# Illegal Border Crossing into Canada - Asylum Seekers



## tomahawk6 (9 Aug 2017)

I think they are a bit shocked that they are not given the warm recption they had hoped for. I see them as future Liberal voters. ;D

http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/troops-set-up-tents-at-border-old-royal-vic-to-shelter-asylum-seekers-1.3538567

Canadians soldiers are being deployed to St-Bernard-de-Lacolle to erect tents for asylum seekers attempting to enter Canada from the United States. 
Almost 100 troops will be used to set up the camp site, which will consist of "modular tent shelters with lighting and heating and may temporarily accomodate close to 500 people," Department of National Defence spokesperson Evan Koronewski told CTV Montreal in an email. 
"The Canadian Armed Forces is aware of the difficult situation that is requiring significant resources of Canada Border Services Agency, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and other partners in the area of St-Bernard-de-Lacolle," said Koronewski.

Subject modified as per Reply #4. mm


----------



## EpicBeardedMan (10 Aug 2017)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I think they are a bit shocked that they are not given the warm recption they had hoped for. I see them as future Liberal voters. ;D



A warm place to sleep and food, with guarantees of moving into shelters afterwards is not a warm reception? They should be building a wall, not a welcome center.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Aug 2017)

That's probably a couple million dollars worth of MSA stores we probably won't recover, but will still have to pay for out of our budget.


----------



## Lumber (10 Aug 2017)

Not sure how you came to the conclusion that they are all "libs", but hey, the more the merrier! We can't have sunny ways without these shinning stars!


----------



## Journeyman (10 Aug 2017)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/troops-set-up-tents-at-border-old-royal-vic-to-shelter-asylum-seekers-1.3538567


Maybe the Mods could change the title to reflect that they are predominantly the Haitian refugees, which have been in the news for a week for those who don't shun reading, rather than "US Libs."
       :


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (10 Aug 2017)

My wife has been saying for more than a week now that the Army should be sent ... to set up a few thousand feet of double concertina wire  ;D

Here's a bizarre thought: These people (most of which, it appears, are economic migrants from Haiti currently legally in the US on valid visa - that can expire - issued further to the recent earthquake) are coming through that "gap" because, if they were coming at an actual border post, the Can/US agreement would kick in and they would have to claim status in the US. Now, CBSA has set itself up with covered facilities and assigned personnel there and so has the RCMP, there are regular buses set up, there are porta-potty set up, now army tents, etc. Here's my thought, at which point does this not become a "border post", which then makes the agreement with the US kick in?  Just asking!


----------



## mariomike (10 Aug 2017)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Maybe the Mods could change the title to reflect that they are predominantly the Haitian refugees,



ok


----------



## Lumber (10 Aug 2017)

mariomike said:
			
		

> ok



Political Correctness wins again! :cdnsalute:


----------



## Journeyman (10 Aug 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Political *Factual* (according to the article cited)  Correctness wins again! :cdnsalute:


Insincere apologies to those who find a preference for honesty troubling.   :not-again:


----------



## Lumber (10 Aug 2017)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Insincere apologies to those who find a preference for honesty troubling.   :not-again:



No no I really appreciate the switch (look up and you'll see I was the first to call out the thread name)... I'm just stirring the pot...  :threat:


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Aug 2017)

Given the makeup of the surge, this draws the eye ...


> *Why a visit from the Haitian government has Quebec immigration lawyers worried*
> _'We want to make sure if they are sent back, that they won't be facing problems,' lawyer says_
> _By Benjamin Shingler, CBC News Posted: Aug 09, 2017 4:50 PM ET Last Updated: Aug 10, 2017 6:52 AM ET_
> 
> ...


More @ link


----------



## jmt18325 (10 Aug 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Here's a bizarre thought: These people (most of which, it appears, are economic migrants from Haiti currently legally in the US on valid visa - that can expire - issued further to the recent earthquake) are coming through that "gap" because, if they were coming at an actual border post, the Can/US agreement would kick in and they would have to claim status in the US. Now, CBSA has set itself up with covered facilities and assigned personnel there and so has the RCMP, there are regular buses set up, there are porta-potty set up, now army tents, etc. Here's my thought, at which point does this not become a "border post", which then makes the agreement with the US kick in?  Just asking!



I would think the US would have to agree to the commissioning of a new border post.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Aug 2017)

Build a Wall! Build a Wall!  anic:


----------



## George Wallace (10 Aug 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I would think the US would have to agree to the commissioning of a new border post.



Why?

Just turn them around and send them back from whence they came.  No need for there to be a post on both sides of the border.  Just a point at which to turn them back.


----------



## George Wallace (10 Aug 2017)

Several thoughts on the whole fiasco, as Trudeau has remained absolutely invisible in the past couple of weeks, never making any comment on this whole matter.  I hope this case is not a "Chretienism" of "ignore the problem and hope it goes away".

First off, Canada has escaped the mass invasion of Economic Migrants, that Europe has suffered under, due to being surrounded by three oceans, and having a nation to our South who takes its border control very seriously.  

A fear that others than Haitians are mixing in with these groups is a Security Issue that must be addressed.  A fear that Somali criminal elements may be mixed in the crowds is being looked at. 

The fact that with the large number of illegal migrants claiming 'refugee' status upon entering the country could mean that the timings to get their immigration hearings could exceed eleven months, and a statement from the Liberal government that there may be an "Amnesty" offered, is very disconcerting.

The fact that these may be predominantly persons from a predominantly Roman Catholic, Western nation, who speak a French dialect, may make them much better candidates to integrate into Canadian society, than those from an African or Middle Eastern nation who may not share our Western values, nor speak either French or English, could be seen as a positive point.


----------



## jmt18325 (10 Aug 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Just turn them around and send them back from whence they came.  No need for there to be a post on both sides of the border.  Just a point at which to turn them back.



That would be hard to do legally.  When they're on the US side of the border we have no jurisdiction, and because they're not US citizens or permanent residents, we have no authority to send them back to the US once they're on our side.  Because the Safe Third Country Agreement specifies border posts, we also have no legal ground to deny asylum claims by those crossing illegally.


----------



## George Wallace (10 Aug 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> .....  Because the Safe Third Country Agreement specifies border posts, we also have no legal ground to deny asylum claims by those crossing illegally.



Because of the Safe Third Country Agreement, they were already in a 'Safe Third Country': "America"...................  Crossing into Canada illegally does not mean that they stay here.....Back they go to that Safe Third Country they chose first. They have NO legal ground to seek asylum here.


----------



## jmt18325 (10 Aug 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Because of the Safe Third Country Agreement, they were already in a 'Safe Third Country': "America"...................  Crossing into Canada illegally does not mean that they stay here.....Back they go to that Safe Third Country they chose first. They have NO legal ground to seek asylum here.



The Safe Third Country Agreement doesn't apply where they're crossing.  The US is fine with that.  They like it this way.  If they didn't, they'd stop the migrants, because they are the only ones with absolute power to stop the migrants.  We have no authority to send non Americans back to the US once they enter Canada.


----------



## PuckChaser (10 Aug 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> The Safe Third Country Agreement doesn't apply where they're crossing.  The US is fine with that.  They like it this way.  If they didn't, they'd stop the migrants, because they are the only ones with absolute power to stop the migrants.  We have no authority to send non Americans back to the US once they enter Canada.



Send them back to Haiti then. The first major news article that said someone caught illegally crossing was not sent back to the US, but to their home country, would immediately cease all illegal traffic using this loophole.

We can also close the loophole by having expedited hearings (matter of days not years) to boot them either back across or back to home country.


----------



## jmt18325 (10 Aug 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Send them back to Haiti then. The first major news article that said someone caught illegally crossing was not sent back to the US, but to their home country, would immediately cease all illegal traffic using this loophole.



If they say the word asylum and they are not subject to the Safe Third Country Agreement, we have to process their claim.



> We can also close the loophole by having expedited hearings (matter of days not years) to boot them either back across or back to home country.



I'm all in favour of that - the system just isn't designed for this sudden spike though.  I'm totally willing to spend whatever it takes.


----------



## EpicBeardedMan (11 Aug 2017)

There was footage that the rebel media had on YouTube where a woman was carrying her luggage and her baby across the Quebec crossing point, she tripped and fell which caused the husband hit her in the head for being clumsy right in front of the RCMP officer. Kind of cringe-worthy.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Aug 2017)

I don't know, but some of those Haitians look an awful lot like Somalians to me.


----------



## EpicBeardedMan (11 Aug 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I don't know, but some of those Haitians look an awful lot like Somalians to me.



There are also Spanish people calling themselves Syrian (weird they only speak Soanish though..) crossing as well.


----------



## medicineman (11 Aug 2017)

One of the few visits from government we got in Port au Prince on OP HALO was from Montreal MP's that had a substantial number of ex-pat Haitian constituents in their ridings.  There are likely a fair number of "relatives" around the area that might be taking in "family".  As someone noted, there is a better than even chance that many could integrate easily due to large ex-pat communities.

RG - odd thing about Haiti is it was founded by ex-slaves, so many were from various parts of Africa - when you look at the people around closely, you see different ethnicity.  Some of the folks you were seeing may very well have had East African features and family lineage...of course, you may also be correct and some may have been infiltrating hoping nobody would notice.

MM


----------



## George Wallace (12 Aug 2017)

Did Hell freeze over?  CBC reporting that half of asylum seekers crossing have criminal records.  (Old report from April)

 http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/920868419922


----------



## EpicBeardedMan (12 Aug 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Did Hell freeze over?  CBC reporting that half of asylum seekers crossing have criminal records.  (Old report from April)
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/920868419922



Trudeau did say EVERYONE was welcome....a sound strategy for sure.


----------



## kratz (17 Aug 2017)

CBC.ca

Quebec is getting the help they requested. Asylum seekers have already started to be moved over to Cornwall Ontario and plans are developing for another tent camp next door, according to the news release. 



> New centre, more immigration officers
> 
> In order to accommodate the growing number of migrants crossing into Quebec, Federal Transport Minister Marc Garneau and Quebec Immigration Minister Kathleen Weil announced new measures for housing and security Thursday.
> 
> ...


----------



## jmt18325 (17 Aug 2017)

Did anyone ever think that there would be a camp of refugees fleeing the United States of America?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 Aug 2017)

Haiti is now deemed safe to return to and SURPRISE! they don't want to go back.  Now, as the article notes, they are entering Canada illegally.  What do people expect when the PM says *everyone is welcome!!*.


----------



## jmt18325 (17 Aug 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Haiti is now deemed safe to return to and SURPRISE! they don't want to go back.  Now, as the article notes, they are entering Canada illegally.  What do people expect when the PM says *everyone is welcome!!*.



Everyone is welcome.  The legalities have been clarified many times.  This is an act of desperation, and nothing more.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 Aug 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Everyone is welcome.  The legalities have been clarified many times.  This is an act of desperation, and nothing more.



From the CBC story:

RCMP says it has intercepted 3,800 asylum seekers crossing illegally into Quebec since Aug. 1

More than 3,800 asylum seekers crossed the border illegally in Quebec during the two weeks spanning Aug. 1 to Aug. 15, the RCMP said Thursday.

The figures were released after RCMP held a technical briefing with the Canada Border Services Agency and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC).

According to the IRCC, the RCMP also intercepted 2,996 asylum seekers crossing illegally into Quebec in July. 

Since June 1, the RCMP said that more than 7,000 people have illegally entered Canada.


Yup, the legalities are clear for sure.  If I need money, I can't just go to the bank and take it *in an act of desperation* and everything is cool...


----------



## EpicBeardedMan (17 Aug 2017)

Canada has some legislation in regards to breaking laws due to necessity (Ie: breaking into a domecile so you don't freeze to death) but I am unsure if that translates to refugees who aren't Canadian citizens. Especially ones who are fleeing the US and not Haiti..are they considered fleeing Haiti by proxy because the US would kick them out? WOULD the US kick them out? I don't know, I will admit I'm not a genius when it comes to this stuff.


----------



## Altair (17 Aug 2017)

EpicBeardedMan said:
			
		

> Canada has some legislation in regards to breaking laws due to necessity (Ie: breaking into a domecile so you don't freeze to death) but I am unsure if that translates to refugees who aren't Canadian citizens. Especially ones who are fleeing the US and not Haiti..are they considered fleeing Haiti by proxy because the US would kick them out? WOULD the US kick them out? I don't know, I will admit I'm not a genius when it comes to this stuff.


these guys will be processed like any other illegal migrant and if the case of other haitians is any clue, more than half will be deported to Haiti.


----------



## jmt18325 (18 Aug 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Yup, the legalities are clear for sure.  If I need money, I can't just go to the bank and take it *in an act of desperation* and everything is cool...



In this case (analogies are generally terrible arguments), with those found to have legitimate claims, everything will be cool.  For those found to not, things will not be cool.  They'll be rather warm, as they'll be returned to Haiti.


----------



## Loachman (18 Aug 2017)

And for those seeking entrance to our Country through legal means, there will be further delays...

Meanwhile, https://www.spencerfernando.com/2017/08/17/poll-majority-canadians-say-trudeau-not-enough-protect-canadas-borders/

POLL: Majority Of Canadians Say Trudeau Not Doing Enough To Protect Canada’s Borders

A new poll by Ipsos/Global shows Canadians are turning against Justin Trudeau’s border policies.

Here are the key poll results:
62% say the Trudeau government doesn’t have a solid plan to respond to the increase in border crossers.
56% say the Trudeau government having to call in the military shows the border issue “is out of control.”
67% believe those crossing the border illegally are doing so in order to skip the legal process.
56% say the government isn’t doing enough to protect the border from “those who want to cause harm to Canada.”

Trudeau government clearly out of step with Canadians

This poll confirms what many of us already knew: Canadians believe our border and laws should be respected. We are a welcoming nation, but that welcome must be on our own terms. There are many people waiting in line and following the rules, and they are being delayed because of those crossing illegally. And as the poll shows, Canadians are concerned that people who may cause harm to the country are crossing the border, and the Trudeau government isn’t doing enough to stop them.

That’s why it’s time for the Trudeau government to stop playing to the international press, and start listening to the voices of Canadians. Our border must be secured, and illegal crossings must be stopped.

Spencer Fernando


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (18 Aug 2017)

Personally, I have a simple solution (which is probably why it wouldn't work in Canada  ;D).

Stop all immigration hearings already scheduled in Canada and bring the tribunal's judges to Montreal. There, hold immediate hearings (most of these "refugees" are Haitians who lived peacefully in the US under temporary visas for the last few years, so they should have all of their papers and proof in order and ready to go) for a few hundreds of them. When the large majority of them are found to NOT be refugees, deport them immediately - but since they are Haitians, deport them to Haiti - not the USA - and publicize that fact heavily in Canada and the US.

I bet you it would stem the flow almost completely, and that a lot of the ones already here would immediately voluntarily withdraw their application to enter Canada and chose to return to the US and take their chances with their current temporary visa holder's status.


----------



## Loachman (18 Aug 2017)

That is a wildly optimistic hope for any form of speed and/or efficiency in a government endeavour.

And what if our Southern Cousins don't let them back in?


----------



## GAP (18 Aug 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Personally, I have a simple solution (which is probably why it wouldn't work in Canada  ;D).
> 
> Stop all immigration hearings already scheduled in Canada and bring the tribunal's judges to Montreal. There, hold immediate hearings (most of these "refugees" are Haitians who lived peacefully in the US under temporary visas for the last few years, so they should have all of their papers and proof in order and ready to go) for a few hundreds of them. When the large majority of them are found to NOT be refugees, deport them immediately - but since they are Haitians, deport them to Haiti - not the USA - and publicize that fact heavily in Canada and the US.
> 
> I bet you it would stem the flow almost completely, and that a lot of the ones already here would immediately voluntarily withdraw their application to enter Canada and chose to return to the US and take their chances with their current temporary visa holder's status.



The Canadian Government has already said they are returning them to Haiti. Apparently the US won't let them return/deports them.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Aug 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> In this case (analogies are generally terrible arguments), with those found to have legitimate claims, everything will be cool.  For those found to not, things will not be cool.  They'll be rather warm, as they'll be returned to Haiti.



Analogies are, sometimes, comparisons that help emphasize a point. In this case, the point being people shouldn't just be able to break a law.  I am a Canadian citizen and serving military member, and when I come back home from serving Canada away I have to have a passport and go thru the process.  Why should people who are coming illegally be allowed to cross in the first place??

IMO they shouldn't, and the US is just smiling as they watch them do it because it is one less problem for them to worry about.


----------



## George Wallace (18 Aug 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Analogies are, sometimes, comparisons that help emphasize a point. In this case, the point being people shouldn't just be able to break a law.  I am a Canadian citizen and serving military member, and when I come back home from serving Canada away I have to have a passport and go thru the process.  Why should people who are coming illegally be allowed to cross in the first place??
> 
> IMO they shouldn't, and the US is just smiling as they watch them do it because it is one less problem for them to worry about.



Today, listening to Talk Radio on the matter of the numbers crossing illegally, and how they would have be turned back had they entered at an existing Border Crossing.  Then I wondered why we aren't just loading the illegals onto a bus, drive them to the Border Crossing Point, have CBSA go through the procedure of processing them and then TURN THEM BACK as if they had originally crossed there.  Saves the eleven, and counting, months that it will now take to process the expected 300,000 that will be clogging up the system for the next several years; not to mentions the billions being spent.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Aug 2017)

Once they are in Canada, I doubt the US would take them back.

Don't get me wrong, I am not without compassion for those less fortunate than Canadians are.  *BUT*...we are a country with, like all countries, limited resources.  We simply can't allow everyone who wants to come here in.  Those that do come have to, or should IMO, have something to bring to the table;  a skill, a trade, something that will make them a benefit the way Canada will benefit them.  They have to have the ability to, at some point and for the long term, pay taxes and contribute to Canadian society in a real, tangible way.


----------



## kratz (18 Aug 2017)

So much for treating our soldiers like adults/  :not-again:
The CAF Operation to raise the tent city n Cornwall is dry for our soldiers...not even the two per day allowance.  : 

[rant] MADD Puritans strike again.[/rant]


----------



## Haggis (19 Aug 2017)

kratz said:
			
		

> So much for treating our soldiers like adults/  :not-again:
> The CAF Operation to raise the tent city n Cornwall is dry for our soldiers...not even the two per day allowance.  :



The PMCs in the Armoury they are billeted in are none to happy about this, either.


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Aug 2017)

Is it reserves pulling guard duty on this task or regs?


----------



## Haggis (19 Aug 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Is it reserves pulling guard duty on this task or regs?


Nobody from the CAF is pulling guard duty.  That is a local law enforcement task, if required.  The asylum seekers have already undergone preliminary screening by the CBSA and are free to come and go as they please as long as they attend their scheduled immigration examinations.


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Aug 2017)

Ah right on. I seen pictures of CAF pers putting up tents, I figured they would be manning the camp or something.  I wonder which hotels they will be put up in this winter, I can't see them staying in tents.


----------



## Haggis (19 Aug 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Ah right on. I seen pictures of CAF pers putting up tents, I figured they would be manning the camp or something.  I wonder which hotels they will be put up in this winter, I can't see them staying in tents.



CAF personnel will be managing and maintaining the Interim Lodging Site (ILS) infrastructure.  That's all.  There is a plan to move the asylum seekers to more permanent accommodations before winter, if required.


----------



## kratz (19 Aug 2017)

Haggis said:
			
		

> The PMCs in the Armoury they are billeted in are none to happy about this, either.



The Combined Mess in the Nav Centre is none too happy either.


----------



## George Wallace (19 Aug 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Once they are in Canada, I doubt the US would take them back.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I am not without compassion for those less fortunate than Canadians are.  *BUT*...we are a country with, like all countries, limited resources.  We simply can't allow everyone who wants to come here in.  Those that do come have to, or should IMO, have something to bring to the table;  a skill, a trade, something that will make them a benefit the way Canada will benefit them.  They have to have the ability to, at some point and for the long term, pay taxes and contribute to Canadian society in a real, tangible way.



Doesn't this fall in line with Trudeau's and Soro's vision of the world?  Bringing down our 'wealth' to raise that of the poorer?


----------



## jmt18325 (19 Aug 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Doesn't this fall in line with Trudeau's vision of the world?



I got rid of the conspiracy nonsense.  As to this part, no.  No Prime Minister of Canada has ever sought to bring down anyone in Canada.


----------



## PuckChaser (19 Aug 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I got rid of the conspiracy nonsense.  As to this part, no.  No Prime Minister of Canada has ever sought to bring down anyone in Canada.



Yes, because "bringing down the rich" doesn't sound as nice as "tax the rich". You can doctor the semantics all you want, but when you raise the tax rates on the rich, you're bringing them down to redistribute the money to the masses.

http://globalnews.ca/news/2585026/trudeaus-tax-hike-on-high-earners-could-backfire-report/
http://business.financialpost.com/personal-finance/taxes/canada-set-to-propose-closing-tax-loophole-favored-by-doctors/wcm/b5e17b7c-f526-4fef-b702-f70f1f26425e
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canada-budget-equlity-1.4036031

I'll also invite you to read the George Soros biographical synopsis here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros which states:



> He is a well-known supporter of American progressive and American liberal political causes and dispenses his donations through his foundation, the Open Society Foundations.[17] Between 1979 and 2011, Soros donated more than $11 billion to various philanthropic causes;[18][19] by 2017, his donations "on civil initiatives to reduce poverty and increase transparency, and on scholarships and universities around the world" totaled $12 billion.[20]



George's statement is factually correct even though you choose to just willfully ignore it. Just because someone says George Soros doesn't automatically make it a conspiracy theory. When that individual throws around $12B USD to progressive and left leaning political causes, they get a little bit of say in the direction those causes takes.


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Aug 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I got rid of the conspiracy nonsense.  As to this part, no.  No Prime Minister of Canada has ever sought to bring down anyone in Canada.



Really?   "He's just not ready."


----------



## jmt18325 (19 Aug 2017)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Really?   "He's just not ready."



I'll tell you what.  Canada has the best economy it has at any time in 17 years, and he's remained relatively popular.  He seems like he was ready after all.


----------



## George Wallace (19 Aug 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I'll tell you what.  Canada has the best economy it has at any time in 17 years, and he's remained relatively popular.  He seems like he was ready after all.




Hmmm?  Wonder why you only read Liberal Party propaganda.  I would not say that Ontario, more or less Canada's industrial base, is doing very well with many companies moving SOUTH of the border.  I would suggest that we are still riding the tail end of the wave of the previous Government and now headed into the down trough.  Time will tell.

New regulations and taxes being discussed on small business.  Ontario Hydro Rates.  Cancellation of proposed pipelines.  Illegal migrant issues.  Ridiculous points they want included at NAFTA negotiations.  People are starting to get very pissed at the Liberals and their nonsense.


----------



## jmt18325 (19 Aug 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Hmmm?  Wonder why you only read Liberal Party propaganda.



I don't read anything put out by the Liberal party.  I do read information put out by economists:

http://www.bnn.ca/canadian-gdp-tops-estimates-in-may-1.816156

Canada has done better this year than under and year that Harper was in power.  Ontario's economy has mostly recovered from the gloom years.  Many companies continue to move north of the border due to far lower corporate taxes in Canada than in the US (both Liberals and Conservatives have been lowering them for 25 years).  There are no new taxes being discussed on small business - they're simply closing loopholes.  You'll now have to work for the small business to get paid by it, as it should be. Line 3 replacement and expansion, approved by the Liberals, is now being built.  Northern Gateway, cancelled by the Liberals, was never going to meet its 800 conditions anyway.  Illegal migration is generally the fault of the country that the migrants are fleeing, and not the receiving country.  Do you blame Turkey for Iraqi refugees?  

As for the NAFTA negotiations - chapters on gender, climate, and indigenous peoples are included in any modern trade treaty, from CETA to the now dead TPP.


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Aug 2017)

[quote author=jmt18325] Illegal migration is generally the fault of the country that the migrants are fleeing, and not the receiving country.  Do you blame Turkey for Iraqi refugees?  
[/quote]

Turkey either supporting or turning a blind eye to ISIS probably doesn't exactly help Iraqi refugees.


----------



## jmt18325 (19 Aug 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Turkey either supporting or turning a blind eye to ISIS probably doesn't exactly help Iraqi refugees.



Well, Canada already ended it's Haitian refugee program, so, in this case, we aren't supporting ISIS.


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Aug 2017)

Except we're selling weapons and equipment to Saudi Arabia who is also secretly supporting ISIS (according to Hillary Clinton). So we kinda are. But that's off topic  :nod:


----------



## jollyjacktar (19 Aug 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I'll tell you what.  Canada has the best economy it has at any time in 17 years, and he's remained relatively popular.  He seems like he was ready after all.


That must be why everyone is peachy keen in the resource provinces and the Maritimes.  Cuz the economy is better now than it was before 2014 and before 2008.

 :sarcasm:


----------



## Altair (19 Aug 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> That must be why everyone is peachy keen in the resource provinces and the Maritimes.  Cuz the economy is better now than it was before 2014 and before 2008.
> 
> :sarcasm:


https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2017-07-28/alberta-tops-b-c-to-reclaim-lead-in-canadian-growth-survey



> Alberta’s economy is more than just back on its feet, it’s about to run faster than any other region in Canada.
> 
> Gross domestic product in the western province will rise by 2.9 percent this year, according to a Bloomberg survey of economists, up from an April estimate of 2.5 percent. That matches forecasts for neighboring British Columbia, and in 2018 Alberta comes out on top with a 2.4 percent expansion that would be tops among Canada’s 10 provinces.
> 
> It’s a huge comeback from Alberta’s last place finish in each of the last two years when oil prices plummeted below $50 a barrel, triggering layoffs and an investment freeze that shrank GDP by about 4 percent. The rebound is another sign Canada may retain its top spot among Group of Seven nations as economic growth diversifies away from consumer spending.



https://www.google.ca/amp/nationalpost.com/news/canada/from-the-doghouse-to-a-powerhouse-quebecs-economy-has-rebounded/wcm/2309f155-c7d5-4617-b95a-d359f227bafe/amp



> Last month, Standard & Poor’s announced that it was raising Quebec’s credit rating from A-plus, to AA-minus, the highest rating the province has enjoyed since 1993, and again, better than Ontario’s.
> 
> The province’s economic growth exceeded projections in the first quarter of 2017, with gross domestic product increasing 1.1 per cent over the first three months, outpacing Canada as a whole. That growth meant higher tax-revenues for the provincial government, and last month Leitao announced that Quebec had ended the 2016-17 fiscal year with a $4.5 billion surplus — nearly twice what had been forecast in his March 28 budget.


 Seems alright to me.


----------



## kratz (19 Aug 2017)

Over 4000 KMs and we argue how much better the economy is.   [  If we could all commute those KMs to fill the high paying jobs daily.


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Aug 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I'll tell you what.  Canada has the best economy it has at any time in 17 years, and he's remained relatively popular.  He seems like he was ready after all.



Tell you what.  Why don't I remind you what it was you said, and what I was replying to...



			
				jmt18325 said:
			
		

> ...No Prime Minister of Canada has ever sought to bring down anyone in Canada.



Does that help you understand my reply to your statement any better?


----------



## jollyjacktar (19 Aug 2017)

Altair said:
			
		

> https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2017-07-28/alberta-tops-b-c-to-reclaim-lead-in-canadian-growth-survey
> 
> https://www.google.ca/amp/nationalpost.com/news/canada/from-the-doghouse-to-a-powerhouse-quebecs-economy-has-rebounded/wcm/2309f155-c7d5-4617-b95a-d359f227bafe/amp
> Seems alright to me.



Really?  The folks I know in the resource industry might have another opinion.  As might some of the other resource provinces.  There's more than just one.  And there's still the Maritimes.


----------



## jmt18325 (19 Aug 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Really?  The folks I know in the resource industry might have another opinion.  As might some of the other resource provinces.  There's more than just one.  And there's still the Maritimes.



Good for them - overall, growth is higher than at any other time since the year 2000.


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Aug 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Really?  The folks I know in the resource industry might have another opinion.  As might some of the other resource provinces.  There's more than just one.  And there's still the Maritimes.



If it's true and accurate then that's pretty awesome. 

Between Clinton's chances of winning at 99% and our media fawning over the PM s selfies and staged photo ops infront of mathematical calculations I'm a bit slow to trust online articles.


----------



## Altair (19 Aug 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Really?  The folks I know in the resource industry might have another opinion.  As might some of the other resource provinces.  There's more than just one.  And there's still the Maritimes.


he's agreed to pipelines, and he cannot control the global price of oil.

Despite that, Alberta looks like they will be rebounding shortly.

As for the Maritimes, they gave been a economic basket case for what, the last 5 prime ministers?

Tall order to ask trudeau to personally fix those two issues.

As for the Canadian economy on a whole, Ontario is doing decently, Quebec isn't a economic basket case and Albert a is looking like they will adjust to 50 dollar oil again and will once again lead Canada in growth.

Not bad.


----------



## jollyjacktar (19 Aug 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Good for them - overall, growth is higher than at any other time since the year 2000.



You forgot your sarcasm emogi.  Oh wait, you were serious.  

For the folks I know,  things are not good.  The job prospects I had in the patch are gone and not to return. Newfoundland is hurting, not booming anymore.  Not seeing really good times back home in NS either. 

Pipelines, yeah... I doubt it will come to anything.  You're correct, Altair, no blame can be laid on any PMs feet about the price of oil.  Most of the big projects in Alberta are gone, the leases returned and doubtful things will swing back that far again.

Basket case history or not, the Maritimes are hurting and your ooooh la la everythings fine under the sun in Canada isn't necessarily so for all.


----------



## kratz (19 Aug 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Good for them - overall, growth is higher than at any other time since the year 2000.




Before stating random general info, please provide company financials to back up your claims.

My investments know better.


----------



## jmt18325 (19 Aug 2017)

I don't really care about your investments.  Real GDP grew at an annualized figure of 4.6% last quarter.  I'm serious, because that's the truth.  You guys can make up scenarios all you want - it doesn't change that reality.

It also doesn't change the reality for the people crossing the border illegally.  They're not here because of any Trudeau tweet.  They're here because of someone else whose name happens to start with a T.


----------



## George Wallace (19 Aug 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> .....  They're not here because of any Trudeau tweet.  They're here because of someone else whose name happens to start with a T.



If you don't think that they are here because of Trudeau's tweets and statements, you are plain outright foolish.  It doesn't matter what they may think the President of the US may do; it is what our Prime Minister has already done....OPEN THE GATES to one and all.  If you can't understand that half of the equation, then I can only shake my head in disbelief.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Aug 2017)

They are here because they can get into Canada right now easier than I can with a green passport.  Not because of Trump, only because we aren't stopping them from coming in.  I can't blame the neighbor for his dog being in my backyard if I left my gate open.  That the dog was running around is a separate issue, but the reason it ended up in my yard is my issue.


----------



## Remius (19 Aug 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Not seeing really good times back home in NS either.



Sidebar.  They are going to open a new coal mine.  Nothing major but jobs are jobs.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/donkin-coal-mine-cape-breton-1.4003452


----------



## jollyjacktar (19 Aug 2017)

Sure, and IKEA has hired for their new store at Dartmouth Crossing too.  Why don't we throw in the Bluenose is finally sailing too while we're at it.  That's meant a job or two too, no doubt.  (which might  help offset the end of millions spent on that white elephant)...


----------



## jmt18325 (19 Aug 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> If you don't think that they are here because of Trudeau's tweets and statements, you are plain outright foolish.  It doesn't matter what they may think the President of the US may do; it is what our Prime Minister has already done....OPEN THE GATES to one and all.  If you can't understand that half of the equation, then I can only shake my head in disbelief.



No rules have been changed.  Nothing about the way this is or would have been handled has changed.


----------



## jmt18325 (19 Aug 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> They are here because they can get into Canada right now easier than I can with a green passport.



The only people who can stop that are the Americans on their side of the border.  There's nothing we can do to stop them from illegally crossing, other than arresting them upon entry, which we already are.


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Aug 2017)

We could build a wall...


----------



## jmt18325 (19 Aug 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> We could build a wall...



That is the only other solution - a solution, given the costs of the wall on the southern US border, that would run into the hundreds of billions.  I'd just rather hire more cops and immigration investigators and get these people sorted more quickly.


----------



## Altair (19 Aug 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> That is the only other solution - a solution, given the costs of the wall on the southern US border, that would run into the hundreds of billions.  I'd just rather hire more cops and immigration investigators and get these people sorted more quickly.


yup.

Bring them in, arrest them, let them go, sort them out, send half of them to Haiti.

Hire more staff if needed to speed the process up.


----------



## Harris (20 Aug 2017)

Send all of them back to Haiti.  Then tell them to get in line like everybody else if they want to return.


----------



## Haggis (20 Aug 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> We could build a wall...



We should build it out of snow and ice so it'll be a seasonal work project.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (20 Aug 2017)

Haggis said:
			
		

> We should build it out of snow and ice so it'll be a seasonal work project.



Then, the workers can go on poggy between seasons.  The perfect Canadian project.  ;D


----------



## jmt18325 (20 Aug 2017)

Harris said:
			
		

> Send all of them back to Haiti.  Then tell them to get in line like everybody else if they want to return.



Doesn't work that way.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Aug 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> The only people who can stop that are the Americans on their side of the border.  There's nothing we can do to stop them from illegally crossing, other than arresting them upon entry, which we already are.



Are you serious?  Seriously; are you serious?

Why would the Americans stop people (not American citizens) from leaving the US?

What can we do to stop illegal crossings?  Do just that.....MAKE IT ILLEGAL and arrest them.  There is no reason for them to be fleeing either the US or Haiti other than ECONOMIC.  That does not qualify them as refugees.....That makes them Economic Migrants.


----------



## Good2Golf (20 Aug 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> No rules have been changed.  Nothing about the way this is or would have been handled has changed.



There you go with your hyperbole again.  Nothing?  Really?







I don't recall as a small child seeing RCMP with tents processing refugees along the US-Canada border at points other than official border crossing sites.


----------



## jmt18325 (20 Aug 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> What can we do to stop illegal crossings?  Do just that.....MAKE IT ILLEGAL and arrest them.



Uhh, what do you think happens now?  That's exactly what happens.



			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> There you go with your hyperbole again.  Nothing?  Really?



What has changed is the President.  When Obama and Trudeau were occupying office at the same time, you didn't see this.  

Nothing in the Canadian government response thus far would be different is Harper were still in office, other than rhetoric.  They cross the border, and we have to deal with it in the proper legal way.  That's what's being done right now.


----------



## Ludoc (20 Aug 2017)

Haggis said:
			
		

> We should build it out of snow and ice so it'll be a seasonal work project.


But then we will have to switch to all black uniforms...


----------



## EpicBeardedMan (20 Aug 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Uhh, what do you think happens now?  That's exactly what happens.
> 
> What has changed is the President.  When Obama and Trudeau were occupying office at the same time, you didn't see this.
> 
> Nothing in the Canadian government response thus far would be different is Harper were still in office, other than rhetoric.  They cross the border, and we have to deal with it in the proper legal way.  That's what's being done right now.



Harper also wouldn't have said that, quite literally, everyone was welcome to come into Canada...so there's that.


----------



## jmt18325 (20 Aug 2017)

EpicBeardedMan said:
			
		

> Harper also wouldn't have said that, quite literally, everyone was welcome to come into Canada...so there's that.



Everyone is welcome - some conditions may apply.


----------



## Altair (20 Aug 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Are you serious?  Seriously; are you serious?
> 
> Why would the Americans stop people (not American citizens) from leaving the US?
> 
> What can we do to stop illegal crossings?  Do just that.....MAKE IT ILLEGAL and arrest them.  There is no reason for them to be fleeing either the US or Haiti other than ECONOMIC.  That does not qualify them as refugees.....That makes them Economic Migrants.


they are arrested.

They are then released and get due process like any lawbreakers.

A lot of them will be sent back to Haiti, but those with legitimate claims will be allowed to stay as that's how it works under international law.


----------



## Kat Stevens (20 Aug 2017)

Altair said:
			
		

> they are arrested.
> 
> They are then released and get due process like any lawbreakers.
> 
> A lot of them will be sent back to Haiti, but those with legitimate claims will be allowed to stay as that's how it works under international law.



And a lot of them will disappear into the Haitian community, never to be seen again.


----------



## Good2Golf (20 Aug 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



...other than the new greeting "arrest" centres set up along the border.

Nice redirect, as always.  Throw out a hyperbolic statement, then redirect when you are challenged on the hyperbole.  For others that's wrong, but for you it's okay?

Things have significantly changed, including how the Canadian Government handles the situation.

Did Trump set up this border stations and man them with RCMP? Perhaps in your world, but not in most's minds.

Regards,
G2G


----------



## Altair (20 Aug 2017)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> And a lot of them will disappear into the Haitian community, never to be seen again.


and you can offer proof of this happening?


----------



## George Wallace (20 Aug 2017)

Altair said:
			
		

> and you can offer proof of this happening?



I seriously don't know why you asked this question.  It is a known fact, published in the MSM many times over the last few decades, of such instances taking place with not just Haitians, but all such "refugee claimants".   If you need to ask this question, it sounds more like you are trolling than actually contributing.


----------



## kratz (20 Aug 2017)

Asking for specific sources is valid.


----------



## Remius (20 Aug 2017)

kratz said:
			
		

> Asking for specific sources is valid.



Agreed.

Not specific to Haitians but...

http://cnews.canoe.com/CNEWS/Canada/2017/03/18/22711503.html


----------



## Haggis (20 Aug 2017)

Remius said:
			
		

> Agreed.
> 
> Not specific to Haitians but...
> 
> http://cnews.canoe.com/CNEWS/Canada/2017/03/18/22711503.html



The enforcement system breaks down when provincial and municipal police forces follow the lead of the TPS and don't ask about a person's immigration status during interactions, when warranted by reasonable and probable grounds.  What this does is then leave the identification and apprehension of persons with immigration warrants solely in the hands of the CBSA, an agency that doesn't patrol urban Canada and focuses it's resources, by necessity, on the periphery (i.e the border) of Canada.  This leads to a situation where the vast number of those with immigration warrant go undetected unless involved in another crime where their status as "wanted" is then discovered during the investigation.


----------



## ModlrMike (21 Aug 2017)

Maybe it's time for a Canadian version of I.C.E?


----------



## jmt18325 (21 Aug 2017)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Did Trump set up this border stations and man them with RCMP? Perhaps in your world, but not in most's minds.



Do you think that Harper wouldn't have had the RCMP at the border to meet the illegal crossers?  There's no alternative, other than letting them cross unopposed.  Nothing would have been different under Harper (aside from language) and I stick by that assertion.


----------



## jmt18325 (21 Aug 2017)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Maybe it's time for a Canadian version of I.C.E?



We have that - it's called the RCMP.


----------



## kratz (21 Aug 2017)

It's interesting reading up on the immigration process:

CBSA: Arrests, detentions and removals -  Removal from Canada

Government of Canada: Enforcement and violations

Government of Canada: Refugees and asylum

Government of Canada: Find out if you’re eligible – Refugee status from inside Canada



> [/Your refugee claim may not be eligible to be referred to the IRB if you:
> •have been recognized as a Convention refugee by another country that you can return to.
> •have already been granted protected person status in Canada.
> *•arrived via the Canada-United States border.*
> ...


----------



## ModlrMike (21 Aug 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> We have that - it's called the RCMP.



The RCMP have a specific immigration control mandate? Someone should tell them they're operating outside their arcs.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Aug 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> The only people who can stop that are the Americans on their side of the border.  There's nothing we can do to stop them from illegally crossing, other than arresting them upon entry, which we already are.



Maybe I am ignorant of laws on this, but how can the Americans stop them from leaving?  If I try to cross the border at Houlton from Woodstock (which I have), the only thing really stopping me is the US Border folks...I am trying to get into the US, not out of Canada.  If the US doesn't let me in...guess what?  I don't get in!  Seems pretty simple to me.

There is nothing we can do to stop them from illegally entering Canada...what?  What do we have CBSA for then?  We stop them at the border crossing and process them like they do at airports, etc.  They turn people away who can't enter Canada for various reasons.  So unless I am missing something, we (Canada) are knowingly letting people enter our country, illegally, from the US.   ???


----------



## kratz (21 Aug 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> There is nothing we can do to stop them from illegally entering Canada...what?  *What do we have CBSA for then? * We stop them at the border crossing and process them like they do at airports, etc.  They turn people away who can't enter Canada for various reasons.  So unless I am missing something, we (Canada) are knowingly letting people enter our country, illegally, from the US.   ???





This quote provides an answer to one of your questions: 



> [/What happens once they cross?
> 
> The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) is in charge of enforcing Canadian legislation at designated ports of entry, while the RCMP are responsible for enforcing the law between ports of entry.
> 
> ...


----------



## Rifleman62 (21 Aug 2017)

Returning to Canada around 2006/7 or so, we were stopped by a Homeland Security patrol car about 200 meters South of the border. They asked questions, looked in the trunk and the rest of the vehicle. Not really a search. Also a Homeland Security helicopter was flying North along I-29. Shortly after we were stopped.

I think the US could stop the flow, but they don't want to. In a way it resolves some of their problems and dumps it on Canada.


----------



## jmt18325 (21 Aug 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Maybe I am ignorant of laws on this, but how can the Americans stop them from leaving?  If I try to cross the border at Houlton from Woodstock (which I have), the only thing really stopping me is the US Border folks...I am trying to get into the US, not out of Canada.  If the US doesn't let me in...guess what?  I don't get in!  Seems pretty simple to me.



The US has border zones set up within ~80 miles of their border.  They can stop you entering or leaving, and detain you.

The US couldn't do any more to stop you from entering illegally than Canada has done.  They would arrest you on entry, and return you to Canada.  The people entering illegally in the cases we're talking about don't usually have any legal status in the US.  We can't simply turn them around because of that.  The Americans don't want them and won't take them.



> There is nothing we can do to stop them from illegally entering Canada...what?



We can't enforce Canadian law on the US side of the border, and we can't turn them around as the US won't take them back - they aren't Americans.  We can arrest and deport them, unless of course they request asylum.  As the Safe Third Country Agreement doesn't apply here, we have to process and have no grounds to refuse.



> What do we have CBSA for then?



The CBSA work only at official border crossings. The RCMP do their part (advise, warn, and arrest) and then hand them over the CBSA for immigration processing.  At those crossings they can deny entry to Americans or hold people from other countries for return to the US (if they'll take them - the US took one of the people found with child porn and charged him, as it was at an official border crossing and they decided to take him).  If the US won't take them back, we can deport them to their country of origin (if it is deemed a safe country), or have them enter our court system by charging them.

It's not as simple as so many people want to believe.



			
				Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> I think the US could stop the flow, but they don't want to. In a way it resolves some of their problems and dumps it on Canada.



Exactly - all of the people are being searched by the US before illegally crossing.  They're happy to let them leave.  

There are a few people, according to the articles, that have turned around after being told by the RCMP that what they're doing is illegal.


----------



## jmt18325 (21 Aug 2017)

Just in from the Immigration Minister and Public Safety Minister (live right now) - they have added 20 Refugee officers to Montreal this week, and will add 10 more next week.  They will also add a team to Cornwall.  The current backlog is 5 months for processing, but it should come down with these changes.  They have instructed consular officials in the US to dispel myths about the refugee process in Canada.  Those found ineligible for refugee status will be removed, and people are being told that.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Aug 2017)

kratz said:
			
		

> It's interesting reading up on the immigration process:
> 
> CBSA: Arrests, detentions and removals -  Removal from Canada
> 
> ...


----------



## jmt18325 (21 Aug 2017)

Repeating the same false points doesn't make them correct.  They are not claiming asylum via the Canada US border.  That is only true if they arrive at the actual border point.  Read the Safe Third Country Agreement.

Once they illegally cross, they are arrested - inside of Canada.  At that point, their claim must be processed.


----------



## jmt18325 (21 Aug 2017)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> The RCMP have a specific immigration control mandate? Someone should tell them they're operating outside their arcs.



I missed this one - the RCMP is responsible for the security of the Canadian border.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Aug 2017)

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> It’s time we really took a look at Trudeau’s political philosophy
> By Anthony Furey, Postmedia Network
> First posted: Monday, August 21, 2017 03:30 PM EDT | Updated: Monday, August 21, 2017 03:49 PM EDT
> 
> ...



Remember:  Canada was well ahead of Trump when it declared 4 Aug 2016 was the last date that Haitian refugees could declare Residency in Canada or be deported.

Tweets and more on LINK.


----------



## Loachman (22 Aug 2017)

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/450712/justin-trudeau-illegal-refugee-crackdown

Trudeau Cracks Down on Illegal Immigration

by Philip H. DeVoe August 22, 2017 4:42 PM

After reminding the world that Canada is “a country of laws,” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced the nation will no longer be ignoring refugees who enter the country illegally. Faced with a rash of border crossings from the U.S. and growing criticism of his quixotic approach to border control, Trudeau’s decision marks a major turning-point from his campaign.

Evidently, Trudeau is recognizing what any head of state who campaigns for radically loose immigration policies must at some point: Opening borders poses serious problems, both practical and political. Angela Merkel is facing pressure to accept an upper limit of refugees in Germany, and many see Britain’s exit from the European Union as a rebellion against the EU’s more liberal refugee policy.

Canada’s refugee problem has grown exponentially in the past few months. In all of 2015, only 2,900 crossed over the U.S. border into Quebec illegally. Since July 1 of this year, that number has reached 6,800. Over half of those account for the first two weeks of August alone. A large number of these have fled the U.S. in fear of Donald Trump’s aggressive stance on illegal immigration and his proposal to make legal immigration a more exclusive process. Trudeau has not been vague on social media in his criticism of Trump’s border control policies, tweeting in January that Canada welcomes all, because “diversity is our strength.”

Enforcement is enforcement, however, and no progressive message of inclusion could save Trudeau from having to uphold his country’s laws. He informed the refugees on Sunday that they would be expected to go through the country’s “rigorous” screening process, reminding them that illegal crossing doesn’t allow them to circumvent existing laws.

This shouldn’t surprise. Canada’s process is one of the most rigorous in the world. Refugees aside, those who wish to immigrate to Canada must contend with a merit-based system similar to the one Trump proposed earlier this month. Skilled labor, points for French- and English-language proficiency, and high levels of education are all pre-requisites. As Trudeau is discovering, tone does not an immigration policy make.


----------



## ModlrMike (23 Aug 2017)

Yet strangely anyone else who expressed the same sentiments was suddenly a racist.


----------



## jmt18325 (23 Aug 2017)

That article was pretty slanted.  Nothing has changed, other than language.  That changed due to public perception.  Canada is just as open (and closed) as it was a few hours ago.


----------



## Good2Golf (23 Aug 2017)

...other than setting up RCMP greeting centres along the border where there are aren't any official border crossing stations manned by CBSA officers...


----------



## brihard (23 Aug 2017)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ...other than setting up RCMP greeting centres along the border where there are aren't any official border crossing stations manned by CBSA officers...



Said 'greeting centres' are where every person crossing illegally is arrested, given their charter rights, and subjected to an interview for a number of purposes related to our national security and public safety, and the integrity of our immigration system. Short of summarily shooting them when they cross the border, I don't know what else you propose. Canada is constrained by its laws, and the law in this case dictates that illegal entrants will be arrested and detained. The fact that it has become necessary to do so wholesale and with the aid of some infrastructure does not change the law on the matter. I'm not sure what different approach you would suggest RCMP and CBSA take? We as a country have no right to turn around and dump them back in the U.S. without American permission- and they would just come right back anyway.


----------



## jmt18325 (23 Aug 2017)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Said 'greeting centres' are where every person crossing illegally is arrested, given their charter rights, and subjected to an interview for a number of purposes related to our national security and public safety, and the integrity of our immigration system. Short of summarily shooting them when they cross the border, I don't know what else you propose. Canada is constrained by its laws, and the law in this case dictates that illegal entrants will be arrested and detained. The fact that it has become necessary to do so wholesale and with the aid of some infrastructure does not change the law on the matter. I'm not sure what different approach you would suggest RCMP and CBSA take? We as a country have no right to turn around and dump them back in the U.S. without American permission- and they would just come right back anyway.



Exactly - we can not ignore our own laws and the agreed upon norms and laws of the international community just because we happen to not like a situation.  This situation is going on around the world right now (largest mass migration since WWII) orders of magnitude higher.


----------



## GAP (23 Aug 2017)

But we can make a big unapologetic deal of deporting a good chunk of them back to Haiti. 

That, more than anything else will send a vibrant loud message that you are just speeding up your deportation to Haiti if you come to Canada


----------



## brihard (23 Aug 2017)

If that is what due process dictates be done, then yes we can. But that due process has to be allowed to happen. That's what upholding the rule of law in a democratic nation means. We don't get to always like the short term result.


----------



## Kat Stevens (23 Aug 2017)

Rule of law? They have unlawfully entered the country at an unlawful border crossing from a lawfully safe country. Straight on to bluebird busses, straight to the airport, and straight back home.


----------



## jmt18325 (23 Aug 2017)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Rule of law? They have unlawfully entered the country at an unlawful border crossing from a lawfully safe country. Straight on to bluebird busses, straight to the airport, and straight back home.



That's not what Canadian Law states, that's not what the Safe Third Country Agreement states, and that's not what international law states.


----------



## Good2Golf (23 Aug 2017)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Said 'greeting centres' are where every person crossing illegally is arrested, given their charter rights, and subjected to an interview for a number of purposes related to our national security and public safety, and the integrity of our immigration system. Short of summarily shooting them when they cross the border, I don't know what else you propose. Canada is constrained by its laws, and the law in this case dictates that illegal entrants will be arrested and detained. The fact that it has become necessary to do so wholesale and with the aid of some infrastructure does not change the law on the matter. I'm not sure what different approach you would suggest RCMP and CBSA take? We as a country have no right to turn around and dump them back in the U.S. without American permission- and they would just come right back anyway.



Brihard, absolutely no issue at all with the RCMP conducting the processing of illegal entrants who have chosen to not enter legally at a CBSA-controlled border crossing point-of-entry -- in fact, the opposite, they are conducting their duties aptly, I would say.  That said, and from a level higher than the black-shirts, it appears that the establishment of significant semi-permanent presences by the RCMP messages, at the very least to the illegal entrants, implies a level of acceptability to their crossing.  That and "less than emphatic" Government messaging about illegality of the crossing shouldn't make the numbers of crossings come as any real surprise.

Regards
G2G


----------



## jmt18325 (23 Aug 2017)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> That and "less than emphatic" Government messaging about illegality of the crossing shouldn't make the numbers of crossings come as any real surprise.



Trudeau has repeatedly said that it's illegal.  Hussen and Goodale have gone further.  They're even putting out messages from MPs and diplomatic staff in Creole to make it clear.  This is a problem of US creation.  They could stop it, if they wanted to.


----------



## MARS (23 Aug 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Trudeau has repeatedly said that it's illegal.  Hussen and Goodale have gone further.  They're even putting out messages from MPs and diplomatic staff in Creole to make it clear.  This is a problem of US creation.  They could stop it, if they wanted to.



An opinion piece about how the PM could step up even a little bit more in his messaging, in the same vein that he made his 'always a place' message

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/myth-refugees-canada-trudeau-1.4257696


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Aug 2017)

[quote author=jmt18325]This is a problem of US creation.  
[/quote]



> "Regardless of who you are or where you come from, there’s always a place for you in Canada."



Seems like a pretty straight forward invitation.


----------



## jmt18325 (23 Aug 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Seems like a pretty straight forward invitation.



Yes, in fairness, he should have worded that better, and I'm sure that plays into it a bit.  He was attempting to contrast himself and Trump.  Maybe it's best not to do that in 140 characters.  Everyone is welcome, with a great many caveats.


----------



## Good2Golf (23 Aug 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Yes, in fairness, he should have worded that better, and I'm sure that plays into it a bit.  He was attempting to contrast himself and Trump.  Maybe it's best not to do that in 140 characters.  Everyone is welcome, with a great many caveats.



Ah, the "unspoken, yet clearly understood by all" type of statement.  Got it.


----------



## MARS (23 Aug 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> He was attempting to contrast himself and Trump.



I agree that was his likely intent, however he ended up pulling a move right out of Mr. Trump's playbook: by design, he made a vastly oversimplified pronouncement on a complicated policy issue.  The actual facts and details of the issue would have just tarnished the whole announcement.



			
				jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Maybe it's best not to do that in 140 characters.



Maybe not, but the LPC are geniuses at messaging.  It was no accident to use Twitter - and really only twitter, for this, I think


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Aug 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> He was attempting to contrast himself and Trump.


Just like the CAFs lame "transgendered soldiers welcome!" tweet after Trumps update on the US Military.



Even_ everyone, with caveats _doesn't really jive IMO. But I understand what you're saying.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (23 Aug 2017)

Well, he is just as daft in more than 140 characters.

I just watched his press conference Held in Montreal and dealing specifically with the illegal entry crisis.

First, you wouldn't know there is a crisis by listening to him, it's more like: "Oh! We are experiencing a greater than anticipated number of immigration claims, but fear not Canadians, our processes and legal standards will be respected and in the mean time we will do everything to make those people making a claim comfortable, even get them early work permits so they can stop depending on the rest of us."

Second: His very first line in his very first statement - which he repeated in no less than three other statements or answers: "Canada is an *open* and *welcoming* country. Canadians hold this as value because we are secure and confident in our immigration rules and standards and trust that the system works." To paraphrase the rest: We, the multi-government work group are working hard to make the situation as easy and quick as possible and are confident that the rules and standards for immigration in place will be fully respected, as we are a country of rule of law. 

Well, here's my problem: We don't have an immigration problem, we have an illegal entry into Canada problem. That's what Canadians want the PM to "get" and proceed on.

We live by the rule of law? Fine. The legal process to immigrate to Canada starts with an application to that effect made at a Canadian embassy or consulate in the country of the immigrant. It is not started at a border crossing and even less after crossing illegally outside of ports of entry. BTW, an actual Canadian who would enter back into Canada somewhere else than at a port of entry would be not only arrested, but detained in jail, brought to a judge to decide if release pending trial is appropriate and, upon being found guilty, sentenced to either a fine or jail time. Why not the same for all these illegal border crosser?

Also, it is important to distinguish Refugees and Asylum seekers. Refugees are fleeing a general situation without specific application to them personally: they flee a war zone or a devastated region or  famine area, etc. There is no famine or war in the US. Some of the illegals (I'll call them that from now on) are refugees from the devastation of the Haiti earthquake, but they have already been dealt with on that basis by a safe country under international law, the USA, who is from then on responsible for them until the devastation is overcome. This removes them from the ranks of refugees under said international law and they cannot make any further claim of refugee status in another country. Canada currently considers that there is no situation in Haiti that requires granting refugee status to its citizens.

The second category is Asylum seekers. People can seek asylum if there are circumstances specific to them personally that forces them to "escape" from their country for personal security reasons, such as receipt of death threats or being the object of persecution on various political, human rights or religious grounds. It does not apply to someone merely facing prosecution for commission of a crime in a country that otherwise recognizes the rule of law and provides the fundamental legal protections to all accused. The USA is one such country. In international law, asylum seekers should normally claim asylum in the first safe country they enter. If they do not do so, they can make their claim in another country. But no claim can be made anywhere AFTER a first such claim has been made in a safe country , wether it has been accepted or rejected.  International law does not recognize the shopping of asylum venue. Asylum seeking is the matter that is the object of the current Agreement between Canada and the US. Basically, you will not be let in at a border crossing if you seek entry to Canada as asylum seeker from the US.

So three possibilities exist when these Illegals come into Canada: (1) They wish to immigrate here, and don't claim asylum or refugee status: It's illegal, you are jumping queue, return them to either the US or, if the US won't have them, to their country of origin (this is whereto CAF can help: bus them to Saint-Hubert, stick them in the back of a Herky-bird and fly them home). (2) They claim refugee status: They came from the US and if they have papers from the US they are to be returned there immediately, otherwise, just by knowing where they are from (such as Haiti), the border personnel knows immediately if we recognize any such status or not - most likely not and again turn them back immediately. (3) they make an asylum protection demand: These are the only ones to be further investigated, really, but even then, an immediate check can and should be made with US authorities to see if they have ever made such claim while in the USA. If so, it's an immediate rejection here in Canada and, well by now you know what I think should be done. 

All in all, everything exists for quick, legal and fair processing of this influx with the result that Canadians know to be the right one here: the rejection of the majority of these illegal entry seekers. By treating this as an immigration abnormal influx, the PM and his government, which claims that we are a country that follows the rule of law, is actually telling Canadians, and foreigners seeking the right to immigrate here legally ( and who will now have to await extra months if not years of delay in the processing of their claim because of these queue jumpers) that actually, we don't care, just get here any way you want and screw the law.


----------



## George Wallace (23 Aug 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Well, he is just as daft in more than 140 characters.
> 
> I just watched his press conference Held in Montreal and dealing specifically with the illegal entry crisis.
> 
> ...



This is so much more than a  :goodpost:.......An excellent post.....Just to mention one thing; I doubt many, if any, qualify for asylum.

The Liberal Baffle Gabble calling them "Irregular Entries" is such a stupid statement to try to make these "illegal entries" look less illegal and fools nobody.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Aug 2017)

Meanwhile the "Government Operation Centre" is making a request for employees to fulfill a "Surge Capacity" through short term assignments and be prepared to work long shifts for 2 weeks in the administrative, operations, communications, and policy fields.


----------



## Good2Golf (24 Aug 2017)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Meanwhile the "Government Operation Centre" is making a request for employees to fulfill a "Surge Capacity" through short term assignments and be prepared to work long shifts for 2 weeks in the administrative, operations, communications, and policy fields.



Does it promise to concurrently raise the priority of any volunteer's Phoenix trouble tickets?


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Aug 2017)

Time for some nuance & juggling ...


> *Trudeau Government Worried Asylum Seeker Influx Could Hurt 2019 Election Chances: Sources*
> _The Liberals are concerned about losing popularity in Quebec._
> 08/25/2017 10:50 EDT | Updated 54 minutes ago | David Ljunggren
> 
> ...


*More @ link*


----------



## ModlrMike (25 Aug 2017)

As if that wasn't blindingly obvious!  :facepalm:

While we're right to worry about the 50,000+ Haitians, there are about 265,000 El Salvadoran and Honduran[1] folks who's TPS status is in jeopardy. Don't think for a moment they won't be looking northwards.

[1] Temporary Protected Status


----------



## brihard (27 Aug 2017)

It's a mess. Nearly all of the asylum seekers are attempting to enter at a single illegal point of entry in Quebec, about five minutes from the legal border crossing at Champlain NY / Blackpool, Qc. Numbers are down from the start of the month, but still averaging between 50 and 100 a day.

Haitians remain the plurality, maybe a majority. Not sure on hard numbers. They are far from it though- people are trying to enter from all kinds of different countries. The majority have been in the US for quite some time (years), some have US born children, and many have been legally working in the US for years and have been trying to get asylum there. The cessation of Temporary Protected Status for certain nationalities, particularly the Haitians, is a big part of it, but word has spread- recently they've seen Turks, Egyptians, Nigerians, Syrians, all kinds of other countries.

A lot of them are being fed bullshit or are believing rumors. Many don't realize that it's actually an illegal way to enter and that the presence of police at the little bridge across the stream doesn't make it a legit border station. Some turn back when told this, or when told that if they are deemed ineligbile for asylum, they don't get deported to the US, but back to their country of origin. Most hear these facts at the border, and cross anyway. They are immediately arrested and processed through police and border services. They're treated respectfully and even kindly in most instances, but it's made bloody clear that this manner of entry is criminal and that that may count against them for asylum.

However, with the Safe Third Country agreement in place, it ain't gonna change. I'm worried about the 260,000 El Salvadorans who may lose TPS status soon.

Not all have been in the States for long. Increasingly now that word is getting out, Haitians in particular are flying right into the US, they are being allowed into the country by US authorities once they say their final destination is Canada, and they're hopping planes, trains, and busses to New York and then cabbing it to the illegal entry point. American border officers are letting them enter the country uncontrolled based on their word that they're continuing onward to Canada.

The military has a couple of, for lack of better term, refugee camps ready. Red cross is sitting there ready to go. Thus far they've been processed through and onwards (to I'm not sure what) fast enough that these have seen minimal use; that could easily change.

Typically an asylum claim would be heard essentially immediately, before the person is released. The delay, anecdotally, is now 9-10 months. The matter is being 'adjourned', and those claiming asylum are being released into Canada with some modest support from some agencies, on the hope that they attend their hearing most of a year hence. If they fail to do so, a Canada-wide immigration warrant will go out for them, and if police later run them for any purpose (traffic stop, disturbance, criminal record check for employment or volunteering, whatever), that will come up and they will be arrested and held until the matter is done with.

I don't know the monthly throughput capacity for the Immigration and Refugee Board. I imagine the queue is going to continue to get longer indefinitely. It's a mess, and the organization that has had to assemble at the border is very ad hoc and based on whatever resources various agencies (particularly RCMP and CBSA) can spare at any given point in time from across the country. Law enforcement has the people it needs at the border, but they're rotating in and out so quickly that making a smooth process of it is tough... And it's complicating 'normal' border stuff like detecting and countering smugglers and other illegal entrants who have no intention of getting picked up and doing the asylum thing.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 Aug 2017)

Fucking gong show is what it is.  A fucking gong show.  The fact we arrest then release these people hoping they show up for their hearing shows just how fucking stupid and weak-spined we have become as a country.


----------



## ModlrMike (28 Aug 2017)

We need a big ass sign at the border:

"Crossing at this point is illegal. Committing an illegal act upon entry invalidates any refugee claim. Have a nice day."


----------



## jmt18325 (28 Aug 2017)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> We need a big *** sign at the border:
> 
> "Crossing at this point is illegal. Committing an illegal act upon entry invalidates any refugee claim. Have a nice day."



Crossing a border to claim refugee status is legal under international law.  We're signatories to said law.


----------



## brihard (28 Aug 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Crossing a border to claim refugee status is legal under international law.  We're signatories to said law.



No, crossing other than at a Port of entry is illegal under S. 11 of the Customs Act, and that's what they're being arrested for. We are also signatories to the Safe Third Country agreement, which makes those crossing at a Port of entry from the US ineligible for asylum claims in Canada.

When they arrive they are told to stop and not to cross. They are told doing so is illegal, a criminal offense, and will be treated as such. No sign is going to add much to this, as they are told this by RCMP officers.

There is nothing legal about the manner in which they are entering Canada, and you appear uninformed about the applicable laws and treaties. Most of those entering illegally will not be given asylum status, and will eventually be deported. This is a situation where you are much more likely to learn yourself then you are to educate others, but that's going to mean you need to listen to those of us with an better grasp of the situation than you have.


----------



## brihard (28 Aug 2017)

A corollary to my other comments: the US has ceased accepting asylum claims in many instances, so a situation some people are in is that they have perfectly legitimate grounds for asylum/refugee status, but the US won't entertain the application. Some of these people are trickling north as well. If they attempt legal entry at a legal border crossing, we will also not accept an asylum claim, because they are entering from a safe third country- BUT, that safe third country is one that won't let them apply either; the presumption that they claim asylum in the first safe country they enter is one of the underlying predicates of the safe third country agreement. So these individuals are entering illegally, as that at least allows them to file an asylum claim in Canada notwithstanding that they have previously been in the United States. Conversely, if they show up at a legal Can/US Port of entry, no matter how legitimate their claim is, Canada will not even entertain it, they will be recorded as having attempted entry, and if they subsequently come in illegally and are arrested, it's basically an immediate do not pass go.

To be granted asylum, they will have to concretely show why their lives are in imminent danger if they go home. "My country is a festering hellhole" won't cut it... As I said, some will have very legitimate grounds and will get to stay. Most won't.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 Aug 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Crossing a border to claim refugee status is legal under international law.  We're signatories to said law.



This is a good time to study before you spew.....


----------



## jmt18325 (28 Aug 2017)

Brihard said:
			
		

> No, crossing other than at a Port of entry is illegal under S. 11 of the Customs Act, and that's what they're being arrested for. We are also signatories to the Safe Third Country agreement, which makes those crossing at a Port of entry from the US ineligible for asylum claims in Canada.
> 
> When they arrive they are told to stop and not to cross. They are told doing so is illegal, a criminal offense, and will be treated as such. No sign is going to add much to this, as they are told this by RCMP officers.
> 
> There is nothing legal about the manner in which they are entering Canada, and you appear uninformed about the applicable laws and treaties. Most of those entering illegally will not be given asylum status, and will eventually be deported. This is a situation where you are much more likely to learn yourself then you are to educate others, but that's going to mean you need to listen to those of us with an better grasp of the situation than you have.



Everything you say is true.  Except for the part that you're missing (I was missing said part too until recently - in fact, if you look back in this thread I've been saying the same things as you pretty much word for word).  There is a reason that the PM called them irregular crossers.  There is a reason that they're released and processed if they claim asylum and if they don't pose a security risk.

First, let us deal with the safe third country agreement.  Normally, such an arrangement would contravene the human rights convention, but, in this case it doesn't.  Canada requested it, and got the UN seal of approval.  Because the US system is considered just, and similar enough to ours, the UN considers it fair that Canada turn away refugees at legitimate border crossings with the US.  The US is also fine with that.  

We have to leave that aside, because it doesn't count with the situations we're referring to.  Once a person crosses the US Canada border they have broken the law.  That's why they're arrested, as you say. Once they claim refugee status, that changes.  At that point, how they got to Canada ceases to matter.  That's how this works.  They're in the country, and they are able to claim refugee status in the country.  If their claim is found to be unjustified, then their irregular crossing again becomes an illegal crossing.



			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> This is a good time to study before you spew.....



I may have done that.  If you would like to understand it yourself:

  Other rights contained in the 1951 Convention include:
• The right not to be expelled,
except under certain, strictly
defined conditions (Article 32);
• The right not to be punished for
illegal entry into the territory of a
contracting State (Article31);

http://www.unhcr.org/about-us/background/4ec262df9/1951-convention-relating-status-refugees-its-1967-protocol.html


----------



## SeaKingTacco (28 Aug 2017)

How is it, JMT, that you are never "wrong" about anything?


----------



## EpicBeardedMan (28 Aug 2017)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> How is it, JMT, that you are never "wrong" about anything?


 :rofl:


----------



## jmt18325 (28 Aug 2017)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> How is it, JMT, that you are never "wrong" about anything?



Do me a favour, and point out what I said that was wrong.


----------



## GAP (28 Aug 2017)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> How is it, JMT, that you are never "wrong" about anything?



 :rofl:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Aug 2017)

This is a real "Popcorn Moment" . Look at the fuss we are making about a few illegals crossing the border. To put it into context, if we had 1 million illegals living in Canada and 40,000 crossing the border every year we would be similar to what the US has dealt with for 2 generations.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (28 Aug 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Do me a favour, and point out what I said that was wrong.



Crossing a border at any place other than an approved entry point is a violation under S11 of the Customs Act.

That is pretty much the definition of "illegal".

You are welcome.


----------



## brihard (28 Aug 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Everything you say is true.  Except for the part that you're missing (I was missing said part too until recently - in fact, if you look back in this thread I've been saying the same things as you pretty much word for word).  There is a reason that the PM called them irregular crossers.  There is a reason that they're released and processed if they claim asylum and if they don't pose a security risk.
> 
> First, let us deal with the safe third country agreement.  Normally, such an arrangement would contravene the human rights convention, but, in this case it doesn't.  Canada requested it, and got the UN seal of approval.  Because the US system is considered just, and similar enough to ours, the UN considers it fair that Canada turn away refugees at legitimate border crossings with the US.  The US is also fine with that.
> 
> We have to leave that aside, because it doesn't count with the situations we're referring to.  Once a person crosses the US Canada border they have broken the law.  That's why they're arrested, as you say. Once they claim refugee status, that changes.  At that point, how they got to Canada ceases to matter.  That's how this works.  They're in the country, and they are able to claim refugee status in the country.  If their claim is found to be unjustified, then their irregular crossing again becomes an illegal crossing.



Being your doctor or mechanic must be truly awful. I feel like I finally understand the feminist concept of 'mansplaining'.

The illegal crossing is always an illegal crossing. However as a matter of _practice_, an illegal crossing followed by an asylum claim will not be prosecuted. It does not become temporarily a legal crossing when the claim goes in, and become illegal again when it was rejected. The state merely cares differently depending on the presence or absence of a claim. Under no circumstances do you get to just cross into a sovereign state and they don't get to do anything about it if they do choose. Canada has voluntarily agreed to abide by certain conventions, however we can still prosecute immigration and customs offences. Again, the arrests are under the Customs act for failure to cross at a customs office, and not under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The Prime Minister may apply whatever language he chooses to those entering the country illegally. His chosen terminology does not change the legal reality of the situation. They have committed an offense in entering, they are arrested and then processed through to CBSA for further processing, and their admissibility is then determined. All they do by crossing illegally is buy themselves some time in legal limbo and get consideration for asylum, but it will not make people admissible who otherwise aren't.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 Aug 2017)

And while they are in legal limbo those who decide to can disappear into the masses and won't or can't be actively pursued and only picked up if opportunity presents itself.  Or did I misunderstand your earlier post?


----------



## jmt18325 (28 Aug 2017)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Crossing a border at any place other than an approved entry point is a violation under S11 of the Customs Act.



Except when it's not.  Canada is a signatory to the UN Convention on Refugees.  



			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> Canada has voluntarily agreed to abide by certain conventions, however we can still prosecute immigration and customs offences. Again, the arrests are under the Customs act for failure to cross at a customs office, and not under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.



We can - if we choose to ignore/pull out of the convention.  I don't see that happening.  They cease to be illegal crossings when the person making the crossing claims asylum.

They are released, with charges put on hold when they claim asylum.


----------



## jmt18325 (28 Aug 2017)

But yes - under every other conceivable circumstance, crossing the border illegally is....illegal.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (28 Aug 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> But yes - under every other conceivable circumstance, crossing the border illegally is....illegal.



Good. You now agree that breaking a law is illegal.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Aug 2017)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Good. You now agree that breaking a law is illegal.




Well almost

_Black's Law Dictionary defines unlawful as not authorized by law, illegal. Illegal is defined as forbidden by law, unlawful. Semantically, there is a slight difference. It seems that something illegal is expressly proscribed by statute, and something unlawful is just not expressly authorized._


----------



## brihard (28 Aug 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Except when it's not.  Canada is a signatory to the UN Convention on Refugees.
> 
> We can - if we choose to ignore/pull out of the convention.  I don't see that happening.  They cease to be illegal crossings when the person making the crossing claims asylum.
> 
> They are released, with charges put on hold when they claim asylum.



Yeah, no, that's not how it works. The entry is still illegal, full stop. The UN convention on refugees does not negate the Customs Act. They are arrested under the Customs Act. An asylum claim changes their legal status in Canada, but it does not suddenly legalize the crossing.

Charges are not 'put on hold' when they claim asylum. Charges simply have not been laid. There are none to put on hold. Charges are not automatic. They are one possible result of an illegal entry, but that decision is made after initial processing has occurred. Understanding the nature of the crossing, police and border officials by practice are not charging at the illegal crossing points near St Jean.

Again, you would be better served to try to learn on this one, and not to try to preach to those who actually know the subject matter. You could even ask questions if you would like.


----------



## jmt18325 (28 Aug 2017)

I'll ask a question.  If their asylum claim is granted, will the charges for the illegal crossing go forward?

(This happens to be another of the areas that I actually do know the subject matter, unlike on actual military matters, btw)

They are being referred to by people in the legal profession as irregular crossers for a reason.  Those whose claim is found to be invalid are a different story.

If you wanted to convince me I was wrong, you could have went with the actual wording of Article 31 of the Convention.  It technically doesn't apply here, even if in practice it's usually applied as they're doing it now.


----------



## brihard (28 Aug 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I'll ask a question.  If their asylum claim is granted, will the charges for the illegal crossing go forward?
> 
> (This happens to be another of the areas that I actually do know the subject matter, unlike on actual military matters, btw)
> 
> They are being referred to by people in the legal profession as irregular crossers for a reason.  Those whose claim is found to be invalid are a different story.



No it will not. They are being referred to that way because people have their own political views on the matter; language has frequently been altered to suit various interests in the border issue. It does not change the law on the matter. It does not make crossing the border illegally not illegal. S.11 of the Customs Act is crystal clear on that.

Most of those crossing will not get to stay. Most do not have sufficient grounds for an asylum claim. Some are showing up already having attempted legal entry, being ruled inadmissible, and having an exclusion order.

Some will get to stay-  but very few of the Haitians, absent ministerial intervention. Those with a valid reason to fear for their lives may be accepted.

I understand that you believe you have a full appreciate of the situation, but you do not. It's very clear you're not actually working in any capacity connected to this issue or you would have a better idea of the reality on the ground. I am. I'm not googling this; this is all firsthand.


----------



## jmt18325 (28 Aug 2017)

Brihard said:
			
		

> No it will not. They are being referred to that way because people have their own political views on the matter; language has frequently been altered to suit various interests in the border issue. It does not change the law on the matter. It does not make crossing the border illegally not illegal. S.11 of the Customs Act is crystal clear on that.



You're correct of course, it's always technically illegal.  If they're found to have a legitimate claim, what they did to get here doesn't matter anymore, and the convention applies.  Until they're processed, the convention applies.  Irregular is a better word, IMO, until their claim is denied.



> Most of those crossing will not get to stay. Most do not have sufficient grounds for an asylum claim. Some are showing up already having attempted legal entry, being ruled inadmissible, and having an exclusion order.
> 
> Some will get to stay-  but very few of the Haitians, absent ministerial intervention. Those with a valid reason to fear for their lives may be accepted.




I believe you.  I hope we're able to put enough resources in to get things done somewhat timely.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 Aug 2017)

Just shut up please.  I want more info from someone who knows, not someone who thinks they know.


----------



## jmt18325 (28 Aug 2017)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Just shut up please.  I want more info from someone who knows, not someone who thinks they know.



Just a suggestion (then I'll 'shut up') - this isn't a good place to get info on this subject.  It was a good place to discuss it, until today.


----------



## brihard (29 Aug 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Just a suggestion (then I'll 'shut up') - this isn't a good place to get info on this subject.  It was a good place to discuss it, until today.



Why, what happened today other than someone directly involved in this at the border showing up? I'm as happy to answer questions for him as I am for you. I am not the be all end all expert, but I am on the ground working this, and certainly understand my legal authorities and the various factors in play here. If you think this is a useless place for the layperson to get info, you can only speak for yourself. While I may need to be circumspect and cautious in my input at times, for you to say this thread is no longer a good place for discussion suggests you regarded it as such only so long as you were the only one offering up perspective. I assure you, you are not the only educated person here, nor the only one with an academic understanding of the big picture. Some of us on this board simply happen to also bolster that with real world experience.

You come across as arrogant and insufferable in your insistence on expertise on this. Maybe find a role where you can actually spend some time at the border or with the subject population, or join and become trained and experienced in one of the involved agencies. 

There is a finite point beyond which one cannot any longer learn the real world from books. Sometimes to really know something takes doing things and learning from the experience of those you meet whilst doing those things.


----------



## jmt18325 (29 Aug 2017)

Look, the legal community is also split on this:

http://globalnews.ca/news/3299221/asylum-seekers-us-canada-border-laws/

It's not as clear cut as you're trying to make it out to be.


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Aug 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Just a suggestion (then I'll 'shut up') - this isn't a good place to get info on this subject.  It was a good place to discuss it, until today.



Police officers, border guards, military lawyers, military police, highly educated military officers (commissioned and non) with decades of experience. I'm confident with the level and quality of info here. 

Contrary to what you may feel JMT we're actually not here for your entertainment or to give you some sense of debating satisfaction. You've already stated arguing on the internet is a hobby of yours.  If you don't like it here you could always move on instead of lamenting about it and the cliché "last post" stuff.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (29 Aug 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Look, the legal community is also split on this:
> 
> http://globalnews.ca/news/3299221/asylum-seekers-us-canada-border-laws/
> 
> It's not as clear cut as you're trying to make it out to be.



So??  Some Americans beleave , and will quote for the media, that Mr. Trump is not  their  President.......doesn't make it so.


----------



## Haggis (29 Aug 2017)

JMT:  some references for you:

Asylum is defined as the protection granted by a nation to a person who cannot return to their home country for fear of prosecution.

Other than legitimate immigrants who follow the established process, persons arriving at the border fall into two categories under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA):

REFUGEE (IRPA Part II, s. 96): person who, by reason of a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion,
(a) is outside each of their countries of nationality and is unable or, by reason of that fear, unwilling to avail themself of the protection of each of those countries; or
(b) not having a country of nationality, is outside the country of their former habitual residence and is unable or, by reason of that fear, unwilling to return to that country.

PERSON IN NEED OF PROTECTION (IRPA Part II, s. 97(1): person in Canada whose removal to their country or countries of nationality or, if they do not have a country of nationality, their country of former habitual residence, would subject them *personally
*(a) to a danger, believed on substantial grounds to exist, of torture within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention Against Torture; or
(b) to a risk to their life or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if
(i) the person is unable or, because of that risk, unwilling to avail themself of the protection of that country,
(ii) the risk would be faced by the person in every part of that country and is not faced generally by other individuals in or from that country,
(iii) the risk is not inherent or incidental to lawful sanctions, unless imposed in disregard of accepted international standards, and
(iv) the risk is not caused by the inability of that country to provide adequate health or medical care.



			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> Most of those crossing will not get to stay. Most do not have sufficient grounds for an asylum claim. Some are showing up already having attempted legal entry, being ruled inadmissible, and having an exclusion order.



Brihard is correct and it's important to understand the onus is on the applicant to prove they require protection as outlined above.  If they have already been deemed inadmissible and nothing in their situation has changed regarding what they may face if repatriated to their country of citizenship, then they will still be inadmissible.  



			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> Some will get to stay-  but very few of the Haitians, absent ministerial intervention. Those with a valid reason to fear for their lives may be accepted.



Note, also, that there is a clear distinction between Refugee and Person in Need of Protection in that a Refugee is fleeing a generally unsafe situation and a Person in Need of Protection is fleeing an unsafe situation that applies to them specifically.


----------



## captloadie (29 Aug 2017)

So how will the government deal with this current situation? Having served in Haiti recently, I can see where the regulations posted by Haggis supports Brihard's determination that few of the Haitians crossing the border will meet the definition of refugees or Person's in need of protection. What I can't see is the government loading thousands of these individuals onto chartered aircraft and returning them to Port-au-Prince. Nor can I see gov't putting a whole lot of effort into tracking them down, once word gets out that that is might be the plan and they all scatter in the wind (my understanding is they currently are not being "detained" in any form and have full walking out privileges).


----------



## Colin Parkinson (29 Aug 2017)

If they did fly them back, that would cause the flood to become a trickle, there will be some that want a free flight. Letting them go is basically acquiescing to them staying.


----------



## brihard (29 Aug 2017)

Therein lies the rub. If the course of events is allowed to play out, over a few years this will all go through Immigraion and Refugee Board hearings, those deemed ineligible will receive orders to exit the country, and then the appeals will start. Once they play out, again there will be orders to leave the country. Some will, some won't. Those who don't will end up with Canada wide immigration warrants and over time as they have encounters with police that cause a CPIC check to be done, they'll slowly trickle in to the detention and removal system.

Some of the people coming in have very valid grounds for asylum... People whose cities back home (e.g., Syria) are literally gone. Others have fallen victim to inaccurate rumors. Some are just mind numbingly stupid and don't have a chance (e.g. some adult American citizens have actually come in thinking they can get asylum here, though it's unclear what they are fleeing). The border situation in Quebec is far from just Haitians at this point. Everyone's got a story, some are truly awful, but most won't cut it.

The big "what if?" Is if the federal minister orders stays on removal processes, and if executive authority is used to arbitrarily grant legal status in Canada to those whose asylum claims don't go through. We are all fully cognizant that a dragged out removal of several thousand Haitians will not look good for the government, and that the timeframe for same could be quite awkward indeed. But that's speculative and in the future.

I have been truly impressed by the CBSA border services officers that I've had the pleasure of working with. These are people who love welcoming those who have been granted permission to come to Canada; who love identifying those at risk in trafficking situations, or assisting those who are fleeing real and awful persecution. I have not in the past given CBSA enough credit as an organization. They have good people doing a tough job.


----------



## jmt18325 (29 Aug 2017)

Brihard said:
			
		

> The big "what if?" Is if the federal minister orders stays on removal processes, and if executive authority is used to arbitrarily grant legal status in Canada to those whose asylum claims don't go through.



That certainly wouldn't be consistent with any of the messaging around the process from this government.


----------



## Good2Golf (29 Aug 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> That certainly wouldn't be consistent with any of the messaging around the process from this government.



Really?  You're going to go with that?   :rofl:

The Government and the PM himself refuse to call their actions crossing the border illegal, but only 'irregular.'  I drove past the tent cities on I-87 a couple days ago, and the accommodations and facilities for them were better turned out than most Canadian Army exercises I've ever been on.  This whole operation is visibly messaging "Welcome!"

You can borrow the batteries from my "surprised face", jmt18325, when this comes to pass -- I won't need them.

G2G


----------



## jmt18325 (29 Aug 2017)

I will be surprised.  If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (29 Aug 2017)

The best solution proposed to date was in a reader's letter to the Montreal Gazette published today:

"Build a wall and make the USA pay for it" ... the reader claims that "there's a precedent to do just that".

 :rofl:


----------



## Haggis (29 Aug 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> "Build a wall and make the USA pay for it".



I have broached this idea before, but with a twist.  Build it predominantly out of snow and ice, but with sufficient structural framing to maintain it's form and symbolic purpose during the summer, so it becomes a seasonal employment project.


----------



## brihard (29 Aug 2017)

Oh, believe me, that joke has been getting a lot of play.


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Aug 2017)

A people wall?


----------



## brihard (29 Aug 2017)

It ain't the radicals from the left that I fear having show up at this party... Quite frankly I am what I think is reasonably concerned about some wingnut showing up unhinged one day determined to 'take care of the refugee problem' himself. Most of us don't see it as Anglos, but there's a unique dynamic within franco Quebec's right wing, related to but distinct from (chortle) the conventional white nationalist movement we see in small pockets throughout Canada. While the Haitians mostly speak some French, other nationalities crossing the border do not, and fall into demographics that have gotten a less than sympathetic response from some radical fringe elements. While I don't *expect* an act of violent radicalism at the border, it remains a possibility that I'm attentive to.


----------



## Haggis (29 Aug 2017)

The incongruity in this image is stunning.


----------



## NavyShooter (30 Aug 2017)

Arrest these clowns, give each of them a family of refugees/migrants/illegal immigrants/claimants/etc to take home and care for, with the promise that their charges will be dropped if they care for the family properly and bring them to the necessary tribunals/hearings/etc.

That would be an amazing act of love on their part...which is the opposite of hate...which is what they're asking for, right?


----------



## brihard (1 Sep 2017)

Fewer asylum seekers crossing into Quebec illegally, CBSA says
CBSA says drop in number of refugee claimants started last week but agents still taking situation day by day

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-asylum-seekers-numbers-down-1.4270211

After an unprecedented spike in the number of asylum seekers crossing the border into Quebec illegally in early August, the Canada Border Services Agency says those numbers are now dropping.

Border agents are now handing the claims of 50 to 100 asylum seekers per day.

Compare that to the beginning of the month, when as many as 1,200 people were waiting to be processed at the border crossing in Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle, Que.

Before the surge in the number of people crossing into Canada began, agents were handling about a dozen asylum claims daily.

While the number of refugee claimants has been on the decline since the end of last week, the CBSA said it's still taking the situation day by day. 

Many of the recent refugee claimants crossing into Quebec are Haitians who have been living in America for years but now face deportation.

In May, U.S. President Donald Trump announced that he would not be extending temporary protection status (TPS) for Haitian nationals past January, when that status is set to expire.

TPS was granted after the 2010 earthquake, but now the Department of Homeland Security considers Haiti to be a safe country.

A slowing of the surge of asylum seekers and more resources allocated to handle the claims also mean that people are spending less time at the makeshift tent city set up at the border while waiting to be processed, said the CBSA. 

Last week, Cornwall, Ont., Mayor Leslie O'Shaughnessy announced the tent city pitched outside the Nav Centre to make room for asylum seekers will remain empty until further notice.

He said immigration officials told the city that processing was proceeding more quickly than expected at Quebec crossings.


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Sep 2017)

Meanwhile ...


> The federal government is taking precautionary measures in case Canada sees another surge of irregular asylum seekers from the United States, including the possible purchase of winterized trailers and a plan to reach out to groups who may flee the U.S. in the coming months.
> 
> Public Services and Procurement Canada issued a tender Thursday*** for winterized trailers in Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle, Que., where thousands of asylum seekers have crossed into Canada at irregular border crossings in recent months. The tender is seeking accommodations for 200 people on behalf of the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), which processes asylum seekers when they cross the border.
> 
> ...


*** - public bidding site notice here (also attached in case link doesn't work):


> ... THIS LETTER OF INTEREST (LOI) IS NOT A SOLICITATION AND NO CONTRACT WILL RESULT FROM IT.
> 
> Intent
> 
> ...


----------



## Journeyman (2 Sep 2017)

House them at CMRSJ;  warm shelter _and_  they can brush up on academics, military ethos, athletics, and bilingualism.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Sep 2017)

If you think climate change isn't necessarily a security issue, maybe not _always_, but sometimes, it doesn't help ...


> Canada could indefinitely suspend deportations to Haiti and other countries devastated by Hurricane Irma, according to federal provisions that halt removals to nations deemed too dangerous because of conflict or disaster.
> 
> Scott Bardsley, spokesman for Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale, said the Canada Border Services Agency will not deport anyone who has had their refugee claim rejected, or is deemed inadmissible to Canada, to a country coping with a hurricane.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Sep 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> If you think climate change isn't necessarily a security issue, maybe not _always_, but sometimes, it doesn't help ...
> 
> 
> > ...
> > Scott Bardsley, spokesman for Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale, said the Canada Border Services Agency will not deport anyone who has had their refugee claim rejected, or is deemed inadmissible to Canada, to a country coping with a hurricane.



Except that most of the these folks didn't come from Haiti ... not directly, anyway. They came from the USA, which is, by law, a "safe third country," and they _should_ be sent back there, not to Haiti. They are President Trump's problem ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Sep 2017)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ... They came from the USA, which is, by law, a "safe third country," and they _should_ be sent back there, not to Haiti. They are President Trump's problem ...


Good point, but that raises the question of whether PMJT & Co. will be willing to accept this premise & just send 'em back with that message.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Sep 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Good point, but that raises the question of whether PMJT & Co. will be willing to accept this premise & just send 'em back with that message.




As much as I detest Donald Trump (because I think he is a semi-literate, bumbling buffoon) and as much as I also detest the US Congress (both sides of the aisle) I think that the (unelected) US courts are, largely, effective and trustworthy. I suspect our courts trust them too, and I also suspect that after the sundry immigration tribunals have mucked things up many cases will end up in our courts which will insist that the Government of Canada enforce our laws and send them back to the USA.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Sep 2017)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> As much as I detest Donald Trump (because I think he is a semi-literate, bumbling buffoon) and as much as I also detest the US Congress (both sides of the aisle) I think that the (unelected) US courts are, largely, effective and trustworthy. I suspect our courts trust them too, and I also suspect that after the sundry immigration tribunals have mucked things up many cases will end up in our courts which will insist that the Government of Canada enforce our laws and send them back to the USA.


Agreed -- but that'll take time, allowing all bases to get pumped up.
op:


----------



## jmt18325 (8 Sep 2017)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> As much as I detest Donald Trump (because I think he is a semi-literate, bumbling buffoon) and as much as I also detest the US Congress (both sides of the aisle) I think that the (unelected) US courts are, largely, effective and trustworthy. I suspect our courts trust them too, and I also suspect that after the sundry immigration tribunals have mucked things up many cases will end up in our courts which will insist that the Government of Canada enforce our laws and send them back to the USA.



The US has no reason or obligation to take them back - that's the problem.


----------



## Haggis (8 Sep 2017)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> As much as I detest Donald Trump (because I think he is a semi-literate, bumbling buffoon) and as much as I also detest the US Congress (both sides of the aisle) I think that the (unelected) US courts are, largely, effective and trustworthy. I suspect our courts trust them too, and I also suspect that after the sundry immigration tribunals have mucked things up many cases will end up in our courts which will insist that the Government of Canada enforce our laws and send them back to the USA.



The U.S. administration and the courts could elect to play hardball and deny them entry back into the U.S.   They could rule that by entering Canada illegally and, as a result being deported, that they are now inadmissible to the U.S.  They are Haitian citizens with no "re-entry by right" privileges enjoyed by U.S. citizens.


----------



## mariomike (8 Sep 2017)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> As much as I detest Donald Trump (because I think he is a semi-literate, bumbling buffoon)


----------



## Blackadder1916 (8 Sep 2017)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Except that most of the these folks didn't come from Haiti ... not directly, anyway. They came from the USA, which is, *by law, a "safe third country,"* and they _should_ be sent back there, not to Haiti. They are President Trump's problem ...



Everything is in the details and definitions matter.  By God, I'm channeling Staff School.

Actually, by law, in the USA they are not refugees nor are they refugee/asylum claimants (though they may have been at one time, but not any longer).  The Haitian border crossers were in the US under a "Temporary Protected Status" (TPS) which is different and distinct (down there) from being a "refugee".  The expectations and treatment by the US government is quite different.

In the case of refugees/asylum seekers they want them to stay and become part of the American melting pot ("want" may be a strong sentiment, more likely "don't mind").

Refugee/Asylum


> If you are admitted as a refugee, you *must apply* for a green card one year after coming to the United States. . . .





> You *may apply* for a green card one year after being granted asylum.



However, as a TPS person


> TPS is a temporary benefit that *does not lead to lawful permanent resident status* or give any other immigration status. However, registration for TPS does not prevent you from:
> •Applying for nonimmigrant status
> •Filing for adjustment of status based on an immigrant petition
> •Applying for any other immigration benefit or protection for which you may be eligible



Along with their other regulations, travel outside the USA by TPS persons is also covered.  They can travel if they request prior permission; if they leave the USA without prior permission then the Temporary Protected Status is no longer in effect and their re-entry to the USA is the same as anyone else from their country of origin.  The same would apply if the individual was in the USA under refugee/asylum status.

As for "safe third country" being invoked, that Canada/USA agreement applies, however there would probably be some disagreement as to whether these individuals are actually refugees or if they had sought refugee status in the USA. 
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/laws-policy/menu-safethird.asp


> The Safe Third Country Agreement applies only to refugee claimants who are seeking entry to Canada from the U.S.:
> •at Canada-U.S. *land border crossings* (does this mean only designated border crossings?)
> •by train or
> •*at airports, only if the person seeking refugee protection in Canada has been refused refugee status in the U.S. and is in transit through Canada after being deported from the U.S.
> *



As much as I would like them removed to the United States to have them deal with it, I think we are stuck with the problem, "legally".


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Sep 2017)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Everything is in the details and definitions matter.  By God, I'm channeling Staff School.
> 
> Actually, by law, in the USA they are not refugees nor are they refugee/asylum claimants (though they may have been at one time, but not any longer).  The Haitian border crossers were in the US under a "Temporary Protected Status" (TPS) which is different and distinct (down there) from being a "refugee".  The expectations and treatment by the US government is quite different.
> 
> ...



Thanks, Blackadder1916; I was (obviously) unaware of that distinction and I agree that we may well end up being "stuck" with them.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Sep 2017)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Thanks, Blackadder1916; I was (obviously) unaware of that distinction and I agree that we may well end up being "stuck" with them.



Looks like these people crossing the border have not only caused us some major "legal" concerns, but in making that trek they have screwed themselves out of anything that they may have had in the US.


----------



## jmt18325 (25 Oct 2017)

Getting back to this months later, CBC has some interesting info on the legality of the refugees.  Specifically referring to Section 133 of the Immigration Refugee Act:

133 A person who has claimed refugee protection, and who came to Canada directly or indirectly from the country in respect of which the claim is made, may not be charged with an offence under section 122, paragraph 124(1)(a) or section 127 of this Act or under section 57, paragraph 340(c) or section 354, 366, 368, 374 or 403 of the Criminal Code, in relation to the coming into Canada of the person, pending disposition of their claim for refugee protection or if refugee protection is conferred.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canadian-immigration-video-explainers-1.4370680

I think I might have said that a few months ago.


----------



## kratz (1 Jun 2018)

ref: CTV.ca

This federal government enjoys that round number, $50 million, when spending taxpayer's money. 
Yet there is barely enough funds for homeless programs or proper support for veterans.



> Ottawa to give $50M to Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba for asylum seeker costs
> The Canadian Press
> Published Friday, June 1, 2018 1:54PM EDT
> 
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (1 Jun 2018)

Send Trump a bill. ;D


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Jun 2018)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Send Trump a bill. ;D



Don't make us build a wall!


----------



## GAP (2 Jun 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Don't make us build a wall!



they can afford to pay for it with their 25% duty on steel and aluminum.....


----------



## SeaKingTacco (2 Jun 2018)

And they can even build the wall out of aluminum and steel...for the win!


----------



## George Wallace (2 Jun 2018)

GAP said:
			
		

> they can afford to pay for it with their 25% duty on steel and aluminum.....



Even bigger savings if they build it out of steel and aluminum and use it as a strategic reserve should the day come that the wall comes down.  One long, on the shelf, supply of materials.  Perhaps a little too large of a stockpile for those who subscribe to "Supply and Demand".


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Jun 2018)

But they can only build it if 50% of th construction workers are women  ;D


----------



## Loachman (5 Jul 2018)

https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/07/05/ford-government-is-ending-cooperation-with-ottawa-on-resettlement-of-asylum-seekers.html

Ford government is ending co-operation with Ottawa on resettlement of asylum seekers

By Robert Benzie Queen's Park Bureau Chief

Thu., July 5, 2018

“The federal government encouraged illegal border crossers to come into our country, and the federal government continues to usher people across the U.S.-Quebec border into Ontario,” said Jefferies.

“This has resulted in a housing crisis, and threats to the services that Ontario families depend on. This mess was 100 per cent the result of the federal government, and the federal government should foot 100 per cent of the bills,” he said.


----------



## larry Strong (5 Jul 2018)

Excellent...The former substitute drama teacher caused the issue.....so let him deal with it.......


Cheers
Larry


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Jul 2018)

The grits all have their panties ina twist because, like a normal person, Ford called them what they are, 'illegal aliens'. Using real language, instead of the Trudeau Governments made up words and phrases, has given them the vapours.


----------



## RocketRichard (10 Jul 2018)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> Excellent...The former substitute drama teacher caused the issue.....so let him deal with it.......
> 
> 
> Cheers
> Larry


What does ‘former substitute drama teacher’ have to do with anything at all?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Remius (10 Jul 2018)

recceguy said:
			
		

> The grits all have their panties ina twist because, like a normal person, Ford called them what they are, 'illegal aliens'. Using real language, instead of the Trudeau Governments made up words and phrases, has given them the vapours.



I'm pretty sure that "asylum seekers" is an actual term used.  Using real language.


----------



## Remius (10 Jul 2018)

There does not seem to be a coherent plan.  Toronto has always been a magnet for immigrants, illegal and legal.  

The housing issue in Toronto began well before Trudeau made is ill advised welcome message.


----------



## Loachman (10 Jul 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure that "asylum seekers" is an actual term used.  Using real language.



Yes, and some may be. Others are economic migrants.

The recent custom, however, is not to legally seek asylum at a port of entry, but to _*illegally cross our border*_ elsewhere, be arrested, and then, most likely, be released into the general population awaiting their hearing. They may or may not show up for that hearing.

Anybody who _*illegally crosses our border*_, is, by definition, an _*illegal*_ border crosser, _*illegal*_ immigrant, or, to use the American term, _*illegal*_ alien. Those are also actual terms used, and real language.

And more honest.

Permitting their uncontrolled mass entry has financial costs, detracts from services designed and funded to support Canadians, and delays immigration processes for those who chose to follow our laws and apply _*legally*_.


----------



## Remius (10 Jul 2018)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Yes, and some may be. Others are economic migrants.
> 
> The recent custom, however, is not to legally seek asylum at a port of entry, but to _*illegally cross our border*_ elsewhere, be arrested, and then, most likely, be released into the general population awaiting their hearing. They may or may not show up for that hearing.
> 
> ...



No argument there.  I never said that those terms weren't real.


----------



## Loachman (10 Jul 2018)

Roger.


----------



## tomahawk6 (10 Jul 2018)

While this discussion mimics one we have on our southern border its a serious problem in Canada with your generous benefits that only a legal migrant might get and could be a drain on your government.


----------



## Bluebulldog (10 Jul 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> There does not seem to be a coherent plan.  Toronto has always been a magnet for immigrants, illegal and legal.
> 
> The housing issue in Toronto began well before Trudeau made is ill advised welcome message.



Correct. Much of the housing issue in Toronto was created by his father in the early 70s....


----------



## Remius (10 Jul 2018)

Bluebulldog said:
			
		

> Correct. Much of the housing issue in Toronto was created by his father in the early 70s....



From what I've read it has to do with poor city planning and development over the last ten years.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Jul 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure that "asylum seekers" is an actual term used.  Using real language.



'Asylum Seekers' go to the embassy or regular border point and apply for entry, legally.

'Illegal Aliens' come into the country, well, illegally. Whether they use the services of smugglers, or use one of Trudeau's irregular border crossings (complete with RCMP baggage handlers.) It is still illegal and everyone doing it is a potential criminal.


----------



## Remius (10 Jul 2018)

recceguy said:
			
		

> 'Asylum Seekers' go to the embassy or regular border point and apply for entry, legally.
> 
> 'Illegal Aliens' come into the country, well, illegally. Whether they use the services of smugglers, or use one of Trudeau's irregular border crossings (complete with RCMP baggage handlers.) It is still illegal and everyone doing it is a potential criminal.



Actually legitimate asylum seekers are exempt.

“A person who has claimed refugee protection, and who came to Canada directly or indirectly from the country in respect of which the claim is made, may not be charged with an offence under section 122, paragraph 124(1)(a) or section 127 of this Act or under section 57, paragraph 340(c) or section 354, 366, 368, 374 or 403 of the Criminal Code, in relation to the coming into Canada of the person, pending disposition of their claim for refugee protection or if refugee protection is conferred,” 

So even if the cross the border somewhere other than a port of entry, if they are in fact determined to be refugees then they are not criminals and won't be charged. 


I totally get that not all asylum seekers are in fact legitimate.


----------



## brihard (10 Jul 2018)

recceguy said:
			
		

> 'Asylum Seekers' go to the embassy or regular border point and apply for entry, legally.
> 
> 'Illegal Aliens' come into the country, well, illegally. Whether they use the services of smugglers, or use one of Trudeau's irregular border crossings (complete with RCMP baggage handlers.) It is still illegal and everyone doing it is a potential criminal.



The law does not correspond with your opinion on the matter. Legally they are not presently able to apply for asylum at a regular land port of entry into Canada due to Safe Third Country. Many people have legally been in the US - or legally enter it on visa - but are neither asylum nor refugee claimants there. Some have indeed attempted to apply at land POE and have immediately been refused. Those who enter illegally elsewhere - eg, Lacolle, QC or Emerson, MB, have no less legitimate a claim by virtue of their method of entry. Now every single one is arrested, but Canada has not deemed it a wise COA to totally logjam Quebec’s criminal justice system by charging them under the Customs Act offence for which they are arrested on entry.

A portion of these claimants will indeed be granted asylum status because they have very valid claims. Another portion (probably the larger one) will not because they do not, and will eventually be repatriated. There is no single accurate sweeping generalization of who is coming across the border. Some are unquestionably economic migrants who are throwing a Hail Mary as they see the imminent end of Temporary Protected Status in the US. Others have left homes and towns that are utterly destroyed and do have legitimate fear for their life if they return, and they enter Canada as their intended destination, albeit via the US. There are lots of both.

The system as it presently exists has some huge problems, no question about it. But there are also a lot of people coming here whose claims fall exactly within what the asylum system is intended to address.

The problem is not going away quickly...


----------



## Loachman (10 Jul 2018)

https://toronto.citynews.ca/2018/07/09/most-canadians-dont-believe-government-has-a-clear-plan-for-border-crossers/

Border crossers: most Canadians don't believe government has a clear plan

by Dilshad Burman Posted Jul 9, 2018 5:00 am EDT Last Updated Jul 8, 2018 at 6:08 pm EDT


----------



## Bluebulldog (12 Jul 2018)

Loachman said:
			
		

> https://toronto.citynews.ca/2018/07/09/most-canadians-dont-believe-government-has-a-clear-plan-for-border-crossers/
> 
> Border crossers: most Canadians don't believe government has a clear plan
> 
> by Dilshad Burman Posted Jul 9, 2018 5:00 am EDT Last Updated Jul 8, 2018 at 6:08 pm EDT



Given the fact that many are being housed in college dorms, with the clock ticking, and no real alternative identified as to what happens in a few weeks when students are going to want the room they paid for, I'd say that assertion has merit.


----------



## brihard (12 Jul 2018)

Yup, I wouldn’t argue that either. On one hand, a bunch will be granted asylum status, and we’ll have to figure out how to integrate those into Canada. On the flip side, a bunch won’t, and will be subject to removal, and the government will face the mounting pressure that will come with the compulsory removal from Canada of potentially dozens of failed claimants per day. There will be activists seizing on that - and make no mistake, kicking someone out of here and sending them to Lagos or Port Au Prince will be dismal. We will probably start to see a few stories of those who were sent home and then came to harm. Against that, any criminal act alleged or proven to have been committed by anyone who claimed asylum will get trumpeted by others to drum up anti-immigration sentiment.

There is no political win here for the government. There’s no easy fix, maybe not even a difficult one. And while they keep kicking the can down the road, municipalities are facing a greater and greater burden from trying to accommodate these people. I believe this will get worse before it gets better.


----------



## Loachman (12 Jul 2018)

It was my intent to only post key sections of this article, but I could not decide which bits to chop out. As it is a good summary of the whole problem, I elected to keep it intact.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/kelly-mcparland-ford-is-telling-trudeau-what-needs-to-be-said-about-the-border

Kelly McParland: Ford is telling Trudeau what needs to be said about the border

July 12, 2018 10:57 AM EDT

Doug Ford’s only been in office a matter of days but his refusal to help Ottawa disperse a surge of asylum-claimants arriving from Quebec already has him taking some serious flak.

Much of it comes from the same camp that failed to foresee the problem, helped make it worse, hasn’t come up with a workable solution and still lacks a serious proposal for dealing with the cause. But never mind that. The charges against the new premier are that his reluctance to help ease the pressure on Toronto - where most of the claimants are landing after crossing the U.S. border in Quebec - is mean-spirited, unhelpful and contrary to Canada’s traditionally tolerant approach to refugees and immigrants.

It may indeed be unhelpful: to Ottawa, which has been slow to react and ponderous in approach, and to Toronto, which lacks the space, resources and finances to handle the inflow on its own. But there’s a reason for that, and the other complaints are open to question.

There’s no particular evidence to the charge that it’s mean-spirited. If Ford has dark and dirty thoughts about newcomers to Canada, he keeps it well hidden. He represents a typically diverse area of Toronto - the 2016 census gives Etobicoke North one of the city’s highest concentrations of visible minorities - where his family remains highly popular, to the bewilderment of many in the city’s higher-toned neighbourhoods. The worst that’s been dredged up since he became premier is his use of the term “illegal border crossers” to describe refugee claimants. The Toronto Star calls this “dangerous rhetoric” and quotes a lawyer arguing that the word “illegal” isn’t strictly accurate because their cases haven’t been heard yet.

Well, it’s true their ultimate status hasn’t been ruled on yet. But there’s a sign at the busiest Quebec border site that says: “It is illegal to cross the border here or any place that is not a Port of Entry.” The RCMP, which taken up a semi-permanent presence at the crossing, shouts out warnings to new arrivals that crossing there is illegal and they will be arrested.

So, strictly speaking and in the most exacting possible terms, the arrivals aren’t yet illegal, because it takes time for their cases to be heard. But they’re crossing at an illegal site in an illegal way, and being warned by police that they’re breaking the law. So suggesting they’re involved in an illegal act isn’t really a sign of manifest bigotry. It could similarly be noted that they aren’t refugees either - as their defenders casually term them - since that also hasn’t been ruled on.

What they are is a conundrum to which the federal Liberals have been slow in responding. The surge of asylum claimants was allowed to build to a crisis point in Quebec, where Premier Philippe Couillard complained it cost the province $146 million in 2017, and was only worsening this year. After being lectured by federal Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen, Couillard denounced Ottawa’s attitude as “unacceptable” and said it showed “a complete ignorance of the realities on the ground.”

The Liberals responded by agreeing to help shift some of the overflow to other provinces, Ontario being the most obvious. Hundreds of claimants thus began arriving in Toronto, which is no better equipped to deal with them than Montreal, and where Mayor John Tory soon began parroting Quebec’s demands for money and a workable strategy.

Again, the feds had nothing substantial to offer. Initially they insisted their hands were tied until the new provincial government took power. Then, when Ford revealed his refusal to play along, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau felt obliged to suggest he was too dim to appreciate the complexities of the asylum system, and revealed he’d spent time”explaining how the … system works.”

Ontario voters might submit that treating their newly elected premier as a dunderhead is not the epitome of helpfulness. Liberals were miffed in turn that Ford put the blame for the situation “100 per cent” on them, and suggested “the federal government should foot 100 per cent of the bills.”

But Ford’s not far wrong in that; when the surge began it was put down to fear in the U.S. that the Trump administration would end their protected status and send them home. Trudeau unquestionably encouraged their hopes when he tweeted that Canada would welcome all those “fleeing persecution, terror & war,” which reflected Canada’s traditional generous spirit but also signalled to tens of thousands of potential arrivals that Canada had thrown open its doors to all comers.

Most arrivals at that point were Haitians, but the makeup has changed and many now are Nigerians who first gain entry to the U.S., then head quickly to the Canadian border. There is little doubt many are exploiting a loophole in Canada’s Safe Third Country Agreement with Washington that makes entry easier as long as they do it at an illegal crossing. Trudeau’s government recognized this reality when it sent federal representatives to Nigeria to stem the flow.

It’s fair to say Ford isn’t being polite and co-operative. Instead he is calling attention to the starkness of the problem by asserting - bluntly, admittedly - that Ottawa’s dithering and delay has given a difficult situation time to build to a crisis that is now troubling two of the country’s biggest cities.

Ottawa hasn’t shown itself to be either capable or competent in handling the file. It still has no proposal for remedying the cause of the dilemma; instead it’s focused on trying to disperse those who have already managed to make their way across the border. Having been elected on a promise of fiscal restraint, Ford doesn’t want to get stuck with bills Ottawa would prefer to offload. Ontario can’t afford it in any case, thanks in large part to the profligate borrowing and spending habits of Ford’s Liberal predecessors.

All the tisk-tisking about the new premier’s manners misses the point. When Ottawa shows it has a concrete idea on how to move forward to address the core of the issue, it will have earned a more co-operative response. Until then, it can point its fingers elsewhere.


----------



## Altair (12 Jul 2018)

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/the-rock-on-the-rocks-newfoundland-labrador-bankruptcy

Meanwhile Newfoundland and Labrador is going bankrupt, in part because 





> “It is becoming a very hard sell to bring people there and keep people there.”


----------



## Retired AF Guy (12 Jul 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/the-rock-on-the-rocks-newfoundland-labrador-bankruptcy
> 
> Meanwhile Newfoundland and Labrador is going bankrupt, in part because
> 
> ...


----------



## Altair (12 Jul 2018)

Maybe a wise individual would look at the two situations and come to the conclusion that asylum seekers must live in Newfoundland and Labrador for 10 years if they want to come to Canada. 

One of two things will happen. 

One, they happilly live in NFL and LBD or two, they decide the violence, poverty, poor living conditions and corrupt politics of whatever country they came from is better than a Newfoundland winter, and leave of their own accord.


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Jul 2018)

[quote author=Retired AF Guy]
Hmmm. I think I can see a solution to our problems.
[/quote]
I saw the same solution for 5 seconds.
Unless it comes with a free house, free car and spending money it's not going to work.

When the government contacted those 20'000 or 30'000 refugees to try and coax them to coming to Canada we had what, 3000 people interested? Can't see many of our new guests excited at the prospect of heading out that way. Which is unfortunate for them because it's such a beautiful part of our country.


----------



## Altair (12 Jul 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I saw the same solution for 5 seconds.
> Unless it comes with a free house, free car and spending money it's not going to work.
> 
> When the government contacted those 20'000 or 30'000 refugees to try and coax them to coming to Canada we had what, 3000 people interested? Can't see many of our new guests excited at the prospect of heading out that way. Which is unfortunate for them because it's such a beautiful part of our country.


you're making that sound a lot more voluntary than it needs to be.


----------



## Furniture (13 Jul 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> you're making that sound a lot more voluntary than it needs to be.



How long would forcing someone to live in a particular part of the country stand up in court?


----------



## Loachman (13 Jul 2018)

How about asking the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador for their opinions before declaring this to be a Good Idea.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (13 Jul 2018)

6(2) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms says that "permanent residents" of Canada have full mobility rights, so presumably, those awaiting a refugee hearing could sent by the government to live where ever it deems best.


----------



## Altair (13 Jul 2018)

Loachman said:
			
		

> How about asking the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador for their opinions before declaring this to be a Good Idea.


Sure, of course.

Hello citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador. Would you like to take in working age men and women into your province that you cannot seem to attract yourself, leading to a ever increasing elderly population and fewer young working age people paying taxes to support them as a last ditch chance to turn around your horrible demographic crisis or would you rather slide closer and closer into bankruptcy that you for some odd reason expect the rest of Canada to bail you out for?


----------



## Altair (13 Jul 2018)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> 6(2) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms says that "permanent residents" of Canada have full mobility rights, so presumably, those awaiting a refugee hearing could sent by the government to live where ever it deems best.


Refugees need to apply to become a permanent resident. In the months it takes to get accepted, ship them to Newfoundland and Labrador.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (13 Jul 2018)

Altair is correct: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/new-immigrants/pr-card/understand-pr-status.html

In the meantime, you can kill two birds with a single stone: Improve NL's financial situation with Federal funding - both to support the refugees and to increase the number of Federal civil servants in the form of more Immigration services officials and Immigration Board members living there.  ;D


----------



## Furniture (13 Jul 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> Refugees need to apply to become a permanent resident. In the months it takes to get accepted, ship them to Newfoundland and Labrador.



Smart use of money, there was a recent article talking about how most of the Syrian refugees sponsored in NL have left to live in major centers.


----------



## Altair (13 Jul 2018)

Furniture said:
			
		

> Smart use of money, there was a recent article talking about how most of the Syrian refugees sponsored in NL have left to live in major centers.


I would tie any long term federal assistance to living in Newfoundland and Labrador. Carrot.

If they choose to leave Newfoundland and Labrador, I would prosecute them for entering Canada illegally. Stick.


----------



## Loachman (13 Jul 2018)

"Working age men and women" need to be provided with jobs in order to support themselves and the social services that they will require.

How does one provide those?

How would it be any easier to provide housing, schools, medical facilities there than in major cities?

This province is becoming increasingly concerned about bankruptcy. How would dumping a load of dependent people into that situation help?

How would a relatively large number of people with vastly different cultures, customs, and practices be accepted in comparatively small municipalities? People tend to resent they accustomed ways of life being disrupted/destroyed.


----------



## Altair (13 Jul 2018)

Loachman said:
			
		

> "Working age men and women" need to be provided with jobs in order to support themselves and the social services that they will require.
> 
> How does one provide those?


 Naturally, however, I do trust that these refugees are pretty resourceful.  https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/03/22/immigrants-canadians-business-statistics-canada_n_9519690.html

"The StatsCan report, which was compiled in partnership with researchers at UBC and the Institute for Research in Public Policy, is the first to address "business ownership and job-creation activities of immigrants," it says.

Its main finding was that immigrants, including refugees, tend to surpass Canadians at private business ownership and self-employment — proportionally, anyway.

The report drew its conclusions by contrasting immigrants who arrived in various years against "comparison groups" that included mostly Canadians, and people who moved to Canada before 1980."





> How would it be any easier to provide housing, schools, medical facilities there than in major cities?


 That one is easier to answer. With Newfoundlands population stalled or shrinking, there are more available living spaces, school spots, and instead of closing medical facilities, these facilities can provide services for this new population





> This province is becoming increasingly concerned about bankruptcy. How would dumping a load of dependent people into that situation help?


 Once these people are up and on their feet, they cease being dependent and start being productive member of society, something Newfoundland is in desperate need of





> How would a relatively large number of people with vastly different cultures, customs, and practices be accepted in comparatively small municipalities? People tend to resent they accustomed ways of life being disrupted/destroyed.


Well, I guess they would rather be bankrupt then.


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Jul 2018)

>Its main finding was that immigrants, including refugees, tend to surpass Canadians at private business ownership and self-employment — proportionally, anyway.

Even a resourceful person needs opportunity.  If immigrants tend to wind up in major population centres and immigrants tend to do well for themselves, I suppose the latter is related to the former.


----------



## Altair (13 Jul 2018)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Its main finding was that immigrants, including refugees, tend to surpass Canadians at private business ownership and self-employment — proportionally, anyway.
> 
> Even a resourceful person needs opportunity.  If immigrants tend to wind up in major population centres and immigrants tend to do well for themselves, I suppose the latter is related to the former.


Well, Newfoundland needs to change its motto to the land of opportunity then, so when new immigrants land there, they will be in the new found land of opportunity.


----------



## Loachman (13 Jul 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> Naturally, however, I do trust that these refugees are pretty resourceful.  https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/03/22/immigrants-canadians-business-statistics-canada_n_9519690.html



Some are. Some, not so much.

The Syrian family next door to me are in the former group. The father and two oldest sons are working, and those two sons plus the other children at school are speaking passable English after being here for a couple of years. The youngest children cannot, yet. The father can get by, with difficulty.

Their jobs are low-paying and unskilled, but they support the family and will enable the younger children to get better educations and do well.

They were privately sponsored, and have been very well supported by their sponsors. They still receive a fair amount, but that is largely social interaction from their sponsors/now friends.

They are a good family, very happy and grateful to be here, are determined not to be a burden, and want to pay back in any way that they can.

And, from time-to-time, they feed me.

I have read numerous tales of others, government-sponsored, who have been essentially left to fend for themselves after the support period ended (one year, if I remember).

It's not easy to be "resourceful" when one does not know the language and cannot communicate, when one does not know the laws and customs, and when one has little financial or social support.



			
				Altair said:
			
		

> "The StatsCan report, which was compiled in partnership with researchers at UBC and the Institute for Research in Public Policy, is the first to address "business ownership and job-creation activities of immigrants," it says.
> 
> Its main finding was that immigrants, including refugees, tend to surpass Canadians at private business ownership and self-employment — proportionally, anyway.



Yes, generally out of sheer need plus no background in the host culture that would enable them to find more traditional employment, coupled with some imagination, a particular talent or skill, a hospitable environment, above-average drive, and a fair amount of good fortune in many cases. How many Nigerian restaurants can Newfoundland support? Vietnamese restaurants sprang up all over Canada following their arrival. I quickly became addicted. Most of the owners (generally a couple, with one cooking and the other serving, sometimes aided by older children) spoke fairly good to excellent English or French when they arrived. I found another excellent one in Louisville Kentucky in the early nineties. Dinner was often accompanied by some fascinating and educational conversations.

I found an Afghan restaurant in Downsview near the former base a year or two ago, adjacent to a Vietnamese restaurant that I frequented while at LFCA HQ, and had a hard time deciding (I opted for the Afghan restaurant, and would definitely eat there again).

Old joke: How does one find a doctor in Toronto? Call a cab/order a pizza.

Success/self-sufficiency does not come easily, can take years, and is never guaranteed.

There is always the option of crime, though. We have such wonderful diversity in gangs now in many areas, now.

Have you ever lived in a non-English-speaking country? How well do you think that you would do in one? How would you survive?



			
				Altair said:
			
		

> With Newfoundlands population stalled or shrinking, there are more available living spaces, school spots, and instead of closing medical facilities, these facilities can provide services for this new population



And why is the population stalled or shrinking? Reduced services, increased taxation, unwillingness of businesses to undertake investment perceived as risky, and inability to attract and/or retain educated/trained talented people who could find better employment in cheaper, better-served, and more desirable areas (the latter almost seems like the current situation in the CF).

How are unqualified people who cannot communicate adequately and do not understand their host society going to (someday) pay for these services with basic labour/service jobs, and who, with a stalled or shrinking population, is going to employ them/support their businesses/eat at their restaurants?

Who pays for their needs until they find "success", or if they don't?

And, if they do, what's to stop them from also leaving for better places?

Toronto is at its limit. How many can Newfoundland and Labrador, with fewer resources, support?



			
				Altair said:
			
		

> Well, I guess they would rather be bankrupt then.



People are not happy when made to feel like strangers in their own land. Resentment of excessive uncontrolled immigration is building in Great Britain and Europe because of that. A population can only absorb so many so quickly before problems, up to and including violent backlash, occur.

John Tory must be a complete idiot, though, if he cannot figure out how to solve this simple little puzzle.

Perhaps you should seek his job in the next Toronto election.

Or seek election in Newfoundland and Labrador, where you can restyle it as you just suggested, thereby curing all of its ills.


----------



## Altair (13 Jul 2018)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Some are. Some, not so much.
> 
> The Syrian family next door to me are in the former group. The father and two oldest sons are working, and those two sons plus the other children at school are speaking passable English after being here for a couple of years. The youngest children cannot, yet. The father can get by, with difficulty.
> 
> ...


Serving members cannot run for office, you know that.


----------



## Loachman (13 Jul 2018)

Yes, but you could get out.

You'd make more money as Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador.

And you have all of the answers to their problems.

They'd love you.


----------



## Altair (16 Jul 2018)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Yes, but you could get out.
> 
> You'd make more money as Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador.
> 
> ...


Fair enough.

I do plan to enter politics when I get out, at the local level anyways, but I'll probably just stick to Quebec.


----------



## mariomike (16 Jul 2018)

Loachman said:
			
		

> John Tory must be a complete idiot,



Anyone who thinks they know better have until July 27 to register to run against him.


----------



## Stoker (16 Jul 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> Sure, of course.
> 
> Hello citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador. Would you like to take in working age men and women into your province that you cannot seem to attract yourself, leading to a ever increasing elderly population and fewer young working age people paying taxes to support them as a last ditch chance to turn around your horrible demographic crisis or would you rather slide closer and closer into bankruptcy that you for some odd reason expect the rest of Canada to bail you out for?



I see you're live in Quebec and want to enter politics when you get out. You're policy of "shipping them out" to NL will undoubtedly make you very popular there. Also keep in mind the rest of Canada including Newfoundland and Labrador has been bailing out Quebec for many years.


----------



## Altair (16 Jul 2018)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I see you're live in Quebec and want to enter politics when you get out. You're policy of "shipping them out" to NL will undoubtedly make you very popular there. Also keep in mind the rest of Canada including Newfoundland and Labrador has been bailing out Quebec for many years.


I do not live in quebec now, no.

It's a pragmatic approach to a problem.

Toronto doesn't need them, NFLD and Lab have a aging population and trouble attracting people to live there. 

Win win.

Of course it may not work and NFLD may be rushing headfirst into a unstoppable demographic and economic crisis, but it might help, who knows?

As for Quebec, despite the large amount it takes in via equalization, it is the second lowest in per capita payments. 1 200 per person. Manitoba receives more, Nova Scotia receives more, New Brunswick got more, PEI receives the most, so the amount of criticism Quebec receives rings hollow to me. Quebec is the convenient scapegoat, but one never hears about the bailing out of Manitoba, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick or PEI.


----------



## tomahawk6 (16 Jul 2018)

How about one spouse living in Canada on the dole and the other living and working in the US?Seems unfair to your tax payers.


----------



## Altair (16 Jul 2018)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> How about one spouse living in Canada on the dole and the other living and working in the US?Seems unfair to your tax payers.


If I had any idea what you were talking about I would respond.


----------



## Remius (16 Jul 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> I do not live in quebec now, no.
> 
> It's a pragmatic approach to a problem.
> 
> ...



Seems Newfoundland is somewhat open to the idea...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/central-newfoundland-population-refugees-1.4369729

But...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/mun-report-refugee-retention-1.4604320

No jobs and no prospects makes it hard to keep them. 

Plus that freak dump of Satan's Cocaine in June likely sent them running for the south.  ;D


----------



## Stoker (16 Jul 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> I do not live in quebec now, no.
> 
> It's a pragmatic approach to a problem.
> 
> ...



Same difference you must be from Quebec then, as was mentioned before you can't make them stay in Newfoundland and the same problems that are causing out-migration will affect the immigrants, this is not a new thing as NL typically does not have many minorities due to isolation, economic and weather factors among others.

Perhaps if Quebec played it straight with Newfoundland IE Renegotiating the Churchill falls Deal or allowing Muskrat falls power to transit through Quebec then things would be better.

Quebec is the biggest scapegoat because typically they're the biggest complainer in pretty much everything. Yes other provinces get bailed out, but you didn't mention them did you? You singled out Newfoundland. Newfoundland can't afford to plow highways at night let alone pay for more immigrants.


----------



## Altair (16 Jul 2018)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Same difference you must be from Quebec then, as was mentioned before you can't make them stay in Newfoundland and the same problems that are causing out-migration will affect the immigrants, this is not a new thing as NL typically does not have many minorities due to isolation, economic and weather factors among others.
> 
> Perhaps if Quebec played it straight with Newfoundland IE Renegotiating the Churchill falls Deal or allowing Muskrat falls power to transit through Quebec then things would be better.
> 
> Quebec is the biggest scapegoat because typically they're the biggest complainer in pretty much everything. Yes other provinces get bailed out, but you didn't mention them did you? You singled out Newfoundland. Newfoundland can't afford to plow highways at night let alone pay for more immigrants.



Isn't that a pickle. NFLD and Lab need more immigrants, yet cannot afford to pay for more immigrants, because it has a aging population which can really only be rectified by more immigrants.


----------



## RocketRichard (16 Jul 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> Seems Newfoundland is somewhat open to the idea...
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/central-newfoundland-population-refugees-1.4369729
> 
> ...





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Remius (16 Jul 2018)

RocketRichard said:
			
		

> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



You mean my comment on Satan's cocaine?  Newfoundland had a big snowstorm in June.  That's what I was referring to.


----------



## RocketRichard (16 Jul 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> You mean my comment on Satan's cocaine?  Newfoundland had a big snowstorm in June.  That's what I was referring to.


Okay thanks Remius. Had no clue what that was, now I know. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Remius (16 Jul 2018)

RocketRichard said:
			
		

> Okay thanks Remius. Had no clue what that was, now I know.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Yeah, no worries, it wasn't exactly clear... but the weird weather there turns me off.  I love visiting though!


----------



## brihard (16 Jul 2018)

On this whole rather ludicrous 'ship 'em all to Newfoundland' idea... Where precisely do you think the federal government has the legal authority to compel people to be moved from one place to another? What law or mechanism would you envision being used to compel them to do that? Are CBSA inland enforcement or the RCMP going to show up, bundle them into vans, and send them off? Because from my standpoint I can tell you that law enforcement have no power to do that.

Section 6 of the Charter - mobility rights - is not the only part in play here. There would be a section 15 charter challenge faster than you could blink, and it would win. There's no way the government could legally do this. 

More to the point, how, precisely, do you think these individuals - many of them just at the early stages of struggling to learn English comprehensible to anyone else, never mind that spoken on the Rock - are going to integrate into the local economy? Newfoundland needs skilled trades workers. It needs technicians, people with trade tickets... es, some seasonal jobs could be filled for sure, but ghettoizing our asylum seeker population in Newfoundland fish processing plants is not going to solve any problems. Are you prepared to see a vast sum spent to get them trade tickets? Qualify them to work in healthcare and energy? I suspect not.

Labour is a commodity, yes, but human beings are human beings. Canada must and will continue to treat them as such.


----------



## Altair (16 Jul 2018)

Brihard said:
			
		

> On this whole rather ludicrous 'ship 'em all to Newfoundland' idea... Where precisely do you think the federal government has the legal authority to compel people to be moved from one place to another? What law or mechanism would you envision being used to compel them to do that? Are CBSA inland enforcement or the RCMP going to show up, bundle them into vans, and send them off? Because from my standpoint I can tell you that law enforcement have no power to do that.
> 
> Section 6 of the Charter - mobility rights - is not the only part in play here. There would be a section 15 charter challenge faster than you could blink, and it would win. There's no way the government could legally do this.
> 
> ...


How would it fail a charter challenge? It isn't discrimination on the basis of anything. Those who enter illegally would be located in Newfoundland. Unless you believe that living in Newfoundland would be in "violation of essential human dignity"

Lets face it, as asylum seekers, they are not granted mobility rights right away.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/can-immigrants-be-told-where-they-must-live-in-canada/article31519796/



> If it is determined that such a limitation is indeed a violation of mobility rights, then it would have to pass what is known as the Oakes test.
> 
> The federal government would have to show there is a pressing and substantial objective in settling some immigrants in small towns and rural areas. Mr. McCallum's statements so far suggest he is taking an economic perspective that emphasizes business concerns about labour shortages in remote areas. Courts would likely consider this a justifiable purpose.
> 
> ...



I think the impending bankruptcy of a province would qualify.

As for getting a bunch of refugees trained in the trades, I would be behind that 100 percent. Go to NFLD and get 3 years of schooling covered, done and done.


----------



## Remius (16 Jul 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> Go to NFLD and get 3 years of schooling covered, done and done.



Sound like our METTP program that we can never seem to fill...


----------



## Altair (16 Jul 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> Sound like our METTP program that we can never seem to fill...


Yes, but in this case, people don't have the right to say no, in a sense.


----------



## larry Strong (16 Jul 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> Sound like our METTP program that we can never seem to fill...



https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-trudeau-government-goes-silent-on-syrian-refugees/amp


----------



## brihard (16 Jul 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> How would it fail a charter challenge? It isn't discrimination on the basis of anything. Those who enter illegally would be located in Newfoundland. Unless you believe that living in Newfoundland would be in "violation of essential human dignity"
> 
> Lets face it, as asylum seekers, they are not granted mobility rights right away.
> 
> ...



OK, let's put it this way because it's evident you're struggling to take my meaning on this:

Imagine a Nigerian family crosses the border at Roxham Road, Quebec. An adult couple, their 19 year old son, 16 year old daughter, and 11 year old son. They are immediately arrested by RCMP, and are handed off to CBSA. All of that happens due to the established powers under federal legislation including the Customs Act, the Immigration and Refugee PRotection Act, and the Criminal Code. Police and peace officers (e.g., CBSA) get their powers because the law specifically empowers them to do something. Section 11 of the Customs Act makes it an offense to enter Canada without reporting to a customs office. Section 12 makes it illegal to import goods (including literally the contents of your pockets and personal luggage) without reporting. Section 126 of the criminal Code makes it a criminal offense to disobey a federal statute (e.g., breaking the Customs Act). Section 495 of the Criminal Code allows a police officer to arrest without a warrant someone who has committed an offense. Section 25 of the Criminal Code lets a police officer use reasonable force to execute that arrest.

So with all of these legal authorities and powers, this family is arrested by RCMP, handed off to CBSA, and are detained while they are processed. They are all run through criminal databases, and CBSA determine that they can be released with an IRB hearing date. This is what is happening in the vast majority of cases.

What you are proposing is that some power be arbitrarily exercised to then tell that family "You will relocate to Goose Bay, Labrador, in order to help ameliorate labour shortages there". Thing is there is no legislative or regulatory foundation for that. Nothing in Canadian law allows CBSA or Citizenship and Immigration Canada to compel a refugee claimant arriving in Canada in this manner to go to and live in a specific province. They are either detained in custody, or they are out on their own with a hearing date. Nothing in law, therefore, would allow police to round them up and ship them to Newfoundland. A police officer laying hands on a refugee claimant in order to do that would be guilty of assault. Nothing in law would allow for a legally defensible course of action of basically blackmailing them with "if you don't move to Newfoundland, we'll arrest you and hold you in jail". It wouldn't work, the law doesn't allow it.

You asked about S.15 equality of rights- "15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability." A law such as you propose would definitely be discriminatory based on national origin. It would be far too great an infringement of the Charter to be saved by S.1.

And, in any case, imagining for a second that everything you suggest wasn't completely illegal, you still haven't made out how it would actually work. If provinces want to attract immigrant populations to remedy their labour shortages, they can do that through all the mechanisms that already exist for provincial governments to tweak their economies and attract labour. Press-ganging refugees is not one of those mechanisms.


----------



## PuckChaser (16 Jul 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> Yes, but in this case, people don't have the right to say no, in a sense.



We could set up some sort of encampment for them to live at. They could work out of that encampment, for the good of the nation, and then maybe attend classes in the evening to ensure a proper education in our political system.

Comrade Stalin, is that you?


----------



## Altair (16 Jul 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> We could set up some sort of encampment for them to live at. They could work out of that encampment, for the good of the nation, and then maybe attend classes in the evening to ensure a proper education in our political system.
> 
> Comrade Stalin, is that you?


Meh. Okay.

NFLD and Lab can continue to watch its young people migrate away, with no way to encourage immigrants to move there.

They can continue on the road to bankruptcy.

I like the way people say this wouldn't work, while not even to attempt mentioning a solution of their own.

Meh.


----------



## Stoker (16 Jul 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> Meh. Okay.
> 
> NFLD and Lab can continue to watch its young people migrate away, with no way to encourage immigrants to move there.
> 
> ...



People in Quebec are in for a treat when you enter politics that's for sure. Newfoundland will be fine without your style of forced immigration.


----------



## Altair (16 Jul 2018)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> People in Quebec are in for a treat when you enter politics that's for sure. Newfoundland will be fine without your style of forced immigration.


https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/the-rock-on-the-rocks-newfoundland-labrador-bankruptcy



> A January poll by Abacus Data found that 53 per cent of Newfoundland and Labrador residents expect the province to go bankrupt sometime in the next few years, the most likely outcome a federal bailout.


 Just fine.


----------



## Stoker (16 Jul 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/the-rock-on-the-rocks-newfoundland-labrador-bankruptcy
> Just fine.



Polls is not the same as being bankrupt and sending in immigrants to burden the system is not going to help things.


----------



## Altair (16 Jul 2018)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Polls is not the same as being bankrupt and sending in immigrants to burden the system is not going to help things.


Burden the system?

Isn't this the province hurting for immigrants, but can't attract them?


----------



## Loachman (16 Jul 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> NFLD and Lab have a aging population and trouble attracting people to live there.
> 
> Win win.



Current residents may not see it that way.

Importing large numbers from foreign cultures is seldom looked upon favourably by the host communities.

People want their replacements to be like them, not completely oblivious to our laws and culture.

They will generally welcome small numbers that can be supported and eventually assimilated, but they do not want to be overwhelmed as is happening in the UK, Europe, and Sweden.

There will eventually be a backlash.



			
				Altair said:
			
		

> Isn't that a pickle. NFLD and Lab need more immigrants, yet cannot afford to pay for more immigrants, because it has a aging population which can really only be rectified by more immigrants.



The right kind of immigrants would be welcome. The wrong kind - unskilled, unable to communicate, and law-breakers from the start - would be a drain on an already fragile province, and could quickly overwhelm it.

Who benefits from that?

If they want to come in, there is a process that thousands of people manage to follow every year, without entering the US on visitors' visas and immediately heading north to illegal advertised border crossing sites.

The patient and _*law-abiding*_ immigrants certainly don't appreciate thousands of people _*illegally*_ cutting in front of them and delaying their _*legal*_ entry.



			
				Altair said:
			
		

> while not even to attempt mentioning a solution of their own.



Like our current federal government?

Here's the first step:

Before attempting to correct a plumbing problem, _*shut off the %@#$*&! main water supply*_.

Has that happened yet?

Or is the basement continuing to flood?


----------



## PuckChaser (16 Jul 2018)

Newfoundland had a job vacancy rate of 1.6% in 2017, which is the lowest in the country. That means that you're going to dump a whole whack of immigrants on them, and they won't have jobs. Newfoundland doesn't have a people problem, they have a jobs problem. It is the opposite of Alberta, where there were tons of jobs and no one to do them.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/daily-quotidien/180111/dq180111a-eng.pdf?st=PXNuxphF


----------



## Altair (16 Jul 2018)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Current residents may not see it that way.
> 
> Importing large numbers from foreign cultures is seldom looked upon favourably by the host communities.
> 
> ...


 Beggars can't be choosers, but I guess in this case, they can.





> The right kind of immigrants would be welcome. The wrong kind - unskilled, unable to communicate, and law-breakers from the start - would be a drain on an already fragile province, and could quickly overwhelm it.
> 
> Who benefits from that?
> 
> If they want to come in, there is a process that thousands of people manage to follow every year, without entering the US on visitors' visas and immediately heading north to illegal advertised border crossing sites.


 Ya, maybe. But when life gives you lemons...if these people can be successfully integrated, isn't that a win?





> The patient and _*law-abiding*_ immigrants certainly don't appreciate thousands of people _*illegally*_ cutting in front of them and delaying their _*legal*_ entry.
> 
> Like our current federal government?


Exactly. The feds are dropping the ball on this file, and they need a plan on how to deal with it. Even a bad plan is better than no plan, which is the case now





> Here's the first step:
> 
> Before attempting to correct a plumbing problem, _*shut off the %@#$*&! main water supply*_.
> 
> ...


How would you shut off the main water supply? Build a fence?


----------



## Altair (16 Jul 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Newfoundland had a job vacancy rate of 1.6% in 2017, which is the lowest in the country. That means that you're going to dump a whole whack of immigrants on them, and they won't have jobs. Newfoundland doesn't have a people problem, they have a jobs problem. It is the opposite of Alberta, where there were tons of jobs and no one to do them.
> 
> https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/daily-quotidien/180111/dq180111a-eng.pdf?st=PXNuxphF


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/aging-population-leads-to-financial-trouble-1.4345078


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/population-decline-newfoundland-labrador-harris-centre-report-1.4279580



> According to the numbers, the province's population will drop by about eight per cent. That's just over 41,000 people.
> 
> The average age will bump up from 43 to 48, compared to the average Canadian who is now 41.
> 
> ...





> The problem, says Askari, is the province's changing demographics.
> 
> "I think the main problem in Newfoundland [and Labrador] really is the aging of the population and the loss of population," he said. "Which is really a structural issue for the province."
> 
> ...



If you say so.


----------



## larry Strong (16 Jul 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> Meh. Okay.
> 
> NFLD and Lab can continue to watch its young people migrate away,



Why do you think all the young people in Newfoundland are leaving?????????

Ya think because there is no work????

So what are all these immigrants going to do for work in NFLD????

Talk about simplistic.....


Cheers
Larry


Cheers
Larry


----------



## Altair (16 Jul 2018)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> Why do you think all the young people in Newfoundland are leaving?????????
> 
> Ya think because there is no work????
> 
> ...


Okay, fine. What was your solution again?


----------



## larry Strong (16 Jul 2018)

Uphold the law.....and NO it's not being done....


Cheers
Larry


----------



## Altair (16 Jul 2018)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> Uphold the law.....and NO it's not being done....
> 
> 
> Cheers
> Larry


How do you want that done?


----------



## Loachman (16 Jul 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> Beggars can't be choosers, but I guess in this case, they can.



Importing people who will be nothing more than an expensive burden on a fragile province for a long period does not leave people much choice.

Dumping masses of unemployable into areas with no employment is a recipe for disaster.

Turning large sections of towns into ghettoes of non-English-speaking, welfare-dependent people ignorant of Canadian laws and customs, thereby driving more locals out of their towns and possibly province is not a viable solution.

This is happening elsewhere in the world.



			
				Altair said:
			
		

> if these people can be successfully integrated, isn't that a win?



Can they be? How long will it take? How much will it cost? At what point do taxpayers say "enough"? At what point does our immigration system become overwhelmed? When does the backlash start? When do you move to the real world?

I was a volunteer with a privately-funded Burundian family support group several years ago. I have seen similar a similar group work with my Syrian neighbours.

It takes far more effort, by far more people, over far longer than you are aware. There are only so many people willing and able to do that, and nowhere nearly enough, and they tend to need longish breaks before picking up another family, if they are willing to do so at all. Interpreters can be a huge challenge to find, and they may have, um, _quirky_ agendae of their own. The Burundian family included ten children. Nobody spoke any English. Nobody had any real education, and no skills, with most of the children having been born in a refugee camp (which was rife with violence; the father was severely injured in one of two attacks), and really seemed to be under-equipped to adapt to their new lives. They ended up leaving for Montreal a year later, where there is a Burundian community. I have no idea how they are doing now.

The Syrian family has one more child than that. Several of their supporters had lived in Syria many years ago, had a good understanding of the culture, and spoke Arabic, and they continue to visit frequently. A second Syrian family moved in close a year later, and there are some Libyans and Egyptians nearby, so they have a fairly happy community but have not ghettoized themselves as has happened elsewhere, and can happen all too easily.

The two older boys have general construction labourer jobs, and the father is a farm hand. How many construction companies, or farms, are looking for unskilled workers in a province with a shrinking population?



			
				Altair said:
			
		

> How would you shut off the main water supply? Build a fence?



That's a good start. Much better than turning RCMP into RCBH.

Immediately flying illegal border crossers back to their home countries with directions about how to make legal applications would be another. We already expect would-be immigrants to apply for admission from their countries and will not accept applications from those here on holidays or student visas etcetera. Word would get around at least as quickly as Trudeau's "everybody welcome" tweet did. There are millions of actual, known refugees who have, in many cases, been languishing for years in camps, some of whom we could take instead of _*illegal*_ queue-jumpers. We can't accept all, but we can pick and choose. Building camps where they could be held while awaiting adjudication on their refugee claims, rather than releasing them into the wild, would be another good thing to do.

Asking that nice President Trump to have his people better assess visa applicants from certain countries, and crack down on traffickers south of illegal border crossing points, would be a good thing to do, but that's a little late, now. Renegotiating the Safe Third Country Agreement to remove the not-crossing-into-Canada-at-an-official-port-of-entry loophole, in exchange, perhaps, for dropping/modifying supply management would be a big discouragement as well.

If only a certain prime minister had not pissed him off....


----------



## Altair (16 Jul 2018)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Importing people who will be nothing more than an expensive burden on a fragile province for a long period does not leave people much choice.
> 
> Dumping masses of unemployable into areas with no employment is a recipe for disaster.
> 
> ...


Canada has been rather decent at integrating new immigrants into Canada. 





> Can they be? How long will it take? How much will it cost? At what point do taxpayers say "enough"? At what point does our immigration system become overwhelmed? When does the backlash start? When do you move to the real world?
> 
> I was a volunteer with a privately-funded Burundian family support group several years ago. I have seen similar a similar group work with my Syrian neighbours.
> 
> ...


 Population booms sometimes come with a GDP boost, and more economic activity. Less people, and it's the exact opposite. NFLD and Lab is stuck in a demographic time bomb right now, with less young working age people, more older, retired people, who need more health care than younger people. Rising health care costs and shrinking working age population is a demographic crisis, an economic crisis, and very soon, a government crisis. What would you suggest? You may not like my idea, but I don't hear you proposing any solutions





> That's a good start. Much better than turning RCMP into RCBH.
> 
> Immediately flying illegal border crossers back to their home countries with directions about how to make legal applications would be another.


 If they make an asylum claim, we have to hear their case





> We already expect would-be immigrants to apply for admission from their countries and will not accept applications from those here on holidays or student visas etcetera.


Sure, but these people are making asylum claims once they arrive, which usually means we need to hear their case before we can simply kick them out





> Word would get around at least as quickly as Trudeau's "everybody welcome" tweet did.


 It was a dumb tweet, but here we are.





> There are millions of actual, known refugees who have, in many cases, been languishing for years in camps, some of whom we could take instead of _*illegal*_ queue-jumpers. We can't accept all, but we can pick and choose. Building camps where they could be held while awaiting adjudication on their refugee claims, rather than releasing them into the wild, would be another good thing to do.


 Can the camp be in NFLD?





> Asking that nice President Trump to have his people better assess visa applicants from certain countries, and crack down on traffickers south of illegal border crossing points, would be a good thing to do, but that's a little late, now. Renegotiating the Safe Third Country Agreement to remove the not-crossing-into-Canada-at-an-official-port-of-entry loophole, in exchange, perhaps, for dropping/modifying supply management would be a big discouragement as well.
> 
> If only a certain prime minister had not pissed him off....


The only leader the president seems to get along with is Putin, I wont blame Trudeau for that.

Also, I think it's wishful thinking that the USA would want to stop immigrants from leaving. The situation on the Canadian border is probably a blessing for the current administration. So the Safe 3rd country act isn't going anywhere, so we need a canadian solution. America isn't going to help us.


----------



## Loachman (16 Jul 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> Canada has been rather decent at integrating new immigrants into Canada.



In controlled numbers, according to an established process.



			
				Altair said:
			
		

> America isn't going to help us.



Of course not, given the prime minister that has been inflicted upon us.

And who still refuses to take any corrective measures.


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Jul 2018)

[quote author=Loachman] 

And who still refuses to take any corrective measures.
[/quote]

Wait until a little closer to election time. Handouts and promises.


----------



## PuckChaser (16 Jul 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Wait until a little closer to election time. Handouts and promises.



"Real Change"


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Jul 2018)

Managed economy solution: put people where you want them to find jobs.

Market economy solution: create jobs to draw people.


----------



## Altair (16 Jul 2018)

Loachman said:
			
		

> In controlled numbers, according to an established process.
> 
> Of course not, given the prime minister that has been inflicted upon us.
> 
> And who still refuses to take any corrective measures.


Ya, sure. Question though. Would the USA take them back? Currently, the answer is no.

If the answer is no, can we send them back to countries where their lives might be in danger without a hearing?

no.

So in reality, no matter what we do, we are stuck with them. Unless...we build a wall.


----------



## PuckChaser (16 Jul 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> Would the USA take them back? Currently, the answer is no.



Says who?


----------



## Altair (16 Jul 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Says who?


https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/nigeria-to-issue-travel-documents-faster-to-expelled-border-crossers-hussen



> Canada has asked the U.S. government to consider renegotiating the agreement, but so far there has been no response from the Trump administration, Hussen said Friday.


Like I said, not interested.


----------



## brihard (16 Jul 2018)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Immediately flying illegal border crossers back to their home countries with directions about how to make legal applications would be another. We already expect would-be immigrants to apply for admission from their countries and will not accept applications from those here on holidays or student visas etcetera. Word would get around at least as quickly as Trudeau's "everybody welcome" tweet did. There are millions of actual, known refugees who have, in many cases, been languishing for years in camps, some of whom we could take instead of _*illegal*_ queue-jumpers. We can't accept all, but we can pick and choose. Building camps where they could be held while awaiting adjudication on their refugee claims, rather than releasing them into the wild, would be another good thing to do.



The first part of your suggestion is blatantly illegal. They still have the right to due process. Canadian law requires a hearing. The IRB is badly under-resourced for this. They're posting jobs aggressively, but you can't just knit Immigration and Refugee Board members - like any quasi-judicial tribunal it needs people with a good background of experience and aptitude. It's like trying to suddenly increase your number of judges- there is a limited talent poor from which to draw, and you have to be very careful integrating them into the existing workforce so that they are properly trained and developed.

In practical terms we absolutely could choose to build internment camps to hold all of the asylum claimants in... But there would be a ton of problems with this and I fear Canada would come out of that looking very bad indeed. It's definitely a political no-go, but even setting that aside, incarcerating tens of thousands of people for a period of upwards of a year would be a hugely burdensome project...


----------



## Altair (17 Jul 2018)

Brihard said:
			
		

> The first part of your suggestion is blatantly illegal. They still have the right to due process. Canadian law requires a hearing. The IRB is badly under-resourced for this. They're posting jobs aggressively, but you can't just knit Immigration and Refugee Board members - like any quasi-judicial tribunal it needs people with a good background of experience and aptitude. It's like trying to suddenly increase your number of judges- there is a limited talent poor from which to draw, and you have to be very careful integrating them into the existing workforce so that they are properly trained and developed.
> 
> In practical terms we absolutely could choose to build internment camps to hold all of the asylum claimants in... But there would be a ton of problems with this and I fear Canada would come out of that looking very bad indeed. It's definitely a political no-go, but even setting that aside, incarcerating tens of thousands of people for a period of upwards of a year would be a hugely burdensome project...


Plans are hard.


----------



## brihard (17 Jul 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> Plans are hard.



In a society with firm rule of law, yes they can be. Plus whoever you intend to execute those plans has to be able to look themselves in the mirror once they get home from work.


----------



## Altair (17 Jul 2018)

Brihard said:
			
		

> In a society with firm rule of law, yes they can be. Plus whoever you intend to execute those plans has to be able to look themselves in the mirror once they get home from work.


How about the idea that was floated to make where ever migrants are crossing a legal port of entry?

At that point, they can be refused entry, correct?


----------



## ModlrMike (17 Jul 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> Plans are hard.



Plans are easy... planning is hard. I know that sounds kind of zen, but in other words "fail to plan, plan to fail".


----------



## Altair (17 Jul 2018)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Plans are easy... planning is hard. I know that sounds kind of zen, but in other words "fail to plan, plan to fail".


Well, 4 federal political parties, 4 provincial political parties, and everyone on this board has so far failed to come up with a plan that would stop this crisis while being constitutional or legal.

So yes, Plans, or planning, is hard.


----------



## ModlrMike (17 Jul 2018)

Because that's what happens when you act before you think!


----------



## Altair (17 Jul 2018)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Because that's what happens when you act before you think!


True, it was a stupid tweet.

And now we are stuck without a solution.


----------



## PuckChaser (17 Jul 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> And now we are stuck without a solution.



Dump money into the IRB, adjudicate the cases much faster, and deport back to home countries. In the case of the Haitians "fleeing" the US, they are economic migrants running to us because the free ride in the Temporary Protected Status was ended. Check out this person here:

https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/11/05/561922898/we-want-to-stay-haitian-immigrants-in-u-s-fear-end-of-temporary-protected-status



> Desir came to the U.S. in 2008 to help out her aging parents, both legal residents. She overstayed her visa and was still in the U.S. when a powerful earthquake struck Haiti in 2010.
> 
> Hundreds of thousands were killed, and the Obama administration granted Haitians temporary protected status. They were shielded from deportation and given work permits.
> 
> Critics say the temporary program for Haiti and for others from countries where disasters and wars took place decades ago has become permanent and amounts to a backdoor immigration policy.



This person overstayed her visa, which would mean she'd be banned from reentering the US for 10 years. She got lucky and found a loophole to continue being illegally in the country and is now scared the loophole is closing and she'll be deported. She also is not able to apply for citizenship as a TPS immigrant, so she'd need to return home and apply like everyone else.


----------



## Altair (3 Aug 2018)

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/influx-of-irregular-refugees-has-reached-crisis-level-for-most-canadians-poll-suggests?video_autoplay=true

This American President must truly be a unholy nightmare for Trudeau and the Liberals.

With the USA pushing all those migrants out of the US and into Canada, he has found a way to unite Canadians of all political backgrounds together.



> According to the new survey from the Angus Reid Institute, two thirds of respondents believe that Canada has taken in too many irregular asylum claimants for authorities to manage, including majorities of Conservative, Liberal and NDP voters.



65 percent of Canadians, 84 percent of conservatives, 56 percent of Liberals, and 53 percent of NDP voters believe that the amount of illegal migration is too much for Canada to handle.

0 Percent of conservatives(ZERO!) 10 percent of Liberals and 9 percent of NDP believe it's a small number and Canada can handle more.

Those are some hideous numbers right there, and to boot

 "Recent survey results from Abacus Data also found that among voters who want a change in government, immigration and refugees ranked as the second reason they’re dissatisfied, behind deficits and debt."

Major weak point for the Liberals, who have completely bungled this issue. And I guess it puts to rest the idea that Canadians are any more tolerant than Americans when it comes to illegal border crossings.


----------



## Rifleman62 (3 Aug 2018)

Isn't this interesting, and from the CBC no less. How much is this costing us? My OAS just went up $7.08 month, enough to almost purchase a gallon and a half of milk.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/asylum-seekers-border-anchor-relatives-1.4771045

I*rregular migrants acting as 'anchor relatives' to help get family into the country: CBSA* - Kathleen Harris · CBC News - 2 Aug 18

Extract: Canadian border officers are reporting on what they call a "phenomenon" on the migrant front: irregular border crossers acting as "anchor relatives" for those making refugee claims at official points of entry. The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) says people who have entered the country through irregular migration can make use of an exception in the law facilitate the entry of family members — even when their own claims haven't been adjudicated.

"Recently, CBSA officers are noticing another phenomenon: claimants who have recently arrived in Canada as irregular migrants and have refugee claims in process are acting as an anchor relative for other qualifying family members," says an information package provided to the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) by the CBSA. "This means that these family members can present themselves at a port of entry and not be considered as irregular migrants. Also, they can't be refused entry under the Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA)."

The CBSA document says the provision applies not just to nuclear families but to parents, grandparents, siblings, aunts, uncles, nephews and nieces.

For the first time, the RCMP has provided numbers of asylum seekers intercepted outside official border points for 2016, showing a tenfold spike in just one year. In 2017, 20,593 asylum seekers were intercepted, compared to just 2,486 in 2016. Previously, the RCMP did not track asylum seekers separately from others who were intercepted outside regular crossings and who were engaged in other activities, such as human smuggling. From Jan. 1 to July 15, 2018, there were 11,420 interceptions of irregular migrants at the border. Officials have noted a declining rate of irregular border crossings in recent months.


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Aug 2018)

Irregular migrant is such a dumb PC phrase. They're illegal migrants. 

The only silver lining with this is that previous diehard liberal voters are realizing what a shit show the government is.


----------



## Remius (3 Aug 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Irregular migrant is such a dumb PC phrase. They're illegal migrants.
> 
> The only silver lining with this is that previous diehard liberal voters are realizing what a crap show the government is.




This article discusses that very term.

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/irregular-or-illegal-the-fight-over-what-to-call-the-thousands-of-migrants-streaming-into-canada


----------



## PPCLI Guy (3 Aug 2018)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Isn't this interesting, and from the CBC no less. How much is this costing us? My OAS just went up $7.08 month, enough to almost purchase a gallon and a half of milk.



Correlation.

Causation.

Not the same thing.

I'll throw in a red herring for the win


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Aug 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> This article discusses that very term.
> 
> https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/irregular-or-illegal-the-fight-over-what-to-call-the-thousands-of-migrants-streaming-into-canada



Thanks for posting that Remius it was really informative. 

I'll just cherry pick some items from it. 




> Crossing the Canadian border without passing through an official port of entry is indeed illegal.





> Most migrants illegally crossing the border, in fact, pass directly in front of a bilingual sign telling them that they are breaking the law.





> “It is illegal to cross the border here or any place other than a Port of Entry. You will be arrested and detained if you cross here,” reads a sign





> However, the illegality ends up being moot since every border crosser immediately claims asylum after being met by an RCMP officer on the Canadian side.





> By doing this, their crossing is still illegal, but Canadian law stops considering them a criminal the moment they claim to be a refugee.



It's the government trying to change the optics of the situation to make their position more favourable. 
Like when the RCMP arrest someone with an ar15 it's an assault rifle, when it's in their hands it's a patrol carbine. Sounds less scary. 

Rebranded Irregular migrats are still entering the country illegally, costing us in upwards of I believe 270 million dollars now and there doesn't seem to be a plan to do anything about it


----------



## PuckChaser (4 Aug 2018)

One tweet cost us $270M CAD in under 2 years. https://globalnews.ca/news/4368410/ottawa-spent-270m-on-border-crossers-in-under-2-years-pbo/

Also for the anchor relative issue, that's an easy change to make in the legislation. People should absolutely not be allowed to sponsor or "anchor" relatives coming to Canada until their refugee claim has been adjudicated. Its a simple change that would likely garner all party (save perhaps the NDP) support.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Aug 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> One tweet cost us $270M CAD in under 2 years. https://globalnews.ca/news/4368410/ottawa-spent-270m-on-border-crossers-in-under-2-years-pbo/
> 
> Also for the anchor relative issue, that's an easy change to make in the legislation. People should absolutely not be allowed to sponsor or "anchor" relatives coming to Canada until their refugee claim has been adjudicated. Its a simple change that would likely garner all party (save perhaps the NDP) support.



It's a simple change, agreed, but one which the grits have no expectation of doing. If Trudeau had wanted to fix this problem, he would have done it a long time ago. He has no intention of stemming the tide. It's exactly what he wants. Total chaos and thousands of illegals wandering the country, with no tracking or means of making a legal wage.

Trudeau is an 'Open Borders' zealot, we have uncontrolled illegal immigration, he's having a ball watching this happen. He's not going to do a thing about it and just leave the whole mess to the new government in 2019.


----------



## Haggis (4 Aug 2018)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Trudeau is an 'Open Borders' zealot, we have uncontrolled illegal immigration, he's having a ball watching this happen. He's not going to do a thing about it and* just leave the whole mess to the new government in 2019.*



You are dangerously assuming that there will be a new, non-Liberal government in late 2019.  Perhaps this influx of irregular/illegal migrants is one phase of the Liberals shaping the battlespace for the next election. The Liberals are not stupid.  They are deliberately being as un-Trumplike as possible in order to position themselves as the viable alternative to "Republican North" Scheer.  :Tin-Foil-Hat:

(BTW I'm really enjoying the reality TV show "The Presidency" on Fox and CNN.  if Trump finishes his term, it'll be the longest running TV series he's ever starred in.)


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Aug 2018)

Pretty standard behavior when someone asks uncomfortable questions-insinuate they're a racist, even if they never mention race. 



> * Trudeau Confronted in Quebec Over Illegal Border Crossings by Elderly Woman*
> 
> While making his rounds in Quebec, Trudeau was recorded accusing a woman of racism for questioning his approach to illegal immigration
> 
> https://thenectarine.ca/politics/trudeau-confronted-in-quebec-over-illegal-border-crossings-by-elderly-woman/


----------



## Remius (20 Aug 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Pretty standard behavior when someone asks uncomfortable questions-insinuate they're a racist, even if they never mention race.



To be fair, when you watch the whole interaction in french, she doesnt exactly come off as reasonable as the article seems to indicate.


----------



## Halifax Tar (20 Aug 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> To be fair, when you watch the whole interaction in french, she doesnt exactly come off as reasonable as the article seems to indicate.



I don't speak French, can you shed some light on what she is saying that may not come off as reasonable ?


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Aug 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> To be fair, when you watch the whole interaction in french, she doesnt exactly come off as reasonable as the article seems to indicate.



At which point does she show discrimination or prejudice against people of other race, or suggests that a particular race is superior to another?


----------



## Infanteer (20 Aug 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Pretty standard behavior when someone asks uncomfortable questions-insinuate they're a racist, even if they never mention race.



But she does.  She was questioning (or railing at) the Prime Minister about his lack of tolerance of "Quebecois de souche."  She was basically saying "why do you give our money to illegal immigrants and have such disdain for white Quebecois."  Sounds like she was making it an issue of ethnicity to me.

The PM responded with his remark that he's a proud Quebecois, and that he didn't feel her intolerance was acceptable.  Considering how uncivil the lady was being, I'm not going to come down on the PM for the way he handled it.


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Aug 2018)

In that case my translator didn't pick up 'white' quebecois.

I still wouldn't consider that racist comments by her though.

"You're a racist" is still a goto insult by the Liberals.


----------



## Good2Golf (20 Aug 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> To be fair, when you watch the whole interaction in french, she doesnt exactly come off as reasonable as the article seems to indicate.



Not so sure about that.  

As a "tête carrée originaire de Toronto" having lived in Quebec twice, I didn't see her as unreasonable on the whole.  Yes, "Quebecois(es) de Souche" translates close to 'founding settlers', but she is very clear that her issue is with "les immigrants illigeaux," not all immigrants - which to me, would have been a different issue."  She always qualifies the illegality of those coming into Quebec illegally.  It's not like she said "les maudits immigrants" or complained about the diminishing rights of "la pur laine" or anything like that.  This in contrast to how Quebecois(es) of places such a Hérouxville, particularly through official policies (ref: Critics: Quebec town's conduct code 'xenophobic'), voice their negative opinions of immigrants writ large.  

Frankly, I though she was controlled and conducted herself reasonably, in trying to voice her concern of a Federal policy that she saw as impacting the province.  I also thought it was BS that some surrounding her were insinuating that she was threatening or issuing threats - seemed like someone trying to set up a situation where she was (at least for a moment) forcibly detained by RCMP officers who eventually (not before physically holding her) identified themselves as undercover RCMP security officers.  Perhaps some of the LEOs here could describe her conduct in view of whether she posed a threat to the PM, and if that's close to SOP of how UC LEOs would handle such situations.

I do give Trudeau some credit for his initial 'fairly-leveled' response on the whole, even though I think he was being somewhat dramatic with his view of unacceptability of her statement, although he is certainly free to judge her words and comment on them as he sees fit.  It struck me more as his using her question as a catalyst for launching into an election-style soliloquy. 

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Remius (20 Aug 2018)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Not so sure about that.
> 
> As a "tête carrée originaire de Toronto" having lived in Quebec twice, I didn't see her as unreasonable on the whole.  Yes, "Quebecois(es) de Souche" translates close to 'founding settlers', but she is very clear that her issue is with "les immigrants illigeaux," not all immigrants - which to me, would have been a different issue."  She always qualifies the illegality of those coming into Quebec illegally.  It's not like she said "les maudits immigrants" or complained about the diminishing rights of "la pur laine" or anything like that.  This in contrast to how Quebecois(es) of places such a Hérouxville, particularly through official policies (ref: Critics: Quebec town's conduct code 'xenophobic'), voice their negative opinions of immigrants writ large.
> 
> ...



I'm pretty she stated "VOS immigrants" meaning YOUR immigrants.  Specifically when Trudeau would pay back the money for his immigrants.  Her tone was confrontational and she was heckling before.  CTV has a video of the incident and Trudeau had just  dismissed someone for a supposed inappropriate comment (one that I could not make out) on Aboriginals that seemed to come from the same group.  I'm not saying what she said was racist per se but the OP's article and point is that she was trying to ask about the economy and immigration policy.  She was trying to shout him down, certainly not discuss.  So no she wasn't being reasonable.


----------



## Remius (20 Aug 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> In that case my translator didn't pick up 'white' quebecois.
> 
> I still wouldn't consider that racist comments by her though.
> 
> "You're a racist" is still a goto insult by the Liberals.



He didn't actually call her a racist though.  If we are going to parse words it works both ways.


----------



## Infanteer (20 Aug 2018)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Not so sure about that.
> 
> As a "tête carrée originaire de Toronto" having lived in Quebec twice, I didn't see her as unreasonable on the whole.  Yes, "Quebecois(es) de Souche" translates close to 'founding settlers', but she is very clear that her issue is with "les immigrants illigeaux," not all immigrants - which to me, would have been a different issue."



I don't know.  If someone started shouted at you asking why you "don't respect the rights of the Loyalist Descendants of Ontario" how could you take it any other way than an accusation of bias against WASPs, essentially making it an issue of ethnic preference?  :dunno:


----------



## Good2Golf (20 Aug 2018)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I don't know.  If someone started shouted at you asking why you "don't respect the rights of the Loyalist Descendants of Ontario" how could you take it any other way than an accusation of bias against WASPs, essentially making it an issue of ethnic preference?  :dunno:



I still didn't see it as racist; more a questions of how far should the pendulum swing.  Everybody has their own take on things.  Personally, I have a hard time seeing her as trying to shout down the PM wen one has a microphone and speakers ad the other doesn't.  Perhaps shouting to be heard over the crowd cheering at the PM's pseudo-scripted responses? :dunno:

Regards,
G2G


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Aug 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> He didn't actually call her a racist though.  If we are going to parse words it works both ways.


Nope he didn't call her a racist, I didn't mean to suggest he did. Just insinuated she was being racist. 

Thats like me saying your racism has no place on this forum, but I'm not actually calling _ you_ a racist.

Illegal immigrants aren't a race.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Aug 2018)

I really don't care what was said. The incident happened, it's getting spun mostly anti Trudeau. Perhaps he's getting stressed. His stance during these whistle stops has been getting more extreme each time. Then he disappears for two weeks, (stress leave?) It doesn't seem to have worked. 

His message and intolerance is secondary for me. This is going to cost him thousands of votes in Quebec. That's all that matters. It's what happens, around the world, when the arrogance of government dismisses its subjects legitimate concerns.

I think he's lost Ontario already, if Quebec leaves him, the feds will follow their provincial Ontario counterparts into oblivion.


----------



## QV (20 Aug 2018)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I think he's lost Ontario already, if Quebec leaves him, the feds will follow their provincial Ontario counterparts into oblivion.



Here's hoping.  But only for a short time so they can purge the fools from the party and rebuild.  A healthy democracy needs a few good choices.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Aug 2018)

QV said:
			
		

> Here's hoping.  But only for a short time so they can purge the fools from the party and rebuild.  A healthy democracy needs a few good choices.



So long as the new party is not just a revised one with all the Laurentien Elites still at the helm. They've run and fucked up Canada enough. Time for the natural governing party of Canadian politics to hit the road.


----------



## Remius (20 Aug 2018)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I don't know.  If someone started shouted at you asking why you "don't respect the rights of the Loyalist Descendants of Ontario" how could you take it any other way than an accusation of bias against WASPs, essentially making it an issue of ethnic preference?  :dunno:



More than that.  I suspect that a security risk assessment identified that Diane Blain (she has been i. The press before) would be there or that her group would try to disrupt the event.  My guess is that Trudeau pounced on the opportunity. 

Mr. Ivison in this NP article presents the trap the CPC is heading into if they aren’t careful.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/john-ivison-justin-trudeau-blows-dog-whistle-on-conservative-xenophobia


----------



## Lumber (21 Aug 2018)

Read the article:


> "Scheer will likely say there is no place for identity politics in his party and that his underlying vision is of a party of the *centre-right* that appeals to disaffected Liberal voters."



God I hope so, but I'm still not convinced I want to support a party run by Andrew Scheer.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (21 Aug 2018)

recceguy said:
			
		

> So long as the new party is not just a revised one with all the Laurentien Elites still at the helm. They've run and ****ed up Canada enough. Time for the Moustache Pete's of Canadian politics to hit the road.



Just curious here, Recceguy. I am not getting the "Moustache Pete" reference. Could you elaborate, please?


----------



## Lumber (21 Aug 2018)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Just curious here, Recceguy. I am not getting the "Moustache Pete" reference. Could you elaborate, please?



He's comparing members of the LPC to the Sicilian Mafia.


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Aug 2018)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Read the article:
> God I hope so, but I'm still not convinced I want to support a party run by Andrew Scheer.



Do you prefer a party run by Justin Trudeau?


----------



## Lumber (21 Aug 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Do you prefer a party run by Justin Trudeau?



There's a party being _run _by Justin Trudeau?


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Aug 2018)

Lumber said:
			
		

> There's a party being _run _by Justin Trudeau?



Yeaaaa buddy.


----------



## Journeyman (21 Aug 2018)

Words I never thought I'd say:  I found myself agreeing with an opinion article by CBC's Neil Macdonald.   rly:
'Interesting times' indeed.



> *Maxime Bernier is challenging orthodoxy. He deserves a civil reply: Neil Macdonald*
> 
> ...Bernier 's contention – that identity politics promotes an endless splintering of the polity into ever-narrower shards of cohorts, all of whom believe their ethnicity or religious beliefs or sexuality merit special consideration – is worth discussing. Dismissing Bernier as a nativist, or white nationalist, or simply racist is just more of the reflexive, ad hominem groupthink that's currently so fashionable.
> 
> ...



The complete article is available HERE


----------



## Furniture (21 Aug 2018)

I had just finished reading that article this morning before logging on here, I was also shocked to find myself agreeing with the author as well.


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Aug 2018)

Concerned about illegal border crosses?
You're a racist. 
Concerned about the cost?
You're un-Canadian.
Don't like the carbon tax?
You're a denier. 

 :


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Aug 2018)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Just curious here, Recceguy. I am not getting the "Moustache Pete" reference. Could you elaborate, please?



I meant the old guard. The Lauretien Elites. The Trudeaus, Raes, Chretians, Mulroneys and Martins. Along with the influence of the Desmarais and Power Corp.

Explanation: When the new American born Mafioso, the 'Young Turks' (Luciano, Genovese, Morello and Capone, etc) wanted to rebuild, try new things and move away from the influence of the old party guys, the old guard, the 'Mustache Petes.' The old guys that immigrated and brought the crime syndicate to the US, didn't like it and tried to stop the youngsters. The Moustache Petes were removed and the Mafia prospered under the Young Turks.

In my context, I simply means the Old Guard, the Laurentien Elites, the Moustache Petes. Move them out and reform the party without their influence. That is all that was meant.

It was a term I grew up hearing when adults were talking about changes at work, in social clubs, committees and, yes, government at election time. "Time to move out the Mustache Pete's and let the Young Turks take over" Common vernacular in everyday speech. Perhaps those days are too far removed for many to remember, if they were even born then.

But at least you asked for an explanation. Whoever complained about it's use, didn't, and I'm sorry they were offended unnecessarily.


----------



## Haggis (21 Aug 2018)

recceguy said:
			
		

> But at least you asked for an explanation. Whoever complained about it's use, didn't, and I'm sorry they were offended unnecessarily.



I hope whomever complained didn't have a mustache.  if so, s/he should shave it off.

I grew up alongside some descendants of Montréal's "Young Turks". I remember those terms well.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Sep 2018)

> Images
> The message is glaring from Sweden’s election result. There is one dominant issue in Europe’s politics at present, and it is immigration. It rules in Italy and Germany. It rules in Hungary and Austria. It rules from Serbia to Scandinavia. It dominates every meeting of the leaders of the EU.


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/10/immigration-europe-sweden-elections-brexit



> Canada aims for immigration boost to buttress economy as population ages
> 
> Canada will open its doors to a steadily increasing number of immigrants in the next three years in hopes of attracting 1 per cent of its population by 2020, an attempt to buoy the economy as the country faces a growing population of retirees.
> 
> ...


https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-to-admit-40000-more-immigrants-a-year-by-2020-under-liberals-new-three-year-plan/article36800775/



> There are about 31 abortions per 100 live births: roughly 330,000 live births and 100,000 abortions each year. About half of the abortions are performed in hospitals, half in clinics.
> In 2003, 103,768 abortions were recorded in Canada, about 15.2 per thousand women. The number appears to be declining by about 1% per year. There are about 39,000 abortions each year in Ontario, delivered in 76 hospitals and 6 clinics.
> An exception is Quebec, where abortion rates are among the highest in the Western world.  From 17,000 abortions per annum in 1978, they rose to 29,000 in 1998, and 31,000 in 2002, or a rate of 38 per 100 births.


http://www.med.uottawa.ca/sim/data/abortion_e.htm






https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-630-x/11-630-x2014002-eng.htm




> The message of this book still holds today: The earth’s interlocking resources – the global system of nature in which we all live – probably cannot support present rates of economic and population growth much beyond the year 2100, if that long, even with advanced technology. In the summer of 1970, an international team of researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology began a study of the implications of continued worldwide growth. They examined the five basic factors that determine and, in their interactions, ultimately limit growth on this planet-population increase,


https://www.clubofrome.org/report/the-limits-to-growth/

What would the country look like if:

1 The country had adopted a non-judgemental policy that encouraged young women to be able to keep their children and live the lives they wanted.

2 We had not bought into the Club of Rome catastrophism of 1971 and had instead leveled out the fertility rate at 2.5 children per woman - the level that had already been achieved by the introduction of the pill?

Apparently only the OECD got the message.  The rest of the world, not so much.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Sep 2018)

I keep hearing how no one is having kids and we need immigration to survive as a country.

Maybe if we weren't paying taxes out of our asses we'd be having more kids. Kids are expensive.
On top of all the taxes I pay, and taxes ON taxes, I can pay up to $1100 a month in child care.

Maybe if we stoped paying so much taxes Canadians could afford to have more children. You know instead of inviting an exodus of immigrants here and using taxes to set them up. 

In addition I read Canada lost 50'000 jobs last month and the cities our refugees/illegal immigrants are going to are saying they can't handle anymore.

Liberals want to add another million or so more? What could go wrong.


----------



## Halifax Tar (10 Sep 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I keep hearing how no one is having kids and we need immigration to survive as a country.
> 
> Maybe if we weren't paying taxes out of our asses we'd be having more kids. Kids are expensive.
> On top of all the taxes I pay, and taxes ON taxes, I can pay up to $1100 a month in child care.
> ...



Couldn't agree more.


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Sep 2018)

A couple of interesting articles this Sunday:  One is an interview of Francis Fukuyama by Andrew Coyne and the other is a piece by Daniel Hannan.  Both speak to a theme I have been picking up on, that the current malaise is tied to the loss of understanding of the importance of the Reformation and the subsequent Enlightenment.  Personally I believe that is in large part due to the tendency of the Enlightened to be desirous of demonstrating their Tolerance by not criticizing those unfortunate enough to have not had the benefit of growing up in Enlightened Nations.   Now we are back to where we started, believing that there are Truths that define our Liberal religion and not understanding that the Enlightenment was the explicit rejection of the existence of Truths.

Daniel Hannan: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2018/09/15/protected-challenged-students-have-turned-backs-enlightenment/



> .....*We are turning our backs on the central idea of the Enlightenment.* Over the past four centuries, at least in the West, we have absorbed a set of precepts that do not come naturally. We have taught ourselves that someone can disagree with us without being wicked; that people whose ways seem strange might yet possess wisdom; *that we don’t know everything, and that listening to new ideas broadens our understanding.*
> 
> *This last idea – the recognition of our ignorance – is the foundation of modern science. For thousands of years, our ancestors believed that all truth was contained somewhere, usually in a sacred book. Only very recently have we reached the view that letting different ideas jostle is the best way to improve our knowledge.
> *
> ...



Meanwhile, Andrew Coyne: https://nationalpost.com/news/world/victims-virtues-and-the-fight-for-liberal-democracy-andrew-coyne-in-conversation-with-francis-fukuyama




> Andrew Coyne: The core insight of your book is that the identity politics of the left, the populist nationalism of the right, Islamism, even Trump himself, all are driven by a demand for dignity, a demand for recognition and respect. But why are all of these happening now?
> 
> Francis Fukuyama: I think these movements have been triggered by economic developments, globalization. This neo-liberal period of increasing flows of goods, services, trade, investment, has benefited a small number of people but left quite a few behind. But it’s not just de-industrialization and offshoring of jobs — I think it’s also the physical movement of people, really extraordinary levels of foreign-born people moving into Western Europe and the United States. I think a combination of the insecurity caused by economic disruption plus rather rapid cultural change is what’s triggered the demand for recognition. And that was there to be exploited by opportunistic politicians.





> ..... Fukuyama: identity politics can also lead to a kind of fragmentation, a challenge to some pretty basic Enlightenment values of the universality of human rights, of the individual as the building block of society.
> 
> It can. Here’s a concrete example: *Martin Luther King basically said, “Black people are just like white people. We want the same rights. We don’t want anything special. We just want to be treated as Americans are supposed to be treated*.” But in certain interpretations of the black power movement, that shifted over into saying, “No, actually black people are not just like white people. We have our own culture, we have our own values. We have a separate way of living. And that’s what we want to have respected.” Then it gets translated to a lot of different groups. The problem is that a lot of those groups are defined by biology, or characteristics you’re born with and you don’t have very much choice over — like the religion that you grew up in. So in a certain sense, that returns us to this pre-liberal notion that we’re actually all different from each other in fundamental ways.






> Coyne: I’m struck by how often what’s called “diversity” is, on closer inspection, more about emphasizing the sameness of individuals within a group, about conformity.
> 
> Fukuyama: This is another problem with certain interpretations of identity politics. Where you say that, because you’re born into a certain group that experience then determines what you’re going to think about politics, about culture, about a whole range of things. That’s a misunderstanding about how people are, they are actually capable of rising above these given identities and thinking for themselves.





> Coyne: You place a fairly heavy premium on the idea of rebuilding national identity. But you are referring to a particular type of national identity — what we often call civic nationalism, versus ethnic or cultural nationalism.
> 
> Fukuyama: Right. In Europe, you have a number of countries that define citizenship in ethnic terms. I don’t think that’s an acceptable way for a de facto multicultural society to think of itself. *You need an identity that is not based on ethnicity, not based on religion, but is based on shared political values. * So in the United States, this is a belief in the constitution, a belief in the rule of law, a belief in the principle of human equality. *You’ve got to get that civic understanding of nationalism.*  (Edit - Values are beliefs - so shared political values are shared political beliefs - Party replaces Church - Politics becomes Religion - Funnily enough Religion became Politics)
> 
> ...




International:  Between nations.  You can't have international cooperation without nations.

Ultimately the discussion can be boiled down the issue of coercion.  

The lazy man's solution to a problem is to efficiently impose a solution:  From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.  The efficient bureaucrat evaluating and deciding ability and need.

The liberal solution is to let the solution rise to the surface organically:  The individual determines his own abilities and needs and acts accordingly.  And that chaos frightens the heck out of the clerically inclined.  It is not just that they might see themselves as being unnecessary.  It is that the prospect of chaos is frightening.  

Two cultures: one defined by the precise geometry of the Acropolis, the other defined by the fire and ice of Ragnarok.


----------



## Rifleman62 (10 Oct 2018)

So it continues with the latest stats. The print media is probably close to the same ratio. CNN/MSNBC are all bash Trump. Some will say Trump deserves every bit of the negative news about him. When you are constantly bombarded with negative reports, of course many will believe it. Indoctrination. Meanwhile the US economy is getting stronger.

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/media-research-center-abc-cbs-nbc/2018/10/09/id/885591/

*MRC Study: 92 Percent of Trump Media Coverage 'Negative'* - 9 Oct 18

Broadcast networks hammered President Donald Trump and his administration over the summer — despite a raft of good economic news —  with reports that were 92 percent negative, according to conservative media watchdog study.

The Media Research Center said its study of 1,007 evening news stories on ABC, CBS and NBC from June 1-Sept. 30 revealed the most hostile coverage of a president in TV news history, with just 8 percent of the coverage positive.

According to the MRC, here is the top coverage by the networks about the Trump administration over the four-month period:

 - Russia collusion investigation, with 342 minutes of air time, 97 percent of which was negative.
 - Immigration policies, with 308 minutes of air time, and 94 percent negative coverage.
 - The nomination of Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court, with 291 minutes of coverage, 82 percent of which was negative.
 - North Korea diplomacy, with 179 minutes of coverage, 90 percent of it negative.
 - And U.S. relations with Russia, with 151 minutes of coverage, 99 percent of which was negative.

Meanwhile, the booming economy netted just *14 minutes of airtime with positive coverage*, MRC reported.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Oct 2018)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> So it continues with the latest stats. The print media is probably close to the same ratio. CNN/MSNBC are all bash Trump. Some will say Trump deserves every bit of the negative news about him. When you are constantly bombarded with negative reports, of course many will believe it. Indoctrination. Meanwhile the US economy is getting stronger.
> 
> https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/media-research-center-abc-cbs-nbc/2018/10/09/id/885591/
> 
> ...



Much like here. 

It's the nature of the beast.


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Nov 2018)

Looks like almost 40% of the people in shelters in Toronto self-identity as refugee claiments. 

With a little help from the Liberal government we can smash those rookie numbers up a few notches I bet. 



> The city of Toronto is standing by its statistics showing almost 40 per cent of people in shelters are refugee claimants – a number challenged as false by federal Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen in a continuing spat with his provincial counterpart.
> 
> Amid growing tension between Ottawa and the provincial government, Mr. Hussen last week accused Ontario Community and Social Services Minister Lisa MacLeod, who is responsible for the immigration file, of “fear-mongering” and using the issue of asylum seekers to “demonize people.” He was responding to her criticism of the federal government’s lack of plan for dealing with the influx of people crossing the U.S. border into Canada. In a critical statement, she cited the percentage of refugees occupying shelter spaces in Toronto.



https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/toronto/article-toronto-stands-by-data-showing-almost-40-per-cent-of-people-in/?fbclid=IwAR3va62NSXI28R0k5lkVSPnlXAbf8TYMr3NbBjUpLQXp7oyb3DZXq0JpJ5I


----------

