taking an action by implementing a rule that puts vulnerable sponsored spouses in a bad position (Condition 51) and which is unfair and would be moot if CIC "just did their job correctly to pick out the fraudsters before issuing PR". Now of course many people also accuse CIC of being too strict and overly suspicious heartless people when they try to judge the validity of a relationship - some even get offended (how dare they judge my love??). They accuse CIC of looking too hard for fraudsters and being too anti-immigrant.

There is no perfect solution. Someone innocent always gets hurt by a rule (or lack of). Good intentioned sponsors by duplicitous spouses prior to Condition 51. Vulnerable sponsored spouses by abusive sponsors after Condition 51 (like the unfortunate situation you were caught in). Seems like it swings back and forth like a pendulum... when it goes too far one way, it will swing back. Hopefully one day a proper balance will be found.

 

[p0ppet]

CIC is often stuck between a rock and a hard place. Your "especially since it is literally the job of CIC officers to pick out fraudsters *before* issuing PR" was echoed by jilted sponsors who filed a lawsuit against CIC for failing to protect them from bad spouses who abandoned them upon obtaining PR and getting stuck with their welfare bill for 3 years. It was big news 6-7 years ago here - all this "the government doesn't care about helping abused sponsors get justice". The government promised action. Now the sentiment is going the other way where the government is getting blasted for taking an action by implementing a rule that puts vulnerable sponsored spouses in a bad position (Condition 51) and which is unfair and would be moot if CIC "just did their job correctly to pick out the fraudsters before issuing PR". Now of course many people also accuse CIC of being too strict and overly suspicious heartless people when they try to judge the validity of a relationship - some even get offended (how dare they judge my love??). They accuse CIC of looking too hard for fraudsters and being too anti-immigrant.

There is no perfect solution. Someone innocent always gets hurt by a rule (or lack of). Good intentioned sponsors by duplicitous spouses prior to Condition 51. Vulnerable sponsored spouses by abusive sponsors after Condition 51 (like the unfortunate situation you were caught in). Seems like it swings back and forth like a pendulum... when it goes too far one way, it will swing back. Hopefully one day a proper balance will be found.

Of course there is no perfect solution, but that's no reason to just shrug and go 'well somebody's going to get hurt no matter what!' Like, if nothing else people can at least distinguish between actively harmful 'solutions' and measures that aren't perfect but at least don't make vulnerable people more vulnerable.

Also, I'd think someone marrying a Canadian under false pretenses, applying for spousal PR, and then ditching their partner right after they got it would already count as misrepresentation? Maybe I'm wrong, but...

 

[dominokitty]

As someone whose sponsor turned out to be pretty horrendously abusive, I guess I'm going to be one of the very very few dissenting voices here and say that it's a bad policy that deserves to go. (Sorry, this is going to be a little long because I have ~feelings~ about C51.)

If you're in a marriage that starts healthy and stays healthy and you could not care less about Condition 51, that's lovely and I'm happy for you! But some sponsor spouses become abusive (or are abusive from the start) and Condition 51 puts sponsored spouses (especially women) in a very vulnerable position. If you're in a healthy marriage, it's whatever, but if your spouse is abusive and controlling, it just makes it harder and scarier for you to leave and hands them another tool of control (the threat of reporting to CIC and deportation).

There was a thread from someone in this kind of situation not too long ago - husband controlling everything she did, abusing her, in-laws holding the threat of deportation over her head - and coming from things like that and my own experience, it's pretty disheartening seeing people (especially men) go 'well i've never worried about this, why would you get rid of it/why would you care at all unless you have something to hide hmmm?'

There's an abuse exception, but it puts a high burden of proof (which gets even trickier if it was psychological abuse or if there were no photos/police reports, and calling the cops on your abuser tends to escalate things) on already traumatized people, and there's the risk that the exception gets denied no matter what documentation is there because it's entirely up to the discretion of whoever looks at the victim's submission to CIC. So someone coming forward has to worry about getting whatever kind of proof they can (without arousing suspicion if they're still living with their abuser) *and* the chance that it doesn't matter either way and they get deported for trying to come forward *and* working out a way out *and* the risk that their sponsor preemptively reports them to immigration if they try to leave.

I am lucky because I had a lot of support and documentation, but it's incredibly exhausting and revictimizing having to go back through every horrible thing you've been through and get proof together while trying to hold yourself together immediately after getting away from an abusive relationship and trying to hold back fears that 'oh god if i come forward and some complete stranger doesn't believe me i get deported.'

It is a policy that treats victims of spousal abuse who try to leave their abusers as guilty (and subject to removal) until proven innocent, and several immigrant/refugee groups, legal aid organizations, and women's groups have said from the moment it was proposed that it would only make new immigrants more vulnerable and lead to more domestic violence! And...that's exactly what happened. There have been a number of articles and studies/reports about this. (And nothing from the government about the positive impact it has had, which, um, make of that what you will.)

Long story short, it's a bad policy that never should have gone into place (especially since it is literally the job of CIC officers to pick out fraudsters *before* issuing PR) and it's heartening that Min. Mccallum outright said "we're getting rid of CPR because it enabled domestic violence."

I totally get where you're coming from. I was in a very abusive relationship once before I met my husband so I can definitely empathize. If my abuser had the option of threatening to deport me if I spoke up, he would have used it, and I would have been afraid (though, I was already afraid to begin with). He had isolated me from everyone at that point and made me believe I was nothing without him. But, at the end of the day, I needed to get out of that situation, consequences be damned. My life was in danger.

I disagree that going to the police tends to escalate things. I would never have been able to get away from that relationship without involving the police - it was the only de-escalating option I had and in fact it's by far the best choice for anyone experiencing physical abuse. It's the only thing that can guarantee you an escape.

Because I went to the police, I was able to get a restraining order, access victim's assistance, and send my abuser to jail where he couldn't hurt anyone anymore. And I never once felt that I was re-victimized. In fact, the police were the ones pressing charges, not me, so I never even had to face him in court. Of course, I was physically abused with injuries to prove it which made the case simpler - it was easy to prove the crime happened without me needing to take the stand, because they had the photographs and a sworn statement. Granted, I called the police immediately.

Emotional and financial abuse makes things trickier because they are hard (but not impossible) to prove. Things like recording conversations and saving threatening text messages are about the only way - and even then, only certain things fall within police jurisdiction. It's a tough situation for sure - but leaving is always the better option. You can sort the PR stuff out afterward.

I think perhaps a good balance would be to keep the condition intact (with the abuse exception), while also dedicating resources to make it easier for sponsored spouses to report mistreatment/abuse and understand the laws in Canada. When we got our marriage certificate in the mail, it came with an information package outlining spousal abuse situations with phone numbers to call and resources listed. Perhaps a good place to start would be to include this with the formal COPR as well, and dedicate a few call center agents and a website to report things confidentially. That way, an abused spouse can get their ducks in a row before leaving without the threat of deportation looming over them. It creates a paper trail at the very least so proving things after the fact is easier.

 

[keesio]

Of course there is no perfect solution, but that's no reason to just shrug and go 'well somebody's going to get hurt no matter what!' Like, if nothing else people can at least distinguish between actively harmful 'solutions' and measures that aren't perfect but at least don't make vulnerable people more vulnerable.

Also, I'd think someone marrying a Canadian under false pretenses, applying for spousal PR, and then ditching their partner right after they got it would already count as misrepresentation? Maybe I'm wrong, but...

It's tough. You can certainly argue the Condition 51 is flawed and you won't get any debate from me. But "vulnerable" is in the eye of the beholder. The woman in that article I posted earlier was angry that the government didn't see her as a legitimate victim and that sponsors are vulnerable (the sentiment back then was almost "you should have known better than to be suckered like that"). But I guess some people will just tell her to suck it up as the emotional and financial toll is not as big a deal as a what a sponsored spouse stuck with Condition 51 may have to deal with if with an abusive sponsor.

And yes, it is misrepresentation but only if it can be proven beyond a doubt. And it was extremely difficult for CIC to prove misrepresentation beyond a doubt, even if it seems obvious. That is why they were often unable to act effectively when jilted sponsors would try to report it and the sponsors were so furious (and sued). Hence why Condition 51 came about in the first place. It was to get around this seemly impasse. Now the argument is if it shifts things too far?

 

[p0ppet]

I totally get where you're coming from. I was in a very abusive relationship once before I met my husband so I can definitely empathize. If my abuser had the option of threatening to deport me if I spoke up, he would have used it, and I would have been afraid (though, I was already afraid to begin with). He had isolated me from everyone at that point and made me believe I was nothing without him. But, at the end of the day, I needed to get out of that situation, consequences be damned. My life was in danger.

I disagree that going to the police tends to escalate things. I would never have been able to get away from that relationship without involving the police - it was the only de-escalating option I had and in fact it's by far the best choice for anyone experiencing physical abuse. It's the only thing that can guarantee you an escape.

Because I went to the police, I was able to get a restraining order, access victim's assistance, and send my abuser to jail where he couldn't hurt anyone anymore. And I never once felt that I was re-victimized. In fact, the police were the ones pressing charges, not me, so I never even had to face him in court. Of course, I was physically abused with injuries to prove it which made the case simpler - it was easy to prove the crime happened without me needing to take the stand, because they had the photographs and a sworn statement. Granted, I called the police immediately.

Emotional and financial abuse makes things trickier because they are hard (but not impossible) to prove. Things like recording conversations and saving threatening text messages are about the only way - and even then, only certain things fall within police jurisdiction. It's a tough situation for sure - but leaving is always the better option. You can sort the PR stuff out afterward.

I think perhaps a good balance would be to keep the condition intact (with the abuse exception), while also dedicating resources to make it easier for sponsored spouses to report mistreatment/abuse and understand the laws in Canada. When we got our marriage certificate in the mail, it came with an information package outlining spousal abuse situations with phone numbers to call and resources listed. Perhaps a good place to start would be to include this with the formal COPR as well, and dedicate a few call center agents and a website to report things confidentially. That way, an abused spouse can get their ducks in a row before leaving without the threat of deportation looming over them. It creates a paper trail at the very least so proving things after the fact is easier.

....I get the feeling you're not talking about an experience coming forward *in Canada, as someone with Condition 51*, though.

I'm really glad the police helped you and you were able to get away! But there are a few things I feel like I should say.

The police helped you. Not everyone is so lucky! I was too scared to ever call the police so this is kinda secondhand, but I've read about cases where newcomer women who didn't speak much English tried calling the cops on their abusive spouses, the husband convinces the cops it's all just a big misunderstanding, things get worse.

It's great that you didn't feel revictimized, but it's like you said - the *police* were pressing charges. This was a criminal proceeding. They already had photographs and a statement. You didn't have to appear in court. The burden of gathering proof was on them. Applying for an exception to Conditional PR is....not this.

Conditional PR places the burden of proof entirely on the victim of abuse, right after they leave an abusive situation, and if it isn't good enough for whoever looks at their submission they get deported. It's easy for someone who's never been in this situation to say "well gee you can sort the PR stuff out later," but when you're living in an abusive situation and you have to worry about 'will i get deported if i come forward' on top of trying to hold yourself together day-to-day and trying to make arrangements to get out, it adds another layer of fear to the whole thing.

But "vulnerable" is in the eye of the beholder.

Sometimes it's really, really not. I feel for jilted sponsors, but....it's not the same.