# Canada's immigration policies criticized



## zipperhead_cop (1 May 2006)

Just last night I did a vehicle stop of a local that is on the US Terror List that I originally identified two years ago.  He is a "refugee" on his third appeal, and is a refugee from THE UNITED STATES, who was going to punt him for a failed refugee claim there.  For those who know the system, he is CODE 3, which indicates that he actively facilitates and/or sponsors terrorism.  

So, ironic that I see this article today:

* Canada's immigration policies criticized in State Department report *  
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/cbc/s/01052006/3/canada-canada-s-immigration-policies-criticized-state-department-report.html

An excerpt:

*"Terrorists have capitalized on liberal Canadian immigration and asylum policies to enjoy safe haven, raise funds, arrange logistical support and plan terrorist attacks."
The State Department says "tensions over Iraq and U.S. actions against Canadian terror suspects are threatening to disrupt valuable information sharing between the two countries."
The report cites the fallout from the Maher Arar case as causing problems in the Canada-U.S. relationship.*

So I am left to wonder, why do we support these people so warmly?  Can someone give me a reason why we have a burning need to allow IDENTIFIED terrorists to remain in our country?  Is it an international feather in our collective caps to be the "suckers" to the rest of the planet?
A short time ago I was criticized in a different thread for openly supporting the notion that it would be good for the collective consciousness of Canadians for there to be a failed terrorist attack, whereby only the terrorist got killed, but it was plain that it was in fact an attempt at terrorism on Canadian soil.  I still feel that could only benefit the general population, because the ones I have contact with still have the "it only happens in other places" attitude.    
If you ask anyone in policing or any kind of intelligence work, a terrorist strike in Canada is not a question of "if", but "when".  It will happen at such time as one of the established groups here "feels" like doing it or is told to.  I know that Immigration reform is needed, but I am appealing to the smarter/better educated members to provide some solutions.  
I am fully aware that the ideas will be flying around in Ottawa at some point.  However, as with many tragedies, it will be probably after there is a smouldering structure, and a body count.


----------



## Chimo (1 May 2006)

"Terrorists have capitalized on liberal Canadian immigration and asylum policies to enjoy safe haven, raise funds, arrange logistical support and plan terrorist attacks."

An often used quote here in the USA. The proof of this is where. Have any terrorist attacks originated in Canada? Who is responsible to defend the US border, Canada or the USA?

I believe the USA has enough of their own immigration policies to worry about now without being concerned about Canada's. Perhaps you may want to arm yourself with some truths. http://www.canadianally.com/ca/about/myth-en.asp


----------



## zipperhead_cop (2 May 2006)

Chimo said:
			
		

> "Terrorists have capitalized on liberal Canadian immigration and asylum policies to enjoy safe haven, raise funds, arrange logistical support and plan terrorist attacks."
> 
> An often used quote here in the USA. The proof of this is where. Have any terrorist attacks originated in Canada? Who is responsible to defend the US border, Canada or the USA?
> 
> I believe the USA has enough of their own immigration policies to worry about now without being concerned about Canada's. Perhaps you may want to arm yourself with some truths. http://www.canadianally.com/ca/about/myth-en.asp



The proof for me is the several individuals that I personally have encountered that are known to have links to terrorism and are not Canadian citizens.  Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, Tamils the list goes on of organizations that exist here, but are not dealt with in a credible manner.  They are all KNOWN to be here.  Perhaps it is that people have a common sense attitude of "if they were that bad, they would be gone".  Unfortunately, that just is not the case.  
How do you define "originated"?  Would someone have to leave an address in Scarborough, drive to Pearson and hijack the plane to constitute "from Canada"?  If there are cells collecting funds through shell charities and wiring the money directly back to their countries, where it is used for direct terrorism, is that from here or not?  
Border security is the job of both countries, but we are not pulling our weight.  The US has border patrols, an armed Coast Guard that patrols and intercepts suspicious boats, monitoring of many different frequencies of communications.  We are letting them down in a big way.  So much attention is being paid to Mexico right now that people don't realize that it is far worse here.  At least there are a few people making an effort to monitor activity on the US/Mexico border.  
Canada Customs does the best it can.  Immigration tries to, but the refugee laws are ridiculous.  That web site is beyond useless, and does not address the real issues.  Things like not being able to claim refugee status from a first world country.  Not being able to appeal refugee refusals more than twice.  Be able to be punted for having a criminal record, and not be able to stay just because you dropped your seed into someone and got them pregnant.  
Had I not been armed with "truths" I would not have started a thread.  It is the "truth" of the reality that I am trying to bring to light and discuss.


----------



## Dare (3 May 2006)

Chimo said:
			
		

> "Terrorists have capitalized on liberal Canadian immigration and asylum policies to enjoy safe haven, raise funds, arrange logistical support and plan terrorist attacks."
> 
> An often used quote here in the USA. The proof of this is where. Have any terrorist attacks originated in Canada? Who is responsible to defend the US border, Canada or the USA?
> 
> I believe the USA has enough of their own immigration policies to worry about now without being concerned about Canada's. Perhaps you may want to arm yourself with some truths. http://www.canadianally.com/ca/about/myth-en.asp


Are you are saying there are no terrorists in Canada, while they exist in virtually every other nation? Or are you saying that we shouldn't be concerned about the terrorists in Canada? Or are you saying we should be concerned but not as concerned as our American allys?


----------



## zipperhead_cop (3 May 2006)

I think some people are so caught up with being anti-American that if the US were to say "hey, here is a list of terrorists, their addresses and the targets that they are going to take out in the next two weeks" you would have people bitch, because it would be the big bad US "telling us how to run our anti terrorism program".  Our sieve borders long predate any initiative in Iraq.  
I also believe that many Canadians are so comfortable being "buddies to the planet" and having myths like "if you sew a Canadian flag on your backpack in Europe, they will worship you" that they believe that nothing bad could ever come out of our country.  Unfortunately, the bad guys have capitalized on this "nice guy" persona, and are getting heaps of milage out of it.  
The US is very justified in complaining.  I reiterate one of my favorite sayings: "If the truth hurts, it's because it's supposed to".  
With any luck, the PM will get things on track.  From what I understand, there is 400 million marked for border issues in the new budget.


----------



## Chimo (3 May 2006)

It would be naive to think we don't have terrorist in Canada, we have had some and will continue. The impression I get from our Southern Neighbours is that Canada is a breeding ground and a conduit for easy access into the States. I live in the USA and am not anti-American, far from it. I do however, get tired of the constant refrain I hear on Fox News and some senior military officials that Canada is the Mecca for terrorism.

Yes I have heard of the millennium Bomber and he was apprehended with the aid of the RCMP. I would hope that Canadians would never have to give up our civil liberties the way the Americans have under the Patriot Act with little public debate. It is unhealthy for a country to chose an attitude if you don't like it you must be aligned with the terrorist. 

I further do not like any country telling us how to conduct our business. The USA doesn't tolerate it but it seems willing to offer criticism against Canada regularly.


----------



## paracowboy (3 May 2006)

devil's advocate time:





			
				Chimo said:
			
		

> It would be naive to think we don't have terrorist in Canada, we have had some and will continue. The impression I get from our Southern Neighbours is that Canada is a breeding ground and a conduit for easy access into the States. I live in the USA and am not anti-American, far from it. I do however, get tired of the constant refrain I hear on Fox News and some senior military officials that Canada is the Mecca for terrorism.


well, that may stem from the fact that under the various Liberal gov'ts we have actively supported various organizations that are tied, quite blatantly, to terrorist organizations. Or that we had refused to recognize certain organizations that regularly blow up children (their own and other's) as terrorists. 



> I would hope that Canadians would never have to give up our civil liberties the way the Americans have under the Patriot Act with little public debate. It is unhealthy for a country to chose an attitude if you don't like it you must be aligned with the terrorist.


 which liberties have they lost, exactly?



> I further do not like any country telling us how to conduct our business. The USA doesn't tolerate it but it seems willing to offer criticism against Canada regularly.


when have we ever been shy about telling the US how/when/where/why they're screwing up? They give us their opinion, we get pissy. We give them ours, they get pissy. As best I can recall, it's been happening for as long as I've been reading the papers.


Now, that being said, we are hardly the breeding ground that certain rabid right-wingers in America would portray us as. If I recall correctly, (and I seldom do) a joint FBI/RCMP investigation revealed more terrorist outfits in the US than in Canada. I don't remember numbers, but the difference was sizeable.

'Course, that could be a reflection as to what each organization calls 'terrorist', I don't know. 

Did I make a point anywhere in here? It's early, and I haven't had coffee yet.


----------



## a_majoor (3 May 2006)

Sadly, when then Finance Minister Paul Martin was critisized for attending a LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam) fundraiser back in 2000 the ready answer was to accuse the critics of being "racist". Our glourious fourth estate did almost no follow up reporting of the event, which from the LTTE's perspective was a huge success: demostrating they could co-opt a minister of the Crown, silence opposition to their activities and continue along without any real public scrutiny. People who had fled Siri Lanka for Canada were shown there would be no support for any opposition to the LTTE in Canada, so extortionate "taxes" could continue to be collected etc.

For more interesting reading try:

Cold Terror: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0470834633/103-2274037-0875001?v=glance&n=283155

and 

The Martyr's Oath: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0470836830/sr=1-1/qid=1146666401/ref=sr_1_1/103-2274037-0875001?%5Fencoding=UTF8&s=books

These are the people right next door to you.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (3 May 2006)

Chimo said:
			
		

> It would be naive to think we don't have terrorist in Canada, we have had some and will continue. The impression I get from our Southern Neighbours is that Canada is a breeding ground and a conduit for easy access into the States. I live in the USA and am not anti-American, far from it. I do however, get tired of the constant refrain I hear on Fox News and some senior military officials that Canada is the Mecca for terrorism.



Perhaps they keep saying it, because it is true.  These people are smart, and have the ability to blend into a civilian population.  They are here.  That is not in dispute.  Many of them are here on refugee status, and get to stay because of our refugee laws.  



			
				Chimo said:
			
		

> Yes I have heard of the millennium Bomber and he was apprehended with the aid of the RCMP. I would hope that Canadians would never have to give up our civil liberties the way the Americans have under the Patriot Act with little public debate. It is unhealthy for a country to chose an attitude if you don't like it you must be aligned with the terrorist.



I also would like to hear what "civil liberties" have been sacrificed.  The attitude to which you speak comes under the heading of "aid and comfort to the enemy".  When people make excused for these terrorists, you can bet the terrorists are sitting back, laughing.  It's like a deer arguing against gun control, because it has only seen hunters in the US, and doesn't want to see anyones rights get "trampled".  



			
				Chimo said:
			
		

> I further do not like any country telling us how to conduct our business. The USA doesn't tolerate it but it seems willing to offer criticism against Canada regularly.



If you were the US, and you had us for neighbors, you would be pretty critical of our Immigration policies as well.  They have earned the right to complain.  We are letting them down.  If the next big attack on the US is traced back to Canada, don't think that the political implications will not be massive.


----------



## Centurian1985 (3 May 2006)

No matter who complains, its all politics... everybody is afraid to P.O. a specific ethnic community by painting them with a brush of tolerance of terrorism despite the fact that specific communities hide terrorist within their midst.  Politicians are more interested in getting re-elected than they are in weeding out terrorist threats.  Our security agencies were worried about this for 30 years and it still took until 2002 to finally get a law passed to fight terrorists with, and that was only because it was expected of all allies in the 'war against terrorism'.


----------



## J.J (3 May 2006)

Zipperhead,
I will agree that our Immigration policy needs work, specifically the way refugee's are handled, but do you believe the US handles issues any better??? This is not meant to flame or insult our American friends, but grass is not always greener on the other side. The US has as many issues with illegal immigrants as we do. Look at the "strike" they had on Monday. An illegal immigrant in the US feels safe enough to demonstrate and refuse to go to 'work' for a day to try and force a policy of blanket citizenship to all illegals.
I have also dealt with several terrorists, the majority have been American residents or citizens. Some of my contacts have been, as you, have been listed through NCIC or other data bases, some have been cold hits. These individuals go back and forth through our border's, but unless the intelligence can be released to the courts or Immigration boards, the "terrorist" cannot be stripped of their citizenship or residency, on either side of the border.
Changes are needed, but to model ourselves after the American Immigration system is not the answer, they have similar problems. What country do we take the lead from? This I do not know as every country has terrorism or illegals or general malcontents that do not belong there.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (3 May 2006)

Haaaang on...I wasn't saying we should model ourselves after the US.  A good friend of mine who works for the CBSA has told me that our laws at the border are more strict and have much broader powers (a good sort of fellow, but a touch obtuse, you know the type).  I am speaking to the level of urgency within the organizations.  Maybe I am way over estimating the US and their desire to sort these clowns out.  
And I am not so very concerned with some poor shlub that manages to drag his tail over our side of the line and claim refugee.  I have come across my fair share of new citizens that are the kind of people we need in this country.  Hard working, family oriented, just wanting to make a better life.  But the ones who we KNOW are here for ill purpose.  They are the ones who need to get punted.  
If passage of information to the court system is the issue, that does not seem like such a hurdle (in a practical way, not bureaucratic) 
So if we have a better system, why not ramp it up even further, and make it a model to all other nations?  If we have to use anyone as a model, why not Israel?  They seem to have an eye towards "protection" to say the least.  I'm not saying it would have to be that severe, but as a model, frame whatever changes are needed, then Canadianize it as needed.  
The Customs side it ramping up and going all enforcement oriented, why shouldn't the Immigration side be doing the same?


----------



## Chimo (3 May 2006)

Actually ZHC, I agree with you that more coordination between Law enforcement, security agencies and government agencies would be a great step in increase the security picture in Canada, coupled with effective legislation. The rub is providing effect security without unduly impacting on civil rights. 

The trade off between democratic values and anti-terror measures should be looked at as a spectrum...on one side, the normal day to day life prior to 9/11. Many liberties and freedoms, most unrestricted.  The middle of the spectrum would seem to be protective measures without huge impact on the lives of everyday Canadians. This middle of the spectrum is the status quo to which Canadians are now familiar. The other extreme would be very stringent law enforcement and intelligence activities, effective most citizens in their day-to-day life.  Restrictions placed on all citizens such as; travel, use of communications and arrest without warrant.
	  
The scale along the spectrum would shift, with a majority of public support immediately following a successful terrorist attack in Canada, as the people ask why things happened and "we need to do something".  At the point very stringent legislation would be introduced in the shades of the War Measures Act. 

The balance would then be re-established once the threat could be analyzed and 
interdicted.  The further removed from the attack the less Canadians would support any 
infringement of their freedoms.

I am very leery of the Patriot Act and will use a quote from General MacArthur to illustrate the point...

"Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear - kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor - with the cry of grave national emergency... Always there has been some terrible evil to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it by furnishing the exorbitant sums demanded. Yet, in retrospect, these disasters seem never to have happened; seem never to have been quite real."

Some of these issues as stated by Amensty International are:

http://www.amnestyusa.org/waronterror/patriotact/

1. Allows non-citizens to be detained without charge and held indefinitely once charged. This is permissible if the US government certifies that there are "reasonable grounds" to believe a person's action threatens national security. This runs counter to US and international rights to due process and could also lead to violations of rights in the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, which guarantee that governments be notified if their nationals are detained. 

2. Infringes on the right to privacy and removes many types of judicial review over intelligence activities. 
The USA PATRIOT Act permits the government to scrutinize peoples' reading habits by monitoring public library and bookstore records, without notifying the suspect. It also allows for "sneak and peak" tactics such as physical search of property and computers, wiretapping and monitoring of email, and access to financial and educational records, without providing notification. These activities contradict the right to be free from arbitrary interference with individuals' privacy, as protected in the US Constitution and the ICCPR.

I am sure we can agree there are no simple solutions but logic and rights must prevail. Finally, if I lived in the USA (which I do) and was American I think I would be proud to have Canadians as neighbours. Being Neighbours doesn't mean you will always agree but it does mean you will watch out for strangers in the neighbourhood.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (4 May 2006)

Your sliding scale idea makes sense, but is it pertanent?  Pre/post/during 9/11, regardless of peoples perceptions, you know what the constant is?  The terrorists desire to destroy our culture and way of life.  So we should wait until the inevitable attack comes THEN take measures?  
What benefit is it to Canada to extend lavish rights and considerations to terrorists?  So Bono can give us a gracious smile and go back to bashing the US?  Amnesty International has an agenda of their own and are hardly an unbiased information source.  
There was another thread that spiraled in when we got to talking about civil liberties, and peoples need/expectation of privacy.  I'm not talking about monitoring of citizens, or tapping library banks.  I'm talking about not allowing terrorists to remain in our country, unmonitored and unhampered in any way while our tax dollars PAY for them to stay here.  It is completely unreasonable to say that someone can come from the US, or Britain or Germany or any first world country and claim they are a refugee from it.  No matter what you think of the US, there is nothing in that country that fits the criteria to be able to claim refugee status from it.  All they are doing is fleeing from due process, and because our system is so lax, they can stay, launch endless appeals and get paid to live here.  All the while, setting up networks, mapping out their targets and sending money home to sponsor terrorism there.  
These people are here on false pretenses.  They need to be expelled.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (4 May 2006)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> I met the most surly CDN a-hat immigration dude at the sarnia border last week.  He was not only rude to me, but to my wife as well....so much for CDN hospitality, never spent a dime in Canada, turned right around.



Well, come on down to friendly Windsor!!  We're all about accomadating our American friends!  It's worth the drive down I-94  ;D


----------



## CougarKing (5 Nov 2007)

Here are two immigration cases that I think deserve attention of the posters of this thread.

1.) The first case is of a highly-skilled immigrant from Bangladesh (an Islamic country) named Arif Mohiuddin who works for CPCS Transcom Ltd., a transport services company.



> Coveted employee faces years-long immigration delay, Ottawa company says
> Last Updated: Monday, November 5, 2007 | 2:53 PM ET
> CBC News
> An Ottawa company says it's worried about losing a prized Bangladeshi employee to international competitors after federal immigration officials told him they need to catch up on applications submitted five years ago before looking at his 2005 request.
> ...



2.) The second case is that of a guy named Qureshi, another Muslim, but a Canadian citizen.



> Calgary man released from Kabul jail
> Last Updated: Monday, November 5, 2007 | 7:26 AM MT
> CBC News
> A Calgary man who was arrested in Afghanistan for allegedly having links to a militant group has been cleared of all wrongdoing and has been released from a Kabul prison, officials have confirmed.
> ...



With both cases in mind, it's clear that to me that the Mohiuddin guy seems to be more deserving of the right to stay here since he is doing something constructive by working for a big company, unlike the Qureshi guy, who was supposedly fighting for the Taliban. Anyone else have further thoughts?


----------



## medaid (5 Nov 2007)

CD, you think #1 should be able to stay because he's contributing? Because the Tamil Tigers have not contributed financialy to the society? Because the Hazbola have not contributed to society? Sure they have! All terrorist organization have! They have contributed to their own community and they have contributed to their plans. You can't say that he's a hoo ah guy just by reading a news article. I can't say he isn't a good candidate from the same article. What I can say is that there are hundreds and thousands of people like #1. What makes #1 so special? Because he works for a large financial company that has a vested interest in his continual working relationship with them? That in its self does not say anything. Sorry don't agree.  And dude #2... Sh^tpump!


----------



## CougarKing (6 Nov 2007)

MedTech said:
			
		

> CD, you think #1 should be able to stay because he's contributing? Because the Tamil Tigers have not contributed financialy to the society? Because the Hazbola have not contributed to society? Sure they have! All terrorist organization have! They have contributed to their own community and they have contributed to their plans. You can't say that he's a hoo ah guy just by reading a news article. I can't say he isn't a good candidate from the same article. What I can say is that there are hundreds and thousands of people like #1. What makes #1 so special? Because he works for a large financial company that has a vested interest in his continual working relationship with them? That in its self does not say anything. Sorry don't agree.  And dude #2... Sh^tpump!



Very true. One should never draw conclusions from just a single article/news source, although I doubt more information other than what is already stated here from the main media organizations will not be forthcoming just yet unless something happens to either guy or there is a startling development with either case.


----------

