Compassion

On Saturday The Toronto Sun ran a cover story about a woman who faced deportation to her native China.  What made her circumstances worthy of a Saturday feature was the fact that she had a one year old daughter, born in Canada, whom she wanted to have declared a ward of the state.  She did not want her daughter adopted because she wanted to remain the child's mother, and hoped the daughter would sponsor her return as an adult (after the daughter reached 18 years of age).  Also of note was the fact that if the child were to return to China, the mother would be charged a large fine, the daughter would not be a Chinese citizen, and would be responsible to pay for her own education.

When I read this article, I understood where the mother was coming from about not wanting to have her child legally adopted, but at the same time it seemed a case of semantics.  The mother knew she would effectively abandon the child for the next 17 years (at least) and during that time wished the child to have no parents - adoptive, surrogate, or otherwise - other than herself.  It seemed to me that the mother's refusal to have her daughter adopted was a selfish one.

Following that article, on Sunday the Sun ran a second story about reader responses to the woman's plight.  In it there were numerous examples of offers to assist the woman.  Other than the seemingly seedy offers of marriage, none really improved the situation for the mother.  Several couples offered to adopt the child - something the mother specifically did not want - and one of those said that if she agreed to allow them to adopt the child they would sponsor her, effectively blackmailing her with citizenship in exchange for a baby.

After reading the second article, I found myself outraged at the responses and siding more with the mother.  She wasn't really protesting her deportation; she had tried every legal means to remain in the country (and according to the update her latest appeal - for compassion - has not been read yet, but she will still be deported). She was protesting the policy that the child be adopted instead of becoming a ward of the state.  People read the article and (apparently) decided to seize an opportunity for either an available baby or a desperate wife.  It was a sad statement on society.

Canadian immigration laws exist for a reason.  They are in place to prevent abuse of our public services by those who are not contributing to their funding, as well as other reasons.  However, every year Canada provides aid to countries and individuals around the world, and yet in this case cannot see fit to assist a woman to raise her child in Canada.  What sort of message does that send to the world?  What does it say about Canada that we will assist those in need, as long as they stay in their native country?  Why is Canada more willing to help someone who has never contributed to Canadian society than one who has remained inside our borders, working (and spending) in our economy, not to mention being the mother and primary caregiver of a Canadian born child?

Of course, sometimes deportation is a necessity.  However, in this case, and especially considering the impact on a Canadian child, some compassion is in order.

Comments

[Laural]

That's a really tough call.
As a mother I can't imagine leaving a child in another country for 17 years because I couldn't afford to bring him to my country. Nor could I imagine putting my child through the foster care system for the next 17 years so that he could sponsor me.
I don't know. It's really hard. I think I would go into hiding - live in a church or something. I just can't imagine.
Actually, if I really and truly were in the situation I think I would go with the sympathy marriage and stay with my child. I'm not saying that's the right choice for her - but I think that is what I would do.
But, since your question was what does this say about Canada - well ... I think there should be some sympathy in the system, but I also think that if we make the laws too leniant than people will come here and get purposely pregnant in order to stay. And, then we will have ill-prepared parents who end up needing help with their children thus costing more money.
I think it's a pretty bad precedent to set - if you have a baby you can stay here.
And, I'm not sure that you could really NOT set that precedent if you allowed it.
Yes, I feel sorry for her. But I don't think that means they should bend the rules.

[NotSoSage]

I don't know much about this story, but I find it hard to judge any person in that situation for the choices they make, regardless of whether I think I would make the same ones.

The sad thing is that this mother would be leaving in the hopes that she would leave her child in a better life than the one she will live for the next 17 years, in the hopes that they will one day be reunited, when there's is no telling whether or not they ever will. There is no guarantee. Will a child who has become a ward of the Crown, who has been shuffled from foster home to group home to foster home again, want to sponsor a mother she hasn't seen in 17 years? Sponsoring takes a lot of work and I doubt that most 18 year-olds would even be in a financial position to do this. This is clearly the reasoning of a person who feels like she has no choice.

I must disagree with Laural and say that I can't imagine being comfortable with a system that would separate a mother from a child who has a claim on Canadian citizenship...that, to me, is not in line with my vision of what this country should be. And I think that arguing that taking the "sympathy" marriage is the best way out is short-sighted in that a marriage to an unknown person places both the mother and the child at potential for much more harm.