"Temporary" status is a lie. That must change.

The Toronto Star recently featured the story of Joyal Jose, an Indian national whose Canadian temporary study permit is about to expire – theoretically requiring him to return to his home country.

The article implied that the federal government should consider letting Mr. Jose stay. But that rote question – whether temporary residents with expiring visas should be allowed to remain – buries a far more pertinent discussion.

Amid the crises precipitated by Canada’s unsustainably large temporary resident population, why, pray tell, would any temporary resident assume they can indefinitely stay? And even more importantly, why isn’t Canada’s federal government doing more to disabuse foreign nationals of this notion?

To start, it is worth stating the obvious: temporary should mean temporary. A core principle involved with coming to Canada is respecting the law. That includes the requirement to leave when a visa expires. Without this order, borders cease to function as they should and social cohesion can fail. And so, the federal government has a moral obligation to enforce said law.

But, instead, over the past decade, the federal Liberal government has done everything possible to incentivize foreign nationals to come to Canada on temporary resident visas with the intention of never having to leave. Worse still, rather than signalling that those who plan to overstay will face consequences, it has signalled that visa overstays and systemic abuse are effectively welcomed.

For example, the Liberal’s 2019–2024 International Education Strategy spent nearly $150M to advertise a framing which promoted a study-work-stay continuum for foreign students in spite of the temporary nature of their invitation to Canada. A Liberal federal immigration minister even went as far as to use the following quote in a formal news release: “Our message to international students and graduates is simple: we don’t just want you to study here, we want you to stay here.”

But the problem of the Liberal’s changing definition of temporary carries on well past arrival.

Take, for example, the cohort of foreign student permit holders that Mr. Jose likely falls into. Between 2020 and today, roughly two million new foreign student permits were gratuitously issued by the federal government - a staggering number for a country of 40 million-ish people. Unsurprisingly, Canada’s Auditor General discovered widespread unaddressed fraud in the rubberstamp-like system that granted many of those permits. Many of those who entered fraudulently have been allowed to stay.

Further, the millions of foreign nationals who have expired or expiring visas enjoy a long menu of options to prolong their time in Canada. A growing number have been filing weak or manufactured last-minute inland asylum claims, knowing that such a claim typically stays removal and can take years to process. And even those whose claims are refused can then launch appeals to the Refugee Appeal Division, seek judicial review in Federal Court, or simply file successive applications and procedural motions that can drag on for years, all while remaining in the country and collecting lucrative social welfare benefits. They can also file an application through Canada’s much-abused humanitarian and compassionate stream, and contribute to the backlog of claims designed to protect legitimate applicants. Or they can attempt to seek a new study or work permit (in spite of Canada’s soft jobs market), or pursue permanent residency through Express Entry or provincial programs.

These are not the actions or policies which scream that a federal government is serious about enforcing the exit of temporary residents.

And make no mistake, this dogma remains in place under current Liberal Prime Minister Mark Carney.

The federal government still advertises foreign study permits as a viable pathway to permanent residency. They still allow failed asylum claimants to receive taxpayer-funded benefits, including some that Canadians aren’t eligible for, which in turn incentivized abuse of the system. In committee hearings, federal officials have tacitly signalled they have no intention of challenging any court rulings that might overturn even the modest asylum-system reforms the government has recently been forced to introduce.

The federal government has also shown no willingness to review Canada’s overly permissive automatic citizenship system, wherein the descendants of two non-permanents receive citizenship if they are born in Canada and can in turn can (in some cases) enable a pathway to residency for the parents, instead passing legislation that further enables endless chain migration of persons with few ties to Canada. They have levelled few consequences for profiteers like the operators of foreign student diploma mills, or unscrupulous immigration consultants who continue to scam victims. And the Liberals continue to issue hundreds of thousands of new temporary work and study permits this year alone.

And when it comes to the millions of people in Canada with no status or with expired or expiring visas, precious few have been removed, and the Liberals have given no sign that they plan to scale up capacity to enforce immigration law.

Unless immediately corrected, this continued abuse of the spirit and letter of immigration law and the resulting unfettered opening of Canada’s borders will almost certainly be judged by future historians as the core reason why Canada’s pluralism failed.

In the meantime, Mr. Jose can rest in the knowledge that he - or any contemporaries that may follow - probably won’t be made to leave Canada by its federal Liberal government.

They certainly aren’t giving them any reason to believe otherwise.