Illegal Border Crossing into Canada - Asylum Seekers

[mariomike]

John Tory must be a complete idiot,

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

 

[Stoker]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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


To whom are you referring?

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

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Remius]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

Similarly, the actual restrictions imposed on these newcomers would have to limit their mobility rights as little as is reasonably possible. Courts would have to be convinced that the benefits of the measure outweigh the seriousness of the infringement.

The fact that the limitation would be temporary (for the duration of the immigrant visa, for example) would help the government's case. And by structuring the immigrant-selection criteria in a way that grants more points for applicants willing to work in small towns or rural areas, it could also be presented as one option among many available to potential immigrants, who could otherwise apply under the regular economic stream. In other words, the limitation accepted voluntarily by some immigrants would be balanced by the fact that their choice would give them a better chance of obtaining permanent resident status.

Along with clarifying the constitutional question around mobility rights, the policy could play an important role in reinforcing the notion that immigration is not only about the personal well-being and advancement of foreign applicants, but also about the needs of the receiving country.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/

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.

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]

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]

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.