Disability Discrimination and the Glorification of Canada’s “Ruthless” Immigration System

Flag_of_Canada.svg

Image Description: Canadian Flag. A red maple leaf on a white background with red vertical stripes at either end.

Today I came across two conflicting news articles, one of them Canadian, the other American. They both deal with the Canadian immigration system but they come to vastly different conclusions. The American article which appeared in the New York Times entitled Canada’s Ruthlessly Smart Immigration Policy, glorifies the Canadian by the numbers immigration system. Conversely, a Global News report looked at Canadian grown advocacy against that same immigration system. Their primary concern, the fact that the system is discriminatory against disabled people.

I have written previously about how the Canadian immigration system actively discriminates against disabled people and what this means for the status of disabled people within Canada and abroad. When I first wrote that article, it garnered very little attention but since the election of Donald Trump as the president of the United States it has become one of the most consistently viewed pieces on my blog. As the issue is garnering attention again both in Canada and abroad, I think it’s time to revisit this issue in light of these two reasons articles.

Jonathan Tepperman, the author of the New York Times piece applauds Canada’s immigration system which is primarily a merit-based system. This means that immigrants to Canada have to meet certain criteria before they are able to immigrate to Canada. It differs from the American system which is primarily relationship based. Most American immigrants gain residency through a familial connection to someone already living in the United States. In Canada, family immigration is limited primarily to immediate families including minor children or a foreign citizen marrying a Canadian.

I am not going to actively compare the pros and cons of those two systems, I am however going to criticize again the Canadian system for how an almost entirely merit-based system leads to the systemic discrimination against disabled people. The Canadian immigration system actively excludes people on medical grounds. The natural consequence of this is widespread discrimination against disabled people within the immigration process.

Tepperman looks at the economic and educational outcomes for Canadian immigrants versus American ones and includes that the primary reason that outcomes in Canada tend to be more positive as a result of this merit-based system. He does not consider any of the other policy and legislative differences that exist between Canada and the United States. He does not consider how our government funded healthcare system for differences in education delivery and retraining might also have a significant impact on positive outcomes for immigrants in Canada versus those in the United States. He also does not consider the cultural differences between our two countries in which Canadians have a sense (accurate or not) that we are a welcoming and actively multicultural society.

Instead, he credits and extensively numbers based system which applies an economic value to human beings in determining whether or not they can have access to Canada. Regardless of the inherent discrimination that ultimately results from putting a dollar value on human beings.

Canada’s Immigration Minister claims that no one is automatically denied permanent residency in Canada based on disability and while this is strictly true it ignores how Canadian immigration policy is written in a way that disproportionately targets and excludes disabled people. It ignores the systemic discrimination in inherent in the way the law is written and also ignores how it is in conflict with the Canadian Constitution.

Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states

(1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Not only does the Constitution guarantee this equality, it also recognizes that for those groups recognized to be disadvantaged in gaining equality that additional measures might have to be taken in order to ensure that equality is achieved, it continues,

(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

And yet, the Canadian immigration system specifically excludes people from immigrating to Canada on the basis of health status. It determines whether an individual is excluded based on whether it considers an individual to be a potential “excessive burden”. Whether or not someone is deemed to be an excessive burden is based solely on medical grounds.

As the activists profiled in the Global News piece point out, the potential cost of an immigrant on the Canadian system is potentially more than just medical. It also pointed out that the way the financial figure is reached is shrouded in secrecy and lacks accountability. This lack of openness contradicts Tepperman’s fantasy of a clear and honest merit-based system.

Ironically, while Tepperman decries the focus on familial relationships that dominate the American immigration system, it is familiar relationships that allow the few exceptions to disabled people immigrating to Canada. Those who do make it through the system do so most frequently as children whose parents immigrate for work. The children themselves are seen as having no inherent value having been labelled potential excessive burdens but in successful cases, they are seen as acceptable burdens in exchange for the perceived value of the expertise and labour provided by a parent.

This issue continues to be timely not only because the continued discrimination against disabled people should be fought and protested until it is abolished but also because of the particular political climate of the United States. One of the potential reasons that my previous piece on disability and immigration to Canada has in recent months garnered so much attention is because of how American Republicans have been attempting to rewrite American healthcare law. They are attempting to repeal Obama’s Affordable Healthcare Act and replace it with the BRCA (previously the AHCA). A healthcare bill which with the millions of people lose their healthcare coverage, see billions in funding removed from Medicaid and furnish a tax cut for the wealthy. People are justifiably frightened.

While previous elections have seen individuals jokingly stated that if the politician of their choice did not win that they would move to Canada, this election has seen that desire taken far more seriously. Unfortunately, those most likely to be negatively impacted by Donald Trump’s and the Republicans harmful policies are also those who are least likely to be able to escape falling victim to them. As a result, disabled people in the United States are fighting against these dangerous policies at the risk of arrest.

Canadian politics cannot help but be impacted by the realities of the current American government. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has utilized Canada’s softer reputation to create an image of opposition to the harsh realities of Donald Trump. One way that he does this is by claiming that all people are welcome in Canada.

Even though this tweet was written specifically in response to the American response to refugees, it is nevertheless false. Trudeau conveniently seems to forget that while Canada does take many refugees, it still actively limits the number of people that it will welcome into the country. Trudeau’s false universality and welcome also can be taken as hypocritical in light of how discrimination is coded into Canada’s immigration system. Human diversity after all includes disability.

Trudeau’s disingenuous image of universal welcome is also not limited solely to Twitter. He also made statements during his speech on Canada Day (July 1). He stated,

Louis St. Laurent referred to Canada as a place where people joined their talents without merging their identities and it’s true, Canada is a country made strong not in spite of our differences but because of them. We don’t aspire to be a melting pot, indeed we know true strength and resilience flows through Canadian diversity.

Ours is a land of original peoples and of newcomers and our greatest pride is that you can come here from anywhere in the world, build a good life and be part of our community. We don’t care where you’re from or what religion you practice or whom you love. You are all welcome in Canada.

(This section translated from French) But don’t forget that if Canada today is a truly multicultural country, outward looking and open to the world. This did not happen by accident. A 150 years ago, the very existence of our country depended on our ability to accept the notion that citizens of the same country could speak different languages and have different cultures. It all depended on peaceful and active coexistence between people different from one another. Over time, the bilingual character of our country has become a central and defining part of our identity… Across this country we speak French and English and hundreds of other languages.

(English again) And so, diversity has been at the very core of Canada. It’s the foundation upon which our country was built. We may be from every colour and creed, from every corner of the world…We embrace that diversity, while knowing in our hearts that we are all Canadians.

This is a particularly rose-tinted view of Canadian diversity and it is also a lie. Trudeau is far too fond of saying that everyone is welcome in Canada. He does not solely extend this supposedly welcome to refugees, his Canada Day statements are broader than that. The broader the intention the more clear the inaccuracy of the statement.

This is particularly relevant to how Canada and the United States deal with refugees. Our two countries have a “safe third country agreement” which bars refugees who have reached one of the two countries from gaining refugee status in the other. This has caused particular concern for some refugees in the United States who feel the current political climate is unsafe for them. Some of these people have decided to attempt to cross the Canadian border illegally in an attempt to get refugee status in Canada. Illegal border crossings can quite literally be disabling. Crossing the border can be dangerous and particularly if it is done in winter can result in people becoming disabled.

Trudeau’s false welcome to everyone beckons people closer to Canada only to potentially shove them away whether those people are refugees or simply disabled people seeking to immigrate.

Not only does our unjust immigration system needs to be overhauled as a matter of human rights and as a matter of justice. More presently as Canadians, we must consider that for those of us who stand in solidarity against Donald Trump’s policies. For the thousands who attended satellite Women’s Marches or who travelled to the United States to participate alongside our American friends. We must ask ourselves how accessible is our resistance. How welcoming will we be to disabled people who seek to come to Canada for fear that American legislation and policies threaten their lives? For those refugees who seek to leave the United States and come to Canada, will we care for them if they find themselves permanently injured along the journey. Will we demand that the spirit of Justin Trudeau’s words become our actual reality and insist that diversity in Canada includes disability?

 

If you liked this post and want to support my continued writing please consider buying me a metaphorical coffee (or two or more). Donations help me keep this blog going and support my ongoing efforts to obtain a PhD.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Advertisements

No, Mitch McConnell’s Polio Treatment Wasn’t Government funded and it Likely Influenced his views on Healthcare

A couple of days ago a meme starting going around Facebook about Mitch McConnell’s history of surviving polio

19400069_1589502141142834_4578678756921819490_n

Image Description: A black and white photo presumably of Mitch McConnell as a child with the text “As a kid, Mitch McConnell had polio, and the government paid for ALL of his care and rehabilitation. Now, as the leader of the Republicans in the Senate, McConnell is taking government-funded care away from tens of millions of Americans. Let that sink in”

The thing is, beyond the fact that McConnell did in fact have Polio as a child, the rest of the text is false. His care was not government funded. He received care at the frankly prestigious Warm Springs. A rehabilitation retreat founded by Franklin Roosevelt.

There are a number of reasons why McConnell’s history with polio doesn’t necessarily make him a natural ally of the disability rights movement. Which is not to excuse him for his work on the former AHCA and the current BRCA.

If we are to assume that Mitch McConnell’s history with polio impacted his political opinions on health care at all, it is important to understand the lessons that he would have learned.

He received state-of-the-art care at a facility which was not government-funded and which was founded by a man who spent his entire political career hiding the fact he was disabled. So not only did McConnell receive care from a facility that was either funded through philanthropy or by the patients themselves. The ultimate model of success for polio survivors at the time was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. A man who successfully hid his disability in order to become president of the United States.

The funding model of Warm Springs alone does not provide any sort of model or incentive to support government-funded medical care. In fact, its private funding and charity model actively oppose it.

Then there is the real cultural impact that FDR had on polio survivors. He hid his disability. No one saw what accommodations were made in order that he could go about his day-to-day business. He was a very visible model for “overcoming disability”. His example had a real and  measurable impact on polio survivors. Living in the shadow of FDR as Daniel Wilson (2013) would say, naturally led to the need to pass as nondisabled.

Those who followed the example of FDR worked to hide the visible symptoms of having survived polio. It is unsurprising that someone who survived polio with as few lasting visible effects as Mitch McConnell would feel that Association with disability was something to be avoided. It would have absolutely been an idea strongly modelled to him in the way he was treated for his polio and in the cultural ideas of disability that existed in the time that he was being treated. Not only was that the general goal of rehabilitation at the time. McConnell  is and was privileged enough to have access to the best possible therapy is of the time.

It is important to remember that simply having a history of disability does not naturally create an affinity for disability rights. Historically, and in present day there are cultural narratives that reinforce the idea that disability is something to be overcome or to separate the person from. Their ideas that disability and illness are issues to be dealt with on an individual level, which is precisely the experience that Mitch McConnell would have had.

So, Mitch McConnell isn’t actually a hypocrite for his positions on health care legislation in the United States. They’re very much positions that are based in history and precisely what would have been modelled for him as a child when he was experiencing disablement.

It is not enough to simply expect people with a connection to disability to have progressive views on disability rights. There is a long cultural history of  telling such people that they shouldn’t feel connected to or responsible for other disabled people. In the fight for disability rights and for the maintenance of Medicaid it is important to understand and remember how history has created a culturally acceptable identity of disability which actively rejects disability. The people who can most easily maintain such ideas are people like Mitch McConnell who are privileged enough to be able to access and maintain care when they needed without outside assistance.

So, in order to effectively fight for disability rights it is also necessary to remember and dismantle the history that has been created to maintain the system of separation and disunity.  It is important to remember that internalized negative feelings around disability are common and actively cultivated in disabled people. It is important to understand the difference in ability to access care that people like Mitch Connell had that precludes him from properly understanding the lived realities of people fighting for Medicaid today. It is not enough to simply expect or even hope that simply because someone has a history with disability or disablement that they will somehow have a natural empathy for others in similar situations. Particularly when they have been actively taught and socialized not to feel that way.

Mitch McConnell’s history with polio is an important and relevant story to remember and tell now not because it makes him a hypocrite but it explains how someone with a history with disability who has come to a position of power can so utterly disregard the needs and lives of other disabled people.

 

If you liked this post and want to support my continued writing please consider buying me a metaphorical coffee (or two or more). Donations help me keep this blog going and support my ongoing efforts to obtain a PhD.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

No, Canada Will not Cover Your Preexisting Condition

With the recent vote for the American Health Care Act (AHCA) to repeal and replace the Obama era Affordable Care Act (ACA), there has been a lot of discussion on who the AHCA will hurt. One of the (many) concerns is that the new legislation should it pass in the senate will roll back rules guaranteeing coverage for people with preexisting conditions. These changes if enacted would disproportionately affect disabled people. This has spawned the online protest #IAmAPreexistingCondition to put a human face on the people who at risk of losing their healthcare or who will see its cost skyrocket.

The changes have also spawned a lot of Canadian smugness and this meme has been making the rounds.

Trudeau Preexisting Conditions

Image description: Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, a white man with dark  hair in his forties gazes into the distance with his fisted hand touching his lip in a pensive expression. Text on the image reads “Hey girl, I’ll cover your preexisting condition”

The thing is the meme is a lie. In terms of how healthcare works in Canada, the language of preexisting conditions is generally meaningless. There are simply services that are or aren’t covered. If you’re in the system, you’re in the system. Canadians generally don’t talk about preexisting conditions the way Americans do because it’s a system we were either born into or gained access to simply by being Canadians.

The thing is though, even though we don’t generally use the language of preexisting conditions to discriminate in our healthcare system, there is still a lot of discrimination. As I mentioned, rather than excluding people based on preexisting conditions, there are simply services that are or aren’t covered. Whether a service is covered depends on whether it is considered essential. Many services largely associated with the care of disability are not considered essential. As such they either not covered and people who need them either have to pay out of pocket or seek private insurance or coverage is given at the whim of individual provinces.

This creates a second class access to the healthcare system for disabled people. We either may not have access to things that we need or our access to them depends entirely on where we live.

One of the primary principles of Canadian healthcare is that it’s supposed to be portable. You’re supposed to be able to get service regardless of your province of origin. This, however, does not apply to services that are not considered essential. So while I as a Saskatchewan resident have been able to get X-rays in BC (for an injury) and an ultrasound in Ontario (oddly enough for the same injury). I do not have access to consistent care related specifically to my disability because Saskatchewan may cover things that other provinces do not or vice versa and I can only access what is available in Saskatchewan.

This creates a couple of issues. There’s the fact that depending on your province of residence you may have less access to covered disability specific care. So the system is inherently unequal. There is also the fact that interprovince bureaucracies make it difficult to determine which services you should have access to while out of your home province or who to bill if you can figure it out. The outcome is that disabled people end up paying out of pocket for things that should be covered.

So for people within the Canadian system, there are still access inequalities. Inequalities that largely target the same groups of people likely to be disadvantaged if the AHCA passes.

The thing is, that isn’t the end of how the Trudeau meme fails. There is a scenario where access to the Canadian healthcare system does consider preexisting conditions. Immigration. Having a preexisting condition pretty much excludes a person from being able to access immigration to Canada. Which why this corrected meme needs to hopefully go as viral as the original (H/T Alex Hagaard)

Trudeau Meme corrected

Image description: The same meme as before except that text has been added over Trudeau’s face which reads “Except Canada doesn’t let disabled people immigrate #StopAbleism”

Immigration is pretty much the only circumstance where Canada considers preexisting conditions. So the meme is a lie. Canada will not cover your preexisting condition. If you have access to the system you are covered for a set of predefined essential services and the services that are most often considered inessential are those associated with disability.

So, no, Canada doesn’t cover preexisting conditions and flaunting healthcare access does nothing to address the very real dangers being faced by disabled people in the United States right now. This meme just taunts the people most negatively impacted by a potential adoption of the AHCA with lies.

*Note: I do not want to get into an oppression olympics competition here so comments along the lines of “suck it up Canada is still better” will not get through. They are reductive and also don’t address the disingenuous smugness over Canada’s healthcare system.

If you liked this post and want to support my continued writing please consider buying me a metaphorical coffee (or two or more). Donations help me keep this blog going and support my ongoing efforts to obtain a PhD.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com