Canadian Politics

[blue_gold_84]

12 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:

and I'm offended by your ignorant and foolish statements.  Look, I'm on thin ice here with Rich as I've had too many battles with SJW's and always ended up getting the blame, and we are only 10 days from kick-off from the first Bomber exhibition game and don't want a ban-hammer as I value this site 99% more on the Bomber info I get (given I am a long way away from Winnipeg and need every scrap of info I can get to stay informed on the team I have loved since 1975) so I'm just going to say that you and I will NEVER agree on this topic.  I respect Mark a lot and I would appreciate if he could enlighten me a bit on how he thinks that people can just walk across our border and be allowed to stay here and it be totally cool, but you and I are totally done.  I think you're ignorant and foolish, and you can think the same of me, but we're done.

Wow, I've really struck a nerve. Yeesh.

Do show me where I've been ignorant or made foolish statements. And I don't really care if you're on thin ice or not here. I can see why that's the case, though. And I'm not a SJW, either. Making assumptions is another way to make oneself look foolish. And you can disagree all you want... It still doesn't change the fact you fail to grasp the reality of things. Have a read below. You could clearly benefit from learning more on the subject.

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/news/2017/03/claiming_asylum_incanadawhathappens.html

Maybe understand the situation before opining on it publicly. And then crying foul when others criticize what you've opined. And then proceed to expect anyone to care whether or not you get to remain a part of this forum... And then run away from the discussion altogether.

What a childish reaction. It's plain as day who the offended party is in this thread.

[kelownabomberfan]

1 hour ago, Wideleft said:

I'll answer your rhetorical question with a rhetorical question: "What is the cost to taxpayers of doing nothing?"  

You don't think that shutting down a refugee program would actually stop refugees from arriving, do you?

My question wasn't really rhetorical. It would be nice to know what this is costing Canadian taxpayers.  Is there not an option to turn over illegals to US immigration if they are caught trying to sneak into the country?  Instead of bringing them to Winnipeg? Again not a rhetorical question. 

[The Unknown Poster]

I dont know a lot about the details but I understand KBF's perspective here.  What are these refugees escaping by leaving the US and walking into Canada illegally?  And why are we just assuming its legitimate, opening our arms and welcoming them in?  If they are being vetted, great, but if I try to walk across the border I dont get vetted, I get arrested and deported back to Canada and I probably face some charges.

If your VISA runs out and you stay without a renewal, you are not a refugee.  Are we talking about people that have been in the US for 20+ years? 

[Fatty Liver]

18 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:

I am talking about the ones crossing at Emerson.  They are illegal.  Totally illegal.  And I don't agree with illegal immigration being tolerated.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/caught-on-camera-manitoba-u-s-border-sees-record-weekend-for-illegal-crossings-1.3333321

It's a complicated issue, they are mostly likely illegally residing in the US with an expired work or travel visa thus they seek the border.   These refugees know that if they apply through the proper channels it will be a lengthy process and they will most likely be rejected.  Trump doesn't want this group, so he's quite happy if they flee in droves every time he rattles his sabre.

The dilemma is that there really is no way at this time to turn them back under the "Safe Country Agreement" without first processing them and they know well how to "game" the system.  If they come into the country undetected most of them are turning themselves in to the nearest RCMP detachment so that they are registered in "our system" and can slip under the tax-payer's umbrella.  Unfortunately short of building the world's longest wall there is no simplistic solution at this time. 

Edited June 1, 2017 by Throw Long Bannatyne

[The Unknown Poster]

4 minutes ago, Throw Long Bannatyne said:

It's a complicated issue, they are mostly likely illegally residing in the US with an expired work or travel visa thus they seek the border.   These refugees know that if they apply to Canada through the proper channels it will be a lengthy process and they will most likely be rejected.  Trump doesn't want this group, so he's quite happy if they flee in droves every time he rattles his sabre.

The dilemma is that there really is no way at this time to turn them back under the "Safe Country Agreement" without first processing them and they know well how to "game" the system.  If they come into the country undetected most of them are turning themselves in to the nearest RCMP detachment so that they are registered in "our system" and can slip under the tax-payer's umbrella.  Unfortunately short of building the world's longest wall there is no simplistic solution at this time. 

A wall, you say??  Hmmmm...doesnt sound so bad.

[Fatty Liver]

33 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

A wall, you say??  Hmmmm...doesnt sound so bad.

Trump can pay for it with the pesos he collects from Mexico.

[kelownabomberfan]

1 hour ago, Throw Long Bannatyne said:

It's a complicated issue, they are mostly likely illegally residing in the US with an expired work or travel visa thus they seek the border.   These refugees know that if they apply through the proper channels it will be a lengthy process and they will most likely be rejected.  Trump doesn't want this group, so he's quite happy if they flee in droves every time he rattles his sabre.

The dilemma is that there really is no way at this time to turn them back under the "Safe Country Agreement" without first processing them and they know well how to "game" the system.  If they come into the country undetected most of them are turning themselves in to the nearest RCMP detachment so that they are registered in "our system" and can slip under the tax-payer's umbrella.  Unfortunately short of building the world's longest wall there is no simplistic solution at this time. 

Fair enough - thanks for that explanation.

[kelownabomberfan]

1 hour ago, The Unknown Poster said:

I dont know a lot about the details but I understand KBF's perspective here.  What are these refugees escaping by leaving the US and walking into Canada illegally?  And why are we just assuming its legitimate, opening our arms and welcoming them in?  If they are being vetted, great, but if I try to walk across the border I dont get vetted, I get arrested and deported back to Canada and I probably face some charges.

If your VISA runs out and you stay without a renewal, you are not a refugee.  Are we talking about people that have been in the US for 20+ years? 

that's pretty much what I am saying.  The term "Refugee" just gets applied to everyone now, even if they are just illegals who don't want to go back to the country they came from.  I sympathize but I also know there are thousands of people trying to get into Canada legally, and it seems that under this system people can just walk across the border and boom they are now in.  What's stopping millions more from doing just that?

[Wideleft]

1 hour ago, The Unknown Poster said:

I dont know a lot about the details but I understand KBF's perspective here.  What are these refugees escaping by leaving the US and walking into Canada illegally?  And why are we just assuming its legitimate, opening our arms and welcoming them in?  If they are being vetted, great, but if I try to walk across the border I dont get vetted, I get arrested and deported back to Canada and I probably face some charges.

If your VISA runs out and you stay without a renewal, you are not a refugee.  Are we talking about people that have been in the US for 20+ years? 

You would get vetted if you tried to claim refugee status in the U.S.  Let's keep comparing apples to apples here.

[Wideleft]

29 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

that's pretty much what I am saying.  The term "Refugee" just gets applied to everyone now, even if they are just illegals who don't want to go back to the country they came from.  I sympathize but I also know there are thousands of people trying to get into Canada legally, and it seems that under this system people can just walk across the border and boom they are now in.  What's stopping millions more from doing just that?

Simply not true when it comes to actual journalism which I highly recommend.  It is those on the right who prefer to lump refugees, expired visa holders, immigrants, blacks, mexicans, etc into one big bag of "others".  If the word has lost all meaning to you, your sources of information probably can't tell the difference either.

[kelownabomberfan]

6 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

Simply not true when it comes to actual journalism which I highly recommend.  It is those on the right who prefer to lump refugees, expired visa holders, immigrants, blacks, mexicans, etc into one big bag of "others".  If the word has lost all meaning to you, your sources of information probably can't tell the difference either.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeau-concerned-about-refugee-influx-in-manitoba-border-town/article33959612/

Globe and Mail uses the term in this article to describe the Emerson border jumpers as refugees.  But then they are also called "asylum seekers" too.  Which is it?  To me there is quite a big difference.

[kelownabomberfan]

10 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

You would get vetted if you tried to claim refugee status in the U.S.  Let's keep comparing apples to apples here.

so if a friend of mine gets denied access at the US border at Osoyoos because of a drug charge from 20 years ago, he should just run across the border and scream "I claim asylum"?  He wouldn't get jumped on/shot by US border guards and dragged back into Canada?  Interesting....

[The Unknown Poster]

16 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

You would get vetted if you tried to claim refugee status in the U.S.  Let's keep comparing apples to apples here.

That would be a quick process and I'd be sent back and charged.  The fact so many people can spill over the border should be concerning.

[blue_gold_84]

18 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

That would be a quick process and I'd be sent back and charged.  The fact so many people can spill over the border should be concerning.

It is concerning. I don't think anyone's arguing that. When you consider the current situation in the US and the fact Canada and the US share the longest and technically unprotected* international land border on Earth, nobody should be surprised at what's been happening. Historically, however, it's not like this just started happening when Trump was elected POTUS. It's been an ongoing phenomenon for years.

*meaning the areas between border ports of entry are essentially wide open

[Atomic]

Honestly something has to be done about it.  It's incredibly concerning that Trudeau and the federal government are just ignoring the issue.  Now someone has died trying to walk across the border.  It's not right.  I have no problem with people seeking asylum for legitimate reasons but this is NOT the way it should be done.  It's harmful to border communities, it's harmful to the people trying to cross, and it's harmful to our immigration system.  Trudeau can't just keep ignoring it.

[Fatty Liver]

16 minutes ago, Atomic said:

Honestly something has to be done about it.  It's incredibly concerning that Trudeau and the federal government are just ignoring the issue.  Now someone has died trying to walk across the border.  It's not right.  I have no problem with people seeking asylum for legitimate reasons but this is NOT the way it should be done.  It's harmful to border communities, it's harmful to the people trying to cross, and it's harmful to our immigration system.  Trudeau can't just keep ignoring it.

Not that easy, Canada and the U.S. have an agreement in place and until that agreement is amended or renegotiated they have to abide by it's rules on both sides.

From Wikipedia:

The Canada–United States Safe Third Country Agreement, officially the Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America for cooperation in the examination of refugee status claims from nationals of third countries,^[1] is a treaty between the governments of Canada and the United States to better manage the flow of refugee claimants at the shared land border.

Under the agreement persons seeking refugee status must make their claim in the first country they arrive in, either the United States or Canada, unless they qualify for an exception. For example, refugee claimants who are citizens of a country other than the United States that arrive from the United States at the Canada–United States land border can only pursue their refugee claims in Canada if they meet an exception under the Safe Third Country Agreement.

The agreement was signed on December 5, 2002 in Washington, D.C. by Bertin Côté (Deputy Head of Mission, Embassy of Canada) and Arthur E. Dewey (Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees, and Migration, United States Department of State). It entered into force on December 29, 2004.^[1]

 

[blue_gold_84]

Here's more information on The Safe Third Country Agreement (the link is in a previous post I made):

Quote

The Safe Third Country Agreement, signed between Canada and the United States (U.S.) in 2004, requires that refugee claimants seek protection in the first safe country in which they arrive. The Agreement applies to those making an asylum claim at a land border port of entry between Canada and the U.S. It does not apply to those who arrive from the U.S. by sea, between the ports of entry or an inland port such as an airport.

Since the 1980s, countries around the world have been using safe third country-type agreements as a way to address pressures on domestic asylum systems from the continued growth of global migration. Since the mid-1990s, the United Nations Refugee Agency has supported these types of agreements.

The Agreement between Canada and the U.S. is premised on the principle, accepted by the United Nations Refugee Agency, that individuals should seek asylum in the first country they arrive in. U.S. compliance with treaty obligations is overseen by an independent judiciary. The Safe Third Country Agreement remains an important tool for Canada and the U.S. to work together on the orderly handling of refugee claims made in our countries.

The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act requires the continual review of all countries designated as safe third countries to ensure that the conditions that led to the designation as a safe third country continue to be met. The asylum system in the U.S. continues to meet the international standards and therefore the U.S. continues to be a safe third country.

There are four types of exceptions to the Safe Third Country Agreement: refugee claimants who have a family member in Canada; unaccompanied minors under the age of 18; individuals holding a valid Canadian visa; and those who have been charged with or convicted of an offence that could subject them to the death penalty in the U.S. or in a third country. Also, the agreement does not apply to claimants who have entered Canada at a location that is not a port of entry.

 

[Atomic]

1 hour ago, Throw Long Bannatyne said:

Not that easy, Canada and the U.S. have an agreement in place and until that agreement is amended or renegotiated they have to abide by it's rules on both sides.

Who cares if it's easy?  People's lives are at stake.

[kelownabomberfan]

1 hour ago, Atomic said:

Who cares if it's easy?  People's lives are at stake.

seems to me there were some unintended consequences here from some people trying to do a good thing and not fully understanding the potential ramifications, including people freezing in the dark trying to get from one country to another illegally.

[Fatty Liver]

2 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:

seems to me there were some unintended consequences here from some people trying to do a good thing and not fully understanding the potential ramifications, including people freezing in the dark trying to get from one country to another illegally.

The agreement worked fairly well until Trump showed up and scared the **** out of them with his anti-Muslim rhetoric.  I don't feel much sympathy for the border crossers as they were well aware that their visas had expired and they were living permanently in the US as illegals. Whether the reasoning behind that was to better themselves economically or if they actually faced a threat upon return to their home country would have to be determined on an individual basis.  They know the rules of the game they're playing, so I don't see them as being innocent to the consequences of their actions.

I'm more upset with the Americans for not dealing with their problems and allowing them to spill over the border.  I don't think Trump is losing any sleep over the current situation though, this solution meets his objectives.

[Jacquie]

13 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:

ok - well that's interesting.  Are any being returned to the US after vetting?  Just curious.

They wouldn't be returned to the US because the US won't take back someone who was there illegally. If a claim is rejected, the person would be sent back to the country he/she originally came from.

Edited June 2, 2017 by Jacquie

[blue_gold_84]

56 minutes ago, Jacquie said:

They wouldn't be returned to the US because the US won't take back someone who was there illegally. If a claim is rejected, the person would be sent back to the country he/she originally came from.

It's not quite that simple. What about a stateless person? Or a person without a passport or other travel document showing their country of birth?

These are aspects investigated by immigration officials during the interview process, which can be very lengthy when there is missing or a lack of documentation pertaining to an individual seeking asylum.

[iHeart]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pat-stogran-quits-ndp-leadership-race-1.4145044

 

well let's see if we have as many NDP dropouts as there were Conservative dropouts

[JCon]

1 hour ago, iHeart said:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pat-stogran-quits-ndp-leadership-race-1.4145044

 

well let's see if we have as many NDP dropouts as there were Conservative dropouts

I would assume so. It's nasty business running for the leadership of a party. Some get fed up, some get pushed out and some just get tired. 

I bet Ashton lasts until convention but I doubt she gets much support. 

[SpeedFlex27]

1 hour ago, JCon said:

I would assume so. It's nasty business running for the leadership of a party. Some get fed up, some get pushed out and some just get tired. 

I bet Ashton lasts until convention but I doubt she gets much support. 

Just like her father, a career politician. Steve Ashton was UMSU President when I attended the U of M. The NDP was a Godsend for the guy. I don't think he's had a regular job his entire life.