Emerson, Manitoba border crossings

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by cornholio

They don't have the right to a trial when entering the country illegally, they only have the right to a hearing. They have actually very few rights. Anyone can try to misinterpret the constitution, however that does not make the misinterpretation correct.

You have very few recourse options with the CBSA and the CBSA rights to apprehend and deport extend into Canada and past the time of the border crossing so long as it is related to the border crossing. This has gone through the courts. They can literally grab you x hours past the time you crossed where ever in the country and apprehend you and remove you in exactly the same way as if you just pulled up to the CBSA officer at the border, there in fact is no real difference.

And this is common sense. I dont know what motivation anyone would have to try and break common sense.

Not if you say the word asylum. That is the difference that you are missing. Also, if what you're saying were true, all of those boat people that arrived a few years ago would have been quickly removed.

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by lio45

Correct.

In fact, from the U.S.'s point of view, it's really convenient (and cheaper!) to let these people leave by their own means. It's almost a wonder we haven't yet seen city or state governments buy one-way bus tickets to the corners of MN/ND just across Emerson for any undocumented caught having done bad stuff, the same way we've already witnessed in the Prairies towards Van......

They'd be crazy to accept to spend money to try to keep these problematic people in the country.

I'd be willing to fund their work under this scenario. It's simply much easier for them to enforce.

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by JM5

As well, although your proposal seems viable under US law, I firmly believe the intent of the US' draconian "100 mile border zone" laws is the exact opposite of what you are suggesting: to keep illegal aliens from entering the US, not to prevent people from leaving the country. The whole intent of borders is to prevent unwanted people from entering, not to prevent those inside from leaving. The US isn't a prison state like North Korea after all. I sincerely doubt they would simply take over our responsibility of protecting our own border for us, nor should we give up our own sovereignty in order for them to do so. Even if they would be willing to pay the costs involved.

It has nothing to do with the US defending our border. We're already doing that with immediate detention on arrival.

[mistercorporate]

Originally Posted by lio45

You're being overly technical. Bluenote's point seemed obvious: on one side, people fleeing for their lives ("refugees") in war-torn regions, on the other side, people who are already in a Safe Third Country.

It was Bluenote who was being overly technical, and even there he/she was wrong!

The point was that the overwhelming majority of refugees to Canada have to enter here illegally, and via a safe 3rd country. And the few refugees that don't enter illegally tend to be the ones that are stuck on welfare for life as they are less likely to have any education or language skills pertinent to this country.

[JM5]

Originally Posted by mistercorporate

It was Bluenote who was being overly technical, and even there he/she was wrong!

The point was that the overwhelming majority of refugees to Canada have to enter here illegally, and via a safe 3rd country. And the few refugees that don't enter illegally tend to be the ones that are stuck on welfare for life as they are less likely to have any education or language skills pertinent to this country.

I see your point and I will even agree with you without knowing actual data to back up what you claim but I would ask you to try to look at things from the opposite point of view:

Those who came here through legal means and end up stuck on welfare are the ones truly in need of our help, while those with the money, determination and sense of entitlement to bend or break the laws of umpteen countries in order to get here come hell or high water might not be the ones we want. Plus they are industrious enough and would probably do just fine if we don't let them in.

[JM5]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

It has nothing to do with the US defending our border. We're already doing that with immediate detention on arrival.

Fine, but I think it's perfectly clear that there are serious disincentives to the US for doing this and clear incentives for not doing it. I can list them in detail if
somebody wants.

The major incentive for NOT doing it is that the undesirable migrants remove themselves from the country especially during the current political climate. This is in fact what is happening: some are coming to Canada. If the trend increases, we will need to solve the problem here within our own legal framework.

Asking the US to help solve it is like putting the fox in charge of guarding the henhouse. It might look like a dog, but don't be fooled.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

Not if you say the word asylum. That is the difference that you are missing. Also, if what you're saying were true, all of those boat people that arrived a few years ago would have been quickly removed.

It doesn't make a difference. You are detained, or are supposed to be detained until a IRB hearing. Everyone coming from the US is supposed to be deported, after being detained. Either once waiving the right to a hearing or having the quick IRB hearing, which is costly and failing in it sticks with you for ever.

It is unfortunate that Canadian laws and procedures are not being followed, and the blame lays on the shoulders of politicians who interfere with common sense functioning laws and procedures.

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by cornholio

It doesn't make a difference. You are detained, or are supposed to be detained until a IRB hearing. Everyone coming from the US is supposed to be deported, after being detained. Either once waiving the right to a hearing or having the quick IRB hearing, which is costly and failing in it sticks with you for ever.

That's false, and I've also shown it to be so. It only applies at land border crossings, not for all of the land border. That's why people are crossing illegally. There's no harm in processing their claims.

It is unfortunate that Canadian laws and procedures are not being followed, and the blame lays on the shoulders of politicians who interfere with common sense functioning laws and procedures.

Canadian law is being followed to the letter.

[jmt18325]

What about amending the safe third country agreement?

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by lio45

But then, wouldn't anyone in this situation be perfectly able to show up at a Canadian entry point even under the STCA and get in for processing...?

Incorrect. Unless their application has already been denied (at which point they risk often immediate deportation), they cannot cross at a formal border crossing.

[JM5]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

What about amending the safe third country agreement?

Yes, some are calling for the loophole allowing asylum seekers to enter away from official points of entry to be closed by amending the STCA.

I would think that such a measure would be unnecessary and make for bad optics internationally. It would certainly look like we are trying very hard to close the door to any and all asylum seekers, running counter to our commitment to the UN convention (which the SCTA already infringes on, imo).

It would be unnecessary too, because as cornholio aptly pointed out, we could just tell the RCMP and the CBSA to apply existing border laws to asylum seekers as well through much the same means I already described above. But again, this would leave no recourse at all for anyone seeking asylum coming from the US so it would NOT sit well with the international community nor with the UN.

In short, this would be a stronger measure than what I'm suggesting and I think it would adversely affect Canada's reputation internationally. I personally don't feel this measure will be required in the near term. I might be wrong.

[jmt18325]

Question - did Trudeau's tweet cause this?

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKBN17K2CE

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

What about amending the safe third country agreement?

I've never seen any explanation of the reason for the "loophole" in the STCA. It seems not to have been inadvertent.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

Question - did Trudeau's tweet cause this?

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKBN17K2CE

Are you even serious?!? Of course what the Mexican President chooses to tweet does have a very real impact on the way potential asylum seekers interpret the country's attitude towards them and their application, and ultimately on their decision to try to go there to apply, or to pass and try their luck somewhere more friendly instead.

If the PM of Australia just tweeted "hey, change of policy, all refugee boats are welcome now", you firmly believe we'd see zero point zero zero change in the number of attempts to get to the country by boat?!?

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by lio45

Are you even serious?!? Of course what the Mexican President chooses to tweet does have a very real impact on the way potential asylum seekers interpret the country's attitude towards them and their application, and ultimately on their decision to try to go there to apply, or to pass and try their luck somewhere more friendly instead.

There's a common denominator that you seem to be missing...it isn't tweets.

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by lio45

If the PM of Australia just tweeted "hey, change of policy, all refugee boats are welcome now", you firmly believe we'd see zero point zero zero change in the number of attempts to get to the country by boat?!?

As for this - Trudeau's tweet did not signal a shift in Canadian policy.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

As for this - Trudeau's tweet did not signal a shift in Canadian policy.

The people making these decisions don't all base them on actual policy... image and message are important. I'd even say they're more important than policies. Perception sometimes matters more than reality -- decisions are made based on the former.

In my analogy, that fictional tweet wasn't accompanied by any change in Australia's policies, either. It was just their mini-Trump PM deciding to tweet something at 3 am Australian time of his own initiative. You still think it would have zero impacts on the number of attempts by refugees to reach Australian shores?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

There's a common denominator that you seem to be missing...it isn't tweets.

Odd, I'm pretty sure the common denominator in all cases is precisely "perception rather than actual shifts in Can/US/Mex policy". Think about it...

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by lio45

The people making these decisions don't all base them on actual policy... image and message are important. I'd even say they're more important than policies. Perception sometimes matters more than reality -- decisions are made based on the former.

You're kind of all over the place here. Canada has always (for the last 40 years, anyway) put out the message that everyone was welcome, no matter who they were, or where they came from. That didn't change under Trudeau.

In my analogy, that fictional tweet wasn't accompanied by any change in Australia's policies, either.

In your analogy, it spoke of a change in Australian policy. The tweet by Trudeau did no such thing.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

You're kind of all over the place here. Canada has always (for the last 40 years, anyway) put out the message that everyone was welcome, no matter who they were, or where they came from. That didn't change under Trudeau.



In your analogy, it spoke of a change in Australian policy. The tweet by Trudeau did no such thing.

If that message was being put out in those words, I don't recall ever seeing it. It would come as a bit of a surprise, I imagine, for the vast numbers of people who are not accepted for immigration to Canada, or as refugees for that matter.