Why we shouldn't accept US army deserters as refugees

U.S. war deserter loses last bid to stay in Canada

Source: www.nationalpost.com

VANCOUVER -- A federal court judge has ordered the removal of a U.S. Army deserter from Canada, a decision that signals this country is no longer a safe haven for American soldiers who decide to evade military service at home and abroad.

I posted this article, along with the following comment on Facebook.

My reasons for supporting this court decision I could not adequately explain here. If you're curious, please ask.

Since I was asked, here's my response:

I believe it makes sense for a few reasons. First, the man had joined the US Army voluntarily. He at no point expressed concern as a concientious objector, at least until he was to go to Iraq. While soldiers are free to hold whatever beliefs they wish on the nature and validity of various conflicts, enlistment means they have agreed to go where the government orders when, whether you are talking about the US, Canadian or British armies, to mention just a few all volunteer forces. It is all well and good to excuse such actions based on public attitude regarding this conflict, but to allow it would be to allow soldiers to pick and choose when they fight, and that is a job reserved in our system for the democratically elected government. Effectively, the choice to fight or not is made when the soldier enlists, and at no other time. For this reason, under US or Canadian law, the man is a deserter and, if he believes that strongly in his position, should be willing to stand in the shoes of Socrates and accept such punishment as the state has deemed appropriate, as opposed to fleeing.

Secondly, in regards to the specific court decision, to claim refugee status when fleeing from a dictatorship or other non-democratic government which ignores basic human rights is entirely reasonable. But the US, contrary to the silliness being spouted by some, is a democratic nation which strongly adheres to a Bill of Rights. No one forced this man to enlist, no threat has been made. He is seeking, rather, to avoid the lawful punishment merited by his breaking of the law in the United States. If he is allowed to stay to protect him from whatever punishment the US legal system may administer, precedent would be set to allow any person fleeing punishment for breaking the law to claim refugee status, and even if they were to eventually fail (no guarantees there, as precedent would be set, for any defense lawyer willing to use it), the process would be a waste for an immigration system which has precious little free time to deal with legitimate refugees.

Those are my basic reasons, if that answers the question.