Montreal, Quebec

A Story Framed as Persecution

The Canadian Press recently published an emotionally charged account of a Haitian mother who crossed illegally from the United States into Canada, describing her journey as an “escape” from President Donald Trump’s America. The piece is written to evoke sympathy, portraying U.S. immigration enforcement as a form of cruelty rather than a lawful function of a sovereign nation. It reads less like journalism and more like advocacy.

At its core, this is not a story about persecution. It is a story about immigration status. The woman entered the United States under a humanitarian parole program during the Biden administration. When that temporary program ended, she remained in the country without lawful status. That is not tyranny. That is the expiration of a temporary administrative policy.

The article frames her fear of deportation as though it were equivalent to state-sponsored oppression. But enforcing immigration law is not cruelty. It is the basic responsibility of any government that claims to have borders. A nation without enforcement is not compassionate. It is incoherent.

Humanitarian Parole Is Not Permanent Residency

The woman admits she entered the United States under a humanitarian parole program. Parole, by definition, is temporary. It is discretionary. It is not citizenship, not asylum, and not permanent protection. The Biden administration dramatically expanded such programs, often without congressional authorization, creating confusion about expectations and permanence.

When President Trump ended that parole expansion, the administration did not “strip” legal status from lawful immigrants. It allowed a temporary program to expire. That distinction matters. Temporary protection does not transform into a lifetime guarantee simply because someone desires it.

The article glosses over this legal reality and instead focuses on rhetoric and emotion. But immigration policy cannot be governed by feelings alone. If parole programs become de facto permanent residency, then Congress becomes irrelevant and the rule of law collapses under executive whim.

Paying Smugglers and Calling It Refuge

One of the most revealing details in the article is that the mother paid approximately $4,100 to arrange transport to Canada. That money went to individuals facilitating an illegal border crossing. The article refers to instructions delivered by phone in the dark of winter, coordinated waiting points, and pickup vehicles. That is not spontaneous migration. That is a smuggling operation.

Yet the tone of the story treats this as an act of bravery rather than a deliberate circumvention of lawful process. Encouraging such behavior places more migrants at risk. The freezing forests of Quebec are not humanitarian corridors. They are dangerous terrain exploited by traffickers who profit from desperation.

If American enforcement is blamed for these crossings, what of the smugglers who promise safe passage? What of the advocacy networks that quietly advise migrants how to evade detection for two weeks in order to qualify under exceptions to the Safe Third Country Agreement? The article avoids those questions entirely.

Safe Third Country and Legal Gamesmanship

Under the Canada–U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement, asylum seekers must apply in the first safe country they enter. The United States qualifies as such a country. That is not controversial. It is a mutual recognition between two stable democracies.

The exception allowing individuals who evade detection for two weeks to apply for asylum in Canada effectively incentivizes illegal crossings. It rewards evasion rather than lawful application. This loophole has become common knowledge among migrant networks and advocacy groups.

The article presents this as a hopeful pathway. In reality, it is a bureaucratic workaround that undermines the spirit of the agreement. When policy contains loopholes, they will be exploited. That is human nature. But journalism should acknowledge the structural consequences, not romanticize them.

Rhetoric vs. Reality

The article attributes the mother’s fear largely to President Trump’s rhetoric. But rhetoric does not deport people. Legal process does. ICE enforcement actions follow statutory authority passed by Congress. Courts review asylum claims. Removal orders are issued through administrative proceedings.

Describing enforcement as “cruel and mean” obscures a crucial moral distinction. A nation has both the right and the duty to regulate entry and residence. Scripture itself affirms the legitimacy of borders and ordered governance. Compassion toward the stranger does not negate justice. It exists alongside it.

When the media frames enforcement as inhuman, it implies that any boundary is immoral. That worldview erodes citizenship itself. Citizenship becomes meaningless if entry, presence, and benefits are detached from lawful process.

The Bigger Question: What Is a Nation?

Every sovereign country enforces immigration law. Canada does. The United States does. Haiti does. The difference lies in narrative. When Canada enforces its border, it is portrayed as orderly governance. When the United States does so under a Republican administration, it becomes a moral scandal.

The deeper issue is whether America will remain a constitutional republic with defined membership or devolve into a borderless administrative zone. Law without enforcement is suggestion. Citizenship without standards is symbolism.

This story is tragic in one sense: a mother placed herself and her child in physical danger. But that tragedy flows from a system that blurred temporary policy with permanent promise, that signaled open doors and then struggled to close them. Emotional storytelling cannot replace constitutional order.

Sovereignty Is Not Sin

The American people have the right to determine immigration policy through their elected representatives. That includes limiting humanitarian parole programs. That includes removing individuals without legal status. That includes prioritizing citizens in matters of employment, housing, and social services.

Compassion must be tethered to wisdom. Good intentions detached from law produce chaos. A government that refuses to enforce its own statutes ceases to be accountable to its citizens.

This article attempts to frame lawful enforcement as oppression. But enforcing immigration law is not an act of cruelty. It is an affirmation that a nation has borders, that citizenship has meaning, and that policy must be governed by law rather than sentiment.

References

• Canadian Press – A mother recounts her dangerous journey across the border to escape Trump’s America
• U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services – Humanitarian Parole Overview
• U.S. Customs and Border Protection – Immigration Enforcement Policies
• Canada–United States Safe Third Country Agreement – Government of Canada

‍

Photo by Dennis Zhang on Unsplash