2025 U.S. - Venezuela conflict

[Bruce Monkhouse]

That's China taking the long game approach....

 

[YZT580]

I don’t think anyone reasonably objects to jailing traffickers (though some do unreasonably). I would differentiate those trafficking purely for profit from those dealing just enough to support their own addiction. They still must be accountable for their actions, but there’s also still room for a public health approach because the underlying source problem is still their addiction issues.

only selling a little bit is the same as only being a little bit high. With all the cannabis shops around you are talking mainly hard drugs. Maybe give them a break the first time around by mandating treatment but the second time lock them up for a significant i.e. more than 2 years period of time. That way we get to send the landed immigrants and illegals home as some of them are a part of the problem

 

[brihard]

only selling a little bit is the same as only being a little bit high. With all the cannabis shops around you are talking mainly hard drugs.

Obviously I’m talking hard drugs.

Maybe give them a break the first time around by mandating treatment but the second time lock them up for a significant i.e. more than 2 years period of time. That way we get to send the landed immigrants and illegals home as some of them are a part of the problem

We can deport anyway. Trafficking schedule I, or possession for the purpose of trafficking, carries a maximum sentence that makes it “serious criminality” under IRPA regardless of what actual sentence is given.

 

[RangerRay]

Full spectrum care is the answer. If we treat drug addiction as a medical condition, include detox, housing, community support, potentially education or skills enhancement, the negative aspects will be drastically reduced. It's also likely cheaper than policing, justice system use, and incarceration. Unfortunately, we're conditioned to think the opposite.

Exactly. The problem comes from the drug access activists who only get the harm reduction pillar of the stool established but ignore the other pillars of the drug strategy. Then they bully the public for noticing the public disorder they see as a result.

 

[YZT580]

Obviously I’m talking hard drugs.



We can deport anyway. Trafficking schedule I, or possession for the purpose of trafficking, carries a maximum sentence that makes it “serious criminality” under IRPA regardless of what actual sentence is given.

didn't know you were a dealer. If compulsory rehab is considered a conviction and criminal sentence then there shouldn't be a problem. First conviction for trafficking and they are gone is what you are telling me. If that is the case, why are there so many repeat customers

 

[brihard]

didn't know you were a dealer.

Wind your neck in or find another conversation.

If compulsory rehab is considered a conviction and criminal sentence then there shouldn't be a problem. First conviction for trafficking and they are gone is what you are telling me. If that is the case, why are there so many repeat customers

No, what I’m telling you is that a first conviction for trafficking is considered serious criminality under IRPA due to the potential sentence, even if the “six months actual sentence” threshold isn’t met. That allows for a permanent resident to be removed under IRPA. Whether or not they are is up to the authorities who deal with immigration stuff. There is no legislative obstacle to removing convicted drug dealers if they aren’t Canadian citizens, save for the universally applicable limits we face on removing people to certain countries that we just won’t deport to. So anyway- under our current laws, deportation of non-citizens convicted of trafficking is a policy question, not a matter of a legislative gap.

 

[YZT580]

Wind your neck in or find another conversation.


No, what I’m telling you is that a first conviction for trafficking is considered serious criminality under IRPA due to the potential sentence, even if the “six months actual sentence” threshold isn’t met. That allows for a permanent resident to be removed under IRPA. Whether or not they are is up to the authorities who deal with immigration stuff. There is no legislative obstacle to removing convicted drug dealers if they aren’t Canadian citizens, save for the universally applicable limits we face on removing people to certain countries that we just won’t deport to. So anyway- under our current laws, deportation of non-citizens convicted of trafficking is a policy question, not a matter of a legislative gap.

sorry about that I dropped the l in talking. My sincere apologies. So the implication is that much of this devolves onto the courts.

 

[brihard]

sorry about that I dropped the l in talking. My sincere apologies. So the implication is that much of this devolves onto the courts.

All good.

No, not the courts. Courts at criminal sentencing don’t decide on deportation. immigration status and deportation decisions are made by officers designated under IRPA (I’m not super clear if this is only IRCC, or both IRCC and CBSA: paging @Haggis ?), and then potentially by the Immigration and Refugee Board if a matter goes to tribunal. the courts might occasionally see a judicial review of a tribunal decision, but when they do it’s nearly always someone arguing that the administrative process resulting in a deportation order was flawed.

A sentence of less that six months explicitly matters under IRPA is the person is a permanent resident and the offence Carrie’s less than a ten year maximum. In that case, a six month or greater sentence is the only route to “serious criminality”.

It may be that IRCC has policy to treat cases differently based on actual sentence even where the maximum was ten years or more (like all trafficking of hard drugs), but I’m not sure.

 

[lenaitch]

When they first started this, they stated their intelligence included launch spots, personnel on board and what they were carrying. They aren’t beholden to give out any intelligence whatsoever on what they are doing. If for no other reason than to protect their assets.

Middle finger? Who is everybody? Are you talking about foreigners that feel so invested that they think they're entitled to lecture/ get answers, from someone elses government on their foreign affairs policy/ protection of the homeland?

I'm sure even you would agree that's a little presumptuous and sanctimonious.

I understand protecting assets but it seems curious that they could do a dog-and-pony show of aerial photos for the Cuban Missile Crisis or Gulf War II, or even an after-action reveal that 'hey, we recovered floating debris and it was pure coke' press conference.

The 'everybody' seems to be the be the press/public (or is it out of line to even ask the question now?) and it seems Congress is looking for answers.

I trust you will be as equally sanguine and trusting if it is a van heading to a remote Canada-US border crossing or across the river near Cornwall.

 

[Haggis]

All good.

No, not the courts. Courts at criminal sentencing don’t decide on deportation. immigration status and deportation decisions are made by officers designated under IRPA (I’m not super clear if this is only IRCC, or both IRCC and CBSA: paging @Haggis ?), and then potentially by the Immigration and Refugee Board if a matter goes to tribunal. the courts might occasionally see a judicial review of a tribunal decision, but when they do it’s nearly always someone arguing that the administrative process resulting in a deportation order was flawed.

That's pretty much the process. BSOs from the inland enforcement branch would make the determination and the Immigration Division would issue the removal order under IRPA on behalf of the Minister. At a port of entry, the order could be issued by a specially trained BSO referred to as a Minister's Delegate.

A sentence of less that six months explicitly matters under IRPA is the person is a permanent resident and the offence Carrie’s less than a ten year maximum. In that case, a six month or greater sentence is the only route to “serious criminality”.

Depending on where they are going, prior to being sent back, CBSA will do a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment on the deportee to ensure that they will not be at risk by us sending them packing.

It may be that IRCC has policy to treat cases differently based on actual sentence even where the maximum was ten years or more (like all trafficking of hard drugs), but I’m not sure.

Not IRCC. IRPA 4(2) places this responsibility in the lap of the Public Safety Minister for cases of organized or transborder criminality.

 

[brihard]

That's pretty much the process. BSOs from the inland enforcement branch would make the determination and the Immigration Division would issue the removal order under IRPA on behalf of the Minister. At a port of entry, the order could be issued by a specially trained BSO referred to as a Minister's Delegate.

Depending on where they are going, prior to being sent back, CBSA will do a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment on the deportee to ensure that they will not be at risk by us sending them packing.

Not IRCC. IRPA 4(2) places this responsibility in the lap of the Public Safety Minister for cases of organized or transborder criminality.

Gracias!

 

[OldSolduer]

didn't know you were a dealer. If compulsory rehab is considered a conviction and criminal sentence then there shouldn't be a problem. First conviction for trafficking and they are gone is what you are telling me. If that is the case, why are there so many repeat customers

Good luck with that. The addict has to have the desire to quit drugs.