Illegal Border Crossing into Canada - Asylum Seekers

[Bruce Monkhouse]

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]

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.

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]

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

 

[EpicBeardedMan]

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

:rofl:

 

[jmt18325]

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]

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

:rofl: 

 

[Colin Parkinson]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. 

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]

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

 

[SeaKingTacco]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[jmt18325]

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.