Canada Must Draw a Line at the Border Against Imported Hate

Canada is a country that prides itself on openness. We welcome newcomers, embrace cultural and political diversity, and uphold freedom of expression as a constitutional pillar. Immigration has never been a threat to us; it has been a nation-building force.

But openness is not the same as neutrality, and generosity does not require us to ignore threats to public safety. Today, antisemitism in Canada is growing in ways most of us would have once considered unthinkable, in schools, on university campuses, in workplaces, online, and on the street. Synagogues have been vandalized. Jewish students have been harassed. Businesses have been targeted.

As an immigration lawyer, I am concerned not only with who Canada welcomes, but with how we safeguard the people who already call this country home, including Jewish Canadians and dual Canadian Israeli citizens who increasingly find themselves singled out and vilified for their identity.

In this climate, immigration decision-making is not merely administrative. It is a frontline public-safety function.

We Already Have the Legal Tools - What We Need Is the Will to Use Them

Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) empowers border officials to deny entry to those who promote hatred, glorify violent extremist movements, or threaten social cohesion. This is not censorship. It is a lawful use of sovereignty in the public interest.

No foreign national has a constitutional right to enter Canada. Entry is a privilege — one that can be withheld when speech crosses into incitement, intimidation, or targeted hostility.

Excluding someone who intends to inflame hatred against Jews or Israelis is not repression. It is prevention.

The Kneecap Controversy - A Case Study in Caution and Accountability

The recent incident involving Irish rap group Kneecap placed these legal realities into sharp relief. MP Vince Gasparro publicly suggested the group could be inadmissible under IRPA due to perceived support for extremist organizations. Concerts were cancelled. Confusion grew. NDP MP Jenny Kwan then requested transparency around how and why such decisions are made.

Both instincts were legitimate: Gasparro sought to protect a vulnerable community. Kwan demanded procedural clarity.

And Canada needs both.

Words can escalate quickly, from chants, to rallies, to threats and ultimately to harm. In moments of heightened antisemitism, erring on the side of caution is not overreaction. It is responsible governance.

But caution must be exercised transparently. When inadmissibility decisions are made, the legal grounds should be clear, defensible, and publicly understood. A robust border framework is one that protects Canadians and earns public confidence.

The Message Canada Sends Matters

Border decisions are not merely logistical. They are declarative. They broadcast what Canada stands for and what we refuse to tolerate.

The message should be unmistakable:

If you come here to contribute, collaborate, or create — the door is open. If you come to inflame hostility toward Jews or Israelis — it is closed.

Not because Canada fears ideas, but because we do not host violence disguised as performance or activism. IRPA is not a barrier to diversity — it is a shield for those targeted by hate.

We are not rejecting voices.

We are rejecting violence.

We are not silencing debate.

We are preventing harm.

And in this moment, drawing that boundary is not only lawful, but also necessary.