Why are People Supportive of Illegal Immigration?

Author: Tim Platnich

Date: February 12, 2026

One of the attributes that makes Canada great, supposedly, is the rule of law. There are rules. People are expected to follow the rules. For those that do no follow the rules, there are consequences. Though most people follow the rules out of a sense of public or, perhaps, moral duty, some do not. We have significant infrastructure in place for dealing with the rule-breakers: police; prosecutors; criminal courts; and prisons, for example. That is on the criminal side. On the civil side, we have courts to hear claims concerning the breach of private rights like breach of contract; torts; and the like.

Canada has immigration laws. People can apply to come to Canada. There are various types of applications for immigrating legally to Canada including: refugee; family reunification; points based qualification; and so on. I am no immigration expert, but you get the point.

Applications are processed by a huge department of the Federal government. Applications can take months or even years to be processed. In effect, there is a queue to get into Canada. Those seeking to legally immigrate, must get in the queue. The length of the queue is a legitimate cause of concern.

There are people who choose not to get in the queue. They either enter Canada illegally, or stay in Canada illegally following a lawful entrance. For example, in the latter case they may have entered on a visitor's visa, or a student's visa, and stay in Canada after those visas expire. In the former case, typically, they contrive some entry into Canada by land, boat or air. Once in Canada, or at a border entry, they claim refugee status. Sometimes, those that have overstayed in Canada, and are about to be deported, suddenly make a refugee claim.

Let's leave aside refugee claimants for the moment. Why should we be sympathetic to those who simply choose to avoid following the lawful process for immigration? Why should we be sympathetic to queue jumpers? Some people argue that well, we need immigrants. Yes we do. That is why we have a legal process for selecting and admitting immigrants. Others argue, but these are nice people, they are in Canada and contributing to our country. Sure, but we either have a system or we don't. Should we replace a regulated system with a free-for-all? Should we have a system the rule of which is: get here however you can, by hook or by crook, and you're in! Welcome.

Do we not want our potential immigrants to be people who respect the rule of law? Are we not setting a bad example by allowing illegal immigration? If we reward people for skirting immigrations laws, are we not encouraging further bad behaviour? Are we not sending a message that the rules in Canada are made to be broken? Is this not undermining the rule of law?

I suspect that most people who support illegal immigration, or at least support illegal, or if you prefer, 'undocumented' immigrants, come from a place of compassion. I submit, however, that compassion already forms part of our legal immigration system. This is what underlies proper refugee claims and family reunification applications. Our immigration system should be compassionate, but in a structured way. Compassion for rule breakers may be misguided.

Some may argue that our immigration system is broken and they may be right. But is the answer not to fix the system rather than to allow people to skirt it?

The problem is: what to do with undocumented immigrants once they are here. This is an enforcement problem and, as we can see with ICE south of the border, enforcement can take an ugly turn. However, without any enforcement of the law, soon there is no law. Can there be enforcement that is humanitarian? This is the rub. Once someone is here and refuses to leave voluntarily as required by law, involuntary removal is the only recourse and by its nature is traumatic. It involves deportation which may require arrest, detention and ultimate physical removal by some mode of transportation. It may mean uprooting a family member, friend or neighbour. Perhaps while the undocumented immigrant is in Canada, that person becomes spouse or a parent to a child born in Canada. I have known immigration lawyers that effectively counsel such conduct (not expressly but by implication) by advising clients that such ties to Canada are grounds for defeating deportation proceedings on 'humanitarian and compassionate' grounds.

Ideally, would-be problem immigrants would be screened before entry into Canada. This is the 'holy grail' of all immigration systems. How can one know if an applicant for a student visa is likely to overstay their visit? One thing is for sure though, if the message to the world is that Canada does not enforce its immigration laws, we will attract more people who intend to flaunt those laws.

Back to our question: why are people supportive of illegal immigration?