# A new low for refugees in Canada



## mj_lover (24 Jun 2012)

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/letters/article/1216136--a-new-low-for-refugees-in-canada

I'm personally disgusted by this policy, having been friends with refugees from the Bosnia conflict, these people often go on to become contributing members of our society. Quite frankly, its the right thing to do, with all the freedom and democracy for everyone attitude. guess it only applies if you can pay


----------



## George Wallace (24 Jun 2012)

Call me cold hearted, but when I have problems as a LONG TIME Canadian Tax Payer, and after being long time member of the CF, getting good Health Care, then why should a "non-Canadian citizen".  Don't worry, I feel the same way towards panhandlers and other collectors of freebies that I and many on this site have worked hard for and paid taxes for, only to see scammers take advantage of our "social system".  

If you want to collect, then pay into the plans that you want to collect from.  Don't come looking for free handouts from hardworking folk who may not/may never see some of the benefits they have paid for.

Like an "Insurance Policy", if you pay into it, you can collect; if you don't pay into it, you don't collect.

[End Rant]


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Jun 2012)

We need to be careful and to draw a very clear distinction between _immigrants_ and _refugees_.

Immigrants get the same health care services as you and I; refugees do not.

A refugee is:

1. A person with a well founded fear for life and limb if (s)he stays in his or her home; AND

2. A person who wants to and plans to return "home" when it is safe to do so.

The problem with many (most?) refugees in Canada is that they are in the wrong place ... in Canada. Refugees should remain as close to the homes they are fleeing as possible: in safe, humane camps. Some will, of necessity, have to come to Canada - there will be no place safe enough. But many, too many in my opinion, are brought here for all the wrong reasons.


----------



## VIChris (24 Jun 2012)

Agreed with the above. 

And for the story of Byron in the article, I'd say it outlines problems with immigration, not health care reform.


----------



## Harris (24 Jun 2012)

I agree George.  MP for you incoming.


----------



## ModlrMike (24 Jun 2012)

I have to agree with George. Nothing provided by government is free. Putting refugees on the same footing as other folks WRT vision, dental and Rx coverage is reasonable in my mind. Millions of hard working tax payers don't have this coverage either, unless they pay for it.


----------



## mj_lover (24 Jun 2012)

tad cold George, I do understand the sentiment, and if this were an immigrant issue of not working, etc, just here for free healthcare,  I would agree. Refugees don't have a choice in leaving, well, leave or die I guess..figure if we spend billions on aid for Haiti, etc. why can we not help these people? heck, make a volunteer-for-status program if its so rough to deal with helping because we can and its the right thing to do

edit for spelling*


----------



## Retired AF Guy (24 Jun 2012)

Agree with George and the other commentators; the predicament that Mr. Caulford described happening to "Byron," happens to dozens of Canadian citizens every day, so why should a refugee from a foreign country get preference over Canadians citizens. 

Also, Caulford says Byron was paying taxes, but was fighting a refugee denial order at the same time. May be someone can enlighten me; if he was a still a refugee would he be paying taxes??


----------



## ModlrMike (24 Jun 2012)

Let's remove the hyperbole. Here's the actual changes: Refugees: Health Care

The changes appear to remove coverage not available to most Canadians. 

Taken from the reference:



> This package will provide coverage that is similar to what is currently covered and what Canadians receive through their provincial/territorial health insurance plans.



I can not see how these changes can be construed as negative. They're still getting the same care as everyone else, just not more care than everyone else.


----------



## mj_lover (24 Jun 2012)

I do hope your right, but this little gem worries me a bit 

"medications and vaccines only when needed to prevent or treat a disease posing a risk to public health or a condition of public safety concern"

I'm possibly a bit skeptical, but I have seen how easily a government will take away someones right to live to save a buck. ie. Netherlands


----------



## medicineman (24 Jun 2012)

mj_lover said:
			
		

> I do hope your right, but this little gem worries me a bit
> 
> "medications and vaccines only when needed to prevent or treat a disease posing a risk to public health or a condition of public safety concern"
> 
> I'm possibly a bit skeptical, but I have seen how easily a government will take away someones right to live to save a buck. ie. Netherlands



First off, normal citizens of Canada get immunizations for free as far as public health stuff goes...anything for recreation/travel is paid for out of pocket...as are most medications, as I get reminded constantly.  That's why I pay into my empployer's Blue Cross plan...

Second, I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm assuming the last  quip there about taking someone's right to live away in the Netherlands has to do with their medical euthanasia laws - that's not taking away a right to live, it's giving a right to die/not prolong suffering unnecessarily - not the same thing at all, as it's something that has to have input from ALL persons concerned.  It's not the government hoping someone will knock off sooner to save a buck.   :

MM


----------



## mj_lover (24 Jun 2012)

quip about the Netherlands has a lot more to do with the fact they are sending refugees back pre-maturely, or more fun, the children of refugees that have been growing up in a western country, with more liberal values, are being sent to other countries that are...less conservative in view..

not a medical issue, but dirty none the less.

if the meds work the same as ours, I'm ok with it, wording sounds odd, that's all
as I said, I'm skeptical of gov't


----------



## MJP (24 Jun 2012)

mj_lover said:
			
		

> quip about the Netherlands has a lot more to do with the fact they are sending refugees back pre-maturely, or more fun, the children of refugees that have been growing up in a western country, with more liberal values, are being sent to other countries that are...less conservative in view..



I don't think you understand the meaning of the word refugee. They are suppose to go back to where they came from.


----------



## mj_lover (24 Jun 2012)

forgive me for thinking it would happen after they wouldn't be executed on sight..


----------



## MJP (24 Jun 2012)

mj_lover said:
			
		

> forgive me for thinking it would happen after they wouldn't be executed on sight..



So where exactly is this again?  Painfully shy on actual facts.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Jun 2012)

This country, and for the most part, the whole 'Western World', has become overrun by too many 'bleeding hearts' who want to save the world.  Sorry folks, but that is impossible.  Like Communism, a noble idea on paper, but a dismal failure in the real world.  I only wish that instead of trying to save some village/orphan in Africa/Asia/South America (fill in whatever you desire), we would instead try to solve our own problems first.  We have homeless.  We have starving.  We have the mentally ill.  We have ________(again fill in the blank with your favourite needy).   We are taking Billions of Taxpayer Dollars and flushing them down the tubes with these programs in distant lands and yet can not spend to solve our problems at home.  

Let's start here in Canada (and the US) and then work outward.  Not haphazardly bouncing from one tiny nation to another around the globe.  We have neighbours to the south who we should help first.  Mexico and Central America have some very serious problems that directly affect North Americans.  Once we start there, we can start fanning out to South America (we are joined at the hip.....I mean equator) and solve the problems of the Western Hemisphere.  Do we go help our allies in Europe or our allies in Australia and the Western Pacific next?  Time would tell.

We complain about how ineffective the UN is, yet we still subscribe to their humanitarian dreams and programs.  Again, noble; but let's start at home first.


----------



## krustyrl (25 Jun 2012)

I concur......     :goodpost:


----------



## medicineman (25 Jun 2012)

mj_lover said:
			
		

> if the meds work the same as ours, I'm ok with it, wording sounds odd, that's all



Wording sounds just fine to me...you'll be provided with medicine if you need it for the sake of public health reasons (TB, typhoid, other such nastiness), otherwise it's just like the rest of Canada...you pay for it somehow.

As for being skeptical of governments trying to protect their populations from people that may in fact have other than rosy motives for running away from whence they came - well, that's what they're paid for.   Many people show up on these shores claiming refugee status when in fact they are illegal immigrants. 

Incidentally, I think your skepticism borders on the paranoid.

MM


----------



## exabedtech (25 Jun 2012)

The article makes it clear that this person was not accepted as a refugee in this country.  Given that, any discussion of health care rights for refugees is completely inapplicable.
Yes, maybe poor Byron got a raw deal when he decided that Canada was the place to get refugee status, but his case is a question of what determines who is a refugee.  I don't see how any changes to refugee health care could have affected someone who sounds to have been in the country illegally.  Why he was not given a shot at citizenship is the greater question here.

For the record, I do support accepting valid refugees into Canada.  Lets face it, we have the space, the jobs and the opportunities.  While there are bad apples in every bunch, I would think that someone willing to completely uproot their life for a chance in a faraway land is likely a person very willing to be a net contributor to that country.

Only example I can come up with is my grandfather who entered this country illegally from Scotland in the 30s and went on to serve this great land for 4 decades with 4RCR and a variety of other units.  His family has gone on to produce a number of very successful Canadians - leaders in business, medicine, teaching and the military.  Canada did just fine giving him his citizenship and i'll bet the same could be said of the majority of claimants.  Not all of course, but most i'm sure.


----------



## Strike (25 Jun 2012)

exabedtech said:
			
		

> The article makes it clear that this person was not accepted as a refugee in this country.  Given that, any discussion of health care rights for refugees is completely inapplicable.
> Yes, maybe poor Byron got a raw deal when he decided that Canada was the place to get refugee status, but his case is a question of what determines who is a refugee.  I don't see how any changes to refugee health care could have affected someone who sounds to have been in the country illegally.  Why he was not given a shot at citizenship is the greater question here.
> 
> For the record, I do support accepting valid refugees into Canada.  Lets face it, we have the space, the jobs and the opportunities.  While there are bad apples in every bunch, I would think that someone willing to completely uproot their life for a chance in a faraway land is likely a person very willing to be a net contributor to that country.
> ...



You need to re-read the difference between refugee and immigrant.  You seem to be mixing them up with the story of your grandfather.


----------



## exabedtech (25 Jun 2012)

Definitions of refugee and immigrant apply neither to Byron from the article or my grandfather.  My grandfather entered illegally stowing away on a ship.  I'd imagine Bryon was in a similar situation since after 5 years he still didnt have his status. .  I sympathize with the Dr in the article who wishes health care for all, but since this person wasn't a refugee or immigrant, the changes to refugee health care are meaningless to his story as I see it.  Then again, i'm not an immigration lawyer.  Any immigration lawyers in here to help clarify what status exactly this Byron would have had?


----------



## bcbarman (25 Jun 2012)

Canada's immigration system when it comes to refugees is broken, that is a statement from the Immigration Minister.  When the minister responsible comes out and says that, it holds weight. 

There are 2 types of refugee's where Canada is concerned:
The first are the UN Convention refugees, those that leave their own country where they fear harm, persecution or death.  They go to a nearby country , apply to be a refugee to the UN and get selected by another nation, of which Canada is one.

The second is  a refugee that gets off a plane or a boat (because you cannot claim refugee status from the US unless you are an American citizen), walk up to an immigration officer and say REFUGEE in either English or french.  These are the people that can afford a plane ticket, potentially a fake passport, even a fake Canadian Visa. At the Toronto airport, there has been as many as 150 refugees a DAY, all from the same country.

The second type of refugees are the ones that are taking advantage of the system, coming here, getting the "free" health care, vision care and dental care.  They never complete their claim, never contribute to Canada and some are even arrested within days of their arrival in Canada, but we can't kick them out, because they are Refugees.

The immigration system is now being reworked so that we are no longer seen as the laughing stock of the rest of the world.  Its still a generous and giving system, but one that you have to earn, not just be automatically granted.

As for this Byron, much like anything you read in the news, must be viewed critically. I can think of many reasons why he was not receiving medical care, but none that I can talk about on an open forum.


----------



## George Wallace (25 Jun 2012)

:goodpost:


----------



## Danjanou (25 Jun 2012)

bcbarman said:
			
		

> Canada's immigration system when it comes to refugees is broken, that is a statement from the Immigration Minister.  When the minister responsible comes out and says that, it holds weight.
> 
> There are 2 types of refugee's where Canada is concerned:
> The first are the UN Convention refugees, those that leave their own country where they fear harm, persecution or death.  They go to a nearby country , apply to be a refugee to the UN and get selected by another nation, of which Canada is one.
> ...



The big difference is between Refugee and Refugee Claimant. As noted anyone can walk up to the desk at Pearson or any other point of entry and say the magic word and the ball starts rolling. Are they a "legitimate" refugee as per the definitions given here and elsewhere, or just someone who wants to come here and take advantage of our social safety net , only time and the courts can then tell. Toss in numerous levels of appeals, "immigration consultants" and it becomes a lengthy and frustrating process, especially if you are a legit refugee stuck in the system while some numpty ties it up because he doesn't want to go back to the old country where working at Wal-Mart pays less than Social Assistance here.

BTW in addition to the claimants arriving on fake travel documents and reporting at the port of entry there are also inland claimants. These are people who after arriving here say on tourist or student visas (or even without for many countries) and then after a few weeks or even months here file a refugee claim. Just a little something to keep in mind with the economic meltdown now happening in Europe.


----------



## GAP (25 Jun 2012)

Kenney is right to speed up deportations
The Globe and Mail Sunday, Jun. 24 2012
Article Link



Immigration Minister Jason Kenney has made a convincing case for a new law allowing the swift deportation of convicted criminals. The infamous example of Clinton Gayle underscores the need for such legislation.

A Jamaican citizen who was convicted in Canada of multiple criminal offences, Mr. Gayle was able to remain in the country long after a 1991 deportation order, because of the immigration appeals process. In 1996, he shot two Toronto police officers, killing one of them.

It is an extreme example. But it was hardly an isolated one. Take, for instance, the case of Walford Uriah Steer, who somehow managed to remain in Canada long enough to be convicted of more than 70 criminal acts by the time he was arrested again last year and charged with multiple prostitution offences involving a 16-year-old girl.

The common thread in these cases, and other less notorious ones, is that the offenders racked up a string of convictions for which they were sentenced to less than two years in prison – the threshold at which those who are ordered deported lose their right to appeal to the Immigration and Refugee Board. So Mr. Kenney is proposing to lower that bar so that only those sentenced to less than six months could use the immigration appeals process.

That proposed change is contained in a fairly expansive piece of legislation, the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, which merits careful scrutiny before it becomes law. In particular, assurances should be sought that a new discretionary power for the immigration minister to deny temporary-resident status to newcomers on the basis of “public policy considerations” – which federal officials say would be limited to a very few cases – would not be used arbitrarily.

But while some immigration lawyers are predictably up in arms, it is difficult to argue with the bill’s main thrust. The immigration process can be enormously complex, but one principle should be fairly straightforward: The tiny share of immigrants and refugees who lack citizenship and are convicted of serious crimes on Canadian soil forfeit their right to be here.
end


----------



## Scott (25 Jun 2012)

mj_lover said:
			
		

> forgive me for thinking it would happen after they wouldn't be executed on sight..



Can you please try some  better punctuation, please?

Scott
Staff


----------



## Journeyman (26 Jun 2012)

Scott said:
			
		

> > forgive me for thinking it would happen after they wouldn't be executed on sight..
> 
> 
> Can you please try some  better punctuation, please?
> ...


Or better yet, please stop posting unsubstantiated drivel. You have mistaken this site for agony_aunt.com   :


----------



## larry Strong (26 Jun 2012)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Can you please try some  better punctuation, please?
> 
> Scott
> Staff
> Or better yet, please stop posting unsubstantiated drivel. You have mistaken this site for agony_aunt.com   :



Better yet, lay off the mj...........


----------



## bcbarman (26 Jun 2012)

awww, there is no agony_aunt.com   

Got to love the copy and paste crowd, just throw stuff up there to start the garbage. 

I reread the article, and the subject is a failed claimant, therefor, none of the changes will affect him, heck, he is in Canada illegally, with a departure order against his name.

On the same subject, I just found out that strippers will not be receiving work permits to Canada anymore, looks like its just the good old domestic dancers swinging around the pole (and let the jokes begin)  ;D


----------



## PuckChaser (26 Jun 2012)

bcbarman said:
			
		

> awww, there is no agony_aunt.com



Glad I'm not the only one who tried to go there.  >


----------

