Emerson, Manitoba border crossings

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by cornholio

They are not refugees. To be a refugee you must ask for asylum and be granted refugee status. These people are coming from the US where they either applied and we're granted status in the US or applied and we're denied in which case they need to go back to where they came from.

I understand your position, but I must point out that, legally speaking, being rejected from one country is irrelevant to your right to claim asylum in another country. Presumably, it means that your case is weak, but the whole controversy regarding the US refugee claim evaluation system is that it allows for unqualified officials to arbitrarily reject a claim without it ever going to a hearing. So we can't automatically assume that a claim that was rejected in the States will be rejected in Canada.

But again, unless you've committed any really serious crimes like murder or genocide, Canada is legally obligated to give all and any asylum seekers a fair evaluation, no matter where they've been beforehand.

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by JM5

So after checking the UN Convention on Refugees, Aylmer is (of course) correct, they have the right to cross borders without obeying local illegal entry laws.

While in my mind this clearly runs counter to a country's sovereignty, what else is new? International treaties run counter to national sovereignty as a matter of course....

No, No. NO. Again International laws DO NOT trump domestic laws in of themselves. The SCC has show this time and time again:

In R versus Hape, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that prohibitive rules of customary international law are part of domestic law, so long as they do not conflict with existing Canadian legislation.

In Baker v Canada, Justice L’Heureux-Dube wrote for the majority: “International treaties and conventions are not part of Canadian law unless they have been implemented by Canadian statute."

In Suresh v Canada, the SCC found that departure from international law to which Canada is a signatory is permissible regarding border control and deportation.



Now I am not a lawyer, however a quick review of SCC decisions clearly shows that while ratified International law needs to be considered, where it contravenes existing Canadian law, Canadian law rules.

[Antigonish]

It begins.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...emos/98190192/

Expect thousands of illegals fleeing to Canada in the coming months. It's now or never that our country puts it's foot down to stop this.

[Pinus]

Originally Posted by Antigonish

It begins.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...emos/98190192/

Expect thousands of illegals fleeing to Canada in the coming months. It's now or never that our country puts it's foot down to stop this.

Fully agreed. Although, this will predominantly affect Mexican Illegals as opposed to Muslims. So if this indeed does plays out, we may see an influx of Mexicans into Canada. Either way, as a country, we need to act in a proactive manner to prevent such an occurrence. However, I'm not anticipating any action from the Trudeau government on this except a tagline of "Bienvenue au Canada!"

[lio45]

From the U.S.'s point of view, this is a totally expense-free, effort-free way of deporting undesirables: just let it continue to be known that the northern neighbor has a porous border, and that they're "really nice" to everyone who shows up... vs staying in the U.S. where they might eventually get deported for real.

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by Acajack

What shreddog is saying is all technically true, but I find there's a lot nitpicking about this on here.

The law is quite clear. That people wish to apply it haphazardly is unfortunate.
Again I am not saying that anyone should be charged, just that they could be.

Originally Posted by Acajack

Haven't we even had people who crossed at an unauthorized location call the police themselves to turn themselves in?

Reporting yourself to the police after "breaking the law" does not exonerate you. It can show intent and garner goodwill, however you can still be charged.

Originally Posted by Acajack

We have no idea what these people have gone through or what resources they had to get to the Canadian border. They may not have maps or anything and many may have simply headed north and ended up at the border on the roads they stumbled upon.

While I don't want it to become a free for all, as a child of a refugee who came to Canada I can certainly empathize with what these people want to do and what they are risking to get it done. I just don't know if turning a blind eye is the best thing Canada should do. While winter may be over in southern Manitoba, seeing how some of these people have been dressed, it's a miracle that we've only had a few issues of frost bite so far. Do we need to have a frozen Alan Kurdi before we act??

Not being factious here, but if Canada was able to mobilize so quickly to bring in 25000 refugees from Turkey and Jordan 16 months ago, perhaps we should consider doing the same for the US. Set a cap of <insert number here> and have proper processing centres in the major US cities??

[Pinus]

I've had no real significant issue with Trudeau's leadership...........until now. He will continue to stand back and allow tens of thousands of people cross the border illeg....er...."without proper authority" into Canada, and do absolutely nothing. That is his policy for Canada; Open Borders. That smug look of his and his "Sunny Ways" rhetoric make me nauseated. Many Canadians will live to regret voting for this moron; I know I do.

And you think things are bad now? Just wait until the weather warms up. We're stuffed.

It's desperate times like this I wish the Tories were back in power.

[rousseau]

People fleeing to new lands are not pieces of shit. Yes, there will be some nasty pieces of work in the mix, just like there were when the Chinese came over and the Italians came over and the Vietnamese came over and the Yugoslavians came over. Yes, there will be some people taking advantage of our generosity, just like the Germans and the Dutch and the Ukrainians did before them.

Americans burned down Catholic churches in the 19th century (not so much in Canada), and there were riots and mobs beating up the Irish and the Germans and the Italians. Actually, when the British and the Dutch weren't fighting each other over New Amsterdam/New York back in the 17th century they were making each other's lives difficult enough during times of peace. Etc. Ad infinitum. It's an old story.

Are you aware of what people said during the great African-American migration north in the first half of the 20th century? And what they said as they fled the neighbourhoods the African-Americans moved into in the second half of that century?

I'm old enough to have heard the talk about "protecting this country's values" when we had large-scale influxes of Vietnamese and Yugoslavians. I saw right wing neighbours roll their eyes, sigh, shake their heads and mutter every single thing that has been said in this thread.

Every...single...thing. And worse.

I'm old enough to remember those Vietnamese kids stumbling into our gym class. They were ignored and mostly tolerated, though sometimes they were provoked into fights by the larger assholes who spoke the Canadian version of the English language like I did (more or less) and shared many of the customs I partook of. I stopped quite a few fights just by standing in between them like a regular old peacemaker. I guess a white kid telling other white kids to quit harassing the Vietnamese kids was enough to confuse them. At least while I was around, anyway.

I also recall feeling like these Vietnamese kids were from another universe. There was a gulf. We did not sit at the same tables at lunch. But now, well over thirty years later, I laugh and joke and make snide Canadian-style remarks with their kids. These kids still probably eat Vietnamese food as 85% of their diet, and are most likely nominal Buddhists, but they seem like real Canadians to me.

It's amazing to be old enough to have seen it all, from the worry and/or horror at the arrival of their parents to the nonchalant acceptance of the kids of the next generation.

Look, I don't like Islam (or Christianity, for that matter). And I don't like much about the culture and customs of a lot of modern-day countries where Islam is the official state religion. Yes, Jews cannot legally enter many of those countries, and you would literally not be able to function in those societies (legally or otherwise) if you made it known you were an atheist. Yes, yes, yes...blah, blah, blah.

But if you think that the arrival of some adherents of Islam into our bigger cities in the 21st century is anywhere remotely close to the cultural and social shockwaves that reverberated through North American small cities and towns when hordes of Germans showed up on these shores, then you're an idiot. It is not the same sort of social dislocation/adjustment at all.

Not even close.

But sure, you have to talk about numbers. It's one thing to welcome a dozen frostbitten Somalians into Manitoba, but it's quite another when five hundred thousand Mexicans decide to flee here en masse when Trump starts rounding people up.

But is that really going to happen, realistically? Mexicans aren't stupid. They're in the U.S. for the jobs, and they know that the Americans desperately need them to do the jobs that the 300-pound Cheetos-scarfing 30-year-olds fusing into their meth-stained couches aren't interested in doing. They probably know about the agricultural jobs in southern Ontario, but they also probably know that southern Ontario's vineyards and watermelon fields are a drop in the bucket compared to California plus Alabama plus Florida et al.

I have a hard time believing that hundreds of thousands of Mexicans are going to choose Canada instead of going back to Mexico. How realistic is that scenario?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by rousseau

But sure, you have to talk about numbers. It's one thing to welcome a dozen frostbitten Somalians into Manitoba, but it's quite another when five hundred thousand Mexicans decide to flee here en masse when Trump starts rounding people up.

But is that really going to happen, realistically? Mexicans aren't stupid. They're in the U.S. for the jobs, and they know that the Americans desperately need them to do the jobs that the 300-pound Cheetos-scarfing 30-year-olds fusing into their meth-stained couches aren't interested in doing. They probably know about the agricultural jobs in southern Ontario, but they also probably know that southern Ontario's vineyards and watermelon fields are a drop in the bucket compared to California plus Alabama plus Florida et al.

I have a hard time believing that hundreds of thousands of Mexicans are going to choose Canada instead of going back to Mexico. How realistic is that scenario?

I have no idea. But I do know there are about 15 million undocumented immigrants in the United States. A huge chunk of them are Mexicans it is true.

One percent of 15 million is 150,000 people.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I have no idea. But I do know there are about 15 million undocumented immigrants in the United States. A huge chunk of them are Mexicans it is true.

One percent of 15 million is 150,000 people.

But also, 15 million is huge. I've already seen articles on just how impossible it will be to round up 15 million people and deport them.

How many people did Obama deport? How many of them fled to Canada instead?

It's just not going to happen, no matter how feverishly Trump and the morons who voted for him are drooling at the prospect.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by rousseau

But if you think that the arrival of some adherents of Islam into our bigger cities in the 21st century is anywhere remotely close to the cultural and social shockwaves that reverberated through North American small cities and towns when hordes of Germans showed up on these shores, then you're an idiot. It is not the same sort of social dislocation/adjustment at all.

Not even close.

I was curious about how big the horde of Germans (and others mostly from Europe) was compared to today's immigration levels. This gives a pretty good idea:

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-630-...016006-eng.htm

So we're actually on the upper end of immigration levels right now if you look at 10 and 20 year averages. Obviously back then the population was smaller so 250,000 immigrants had a bigger impact than 250,000 today.

Still, I'd argue that today's immigrant cohorts are far more "alien" than the ones back then were. Though the people then might have found Germans or Ukrainians plenty alien for their liking. Their origins (Christian and European) and the pre-technology era almost certainly made them more easily integratable and assimilatable than today's immigrant populations will end up being.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Still, I'd argue that today's immigrant cohorts are far more "alien" than the ones back then were. Though the people then might have found Germans or Ukrainians plenty alien for their liking. Their origins (Christian and European) and the pre-technology era almost certainly made them more easily integratable and assimilatable than today's immigrant populations will end up being.

I would say it's precisely the opposite. It's only been in the postwar period that the differences between Lutherans and Presbyterians have melted into the background of Canadian life. People did not have the access to information then that we do now. For most people, their world began and ended within a few streets of where they grew up. Doctrinal differences between the Christian faiths were stark. Think about how those villages in southern Manitoba self-selected into Ukrainian, French and Mennonite enclaves in the early 20th century. The churches are still there to this day.

People kept separate back then. Right near Stratford there's a village called Wartburg with a Lutheran church, and down the road there's a place called Kinkora with a Catholic church. And I kid you not, I got to talking with someone who lives in Kinkora once (she cut my hair), and it's literally only been in the last two or three decades that there hasn't been an unspoken stigma against German Lutherans socializing with Irish Catholics or vice versa.

In the 19th century an Irish person in Hamilton didn't just up and marry a Loyalist descendant with no questions asked. When it happened it was cause for scandal. If you went back a hundred years and told someone that someday all Christians would form a more-or-less united front against Muslims they would have laughed at you and thought you were telling fairy tales from the Crusades. It wasn't that long ago that German Christians fought a world war against French, American and Commonwealth Christians. Being under the umbrella of Christianity didn't stop us from slaughtering each other.

The idea that the Christian-descended West is or was a monolithic block that is or was united as a singular or similar culture is revisionist history. And the idea that a few thousand Muslims from Syria or wherever are a threat to our "way of life" is just sad.

Hey, I'll complain about sex-separate Muslim prayers in public schools in Toronto as much as the next guy, but we need to keep things in perspective here.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by rousseau

I would say it's precisely the opposite. It's only been in the postwar period that the differences between Lutherans and Presbyterians have melted into the background of Canadian life. People did not have the access to information then that we do now. For most people, their world began and ended within a few streets of where they grew up. Doctrinal differences between the Christian faiths were stark. Think about how those villages in southern Manitoba self-selected into Ukrainian, French and Mennonite enclaves in the early 20th century. The churches are still there to this day.

People kept separate back then. Right near Stratford there's a village called Wartburg with a Lutheran church, and down the road there's a place called Kinkora with a Catholic church. And I kid you not, I got to talking with someone who lives in Kinkora once (she cut my hair), and it's literally only been in the last two or three decades that there hasn't been an unspoken stigma against German Lutherans socializing with Irish Catholics or vice versa.

In the 19th century an Irish person in Hamilton didn't just up and marry a Loyalist descendant with no questions asked. When it happened it was cause for scandal. If you went back a hundred years and told someone that someday all Christians would form a more-or-less united front against Muslims they would have laughed at you and thought you were telling fairy tales from the Crusades. It wasn't that long ago that German Christians fought a world war against French, American and Commonwealth Christians. Being under the umbrella of Christianity didn't stop us from slaughtering each other.

The idea that the Christian-descended West is or was a monolithic block that is or was united as a singular or similar culture is revisionist history. And the idea that a few thousand Muslims from Syria or wherever are a threat to our "way of life" is just sad.

Hey, I'll complain about sex-separate Muslim prayers in public schools in Toronto as much as the next guy, but we need to keep things in perspective here.

Really? I'd say we're all talking out of our butts here when it comes to how many immigrants will be Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. in the future, and how seamlessly they and their descendants will integrate into existing Canadian society.

BTW, I never said they were a threat to our way of life, nor did I single out Syrians, but to speak with assurance that they or any other group are less of a threat or even a similar one than Ukrainians might have been (it turns out... the Ukrainians weren't) is just ridiculous.

None of us has any idea how this is going to go.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by shreddog

The law is quite clear. That people wish to apply it haphazardly is unfortunate.
Again I am not saying that anyone should be charged, just that they could be.

Reporting yourself to the police after "breaking the law" does not exonerate you. It can show intent and garner goodwill, however you can still be charged.

While I don't want it to become a free for all, as a child of a refugee who came to Canada I can certainly empathize with what these people want to do and what they are risking to get it done. I just don't know if turning a blind eye is the best thing Canada should do. While winter may be over in southern Manitoba, seeing how some of these people have been dressed, it's a miracle that we've only had a few issues of frost bite so far. Do we need to have a frozen Alan Kurdi before we act??

Not being factious here, but if Canada was able to mobilize so quickly to bring in 25000 refugees from Turkey and Jordan 16 months ago, perhaps we should consider doing the same for the US. Set a cap of <insert number here> and have proper processing centres in the major US cities??

Here is the deal:

If you walk to the border at an official crossing and ask for asylum they can turn you away immediately because the U.S. is considered a safe country. But if you cross the border (your chances of succeeding are better at a non-crossing) and set foot on Canadian soil then Canada is obliged to process your request for asylum and you can stay until it's heard.

Part two of the deal (e.g. why people do this).

Let's say you're a Syrian family who's been in the U.S. since 2015. You've requested asylum as a refugee but your case has not been heard.

Trump gets elected and says all sorts of bad things about Syrians, Muslims and refugees.

The writing is on the wall: you could get kicked out of the U.S.

Where will the U.S. kick you to? Not Canada. Not the U.K.

If they deport you it will be back to Syria.

So, you try your luck with Canada before that happens.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by shreddog

No, No. NO. Again International laws DO NOT trump domestic laws in of themselves. The SCC has show this time and time again:

In R versus Hape, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that prohibitive rules of customary international law are part of domestic law, so long as they do not conflict with existing Canadian legislation.

In Baker v Canada, Justice L’Heureux-Dube wrote for the majority: “International treaties and conventions are not part of Canadian law unless they have been implemented by Canadian statute."

In Suresh v Canada, the SCC found that departure from international law to which Canada is a signatory is permissible regarding border control and deportation.



Now I am not a lawyer, however a quick review of SCC decisions clearly shows that while ratified International law needs to be considered, where it contravenes existing Canadian law, Canadian law rules.

I think that Suresh, which supports your narrow claim regarding supremacy of national law over international law that has not been both ratified by Parliament, and incorporated into Canadian law, actually tears your whole argument apart.

Now, I am not a lawyer either, so I am not entirely confident in my reading over yours, but my understanding is that Canadian law does not allow for the deportation of someone who is at risk of torture unless it can be shown that they represent a serious risk to Canadian national security. As I understand it, Suresh resulted in the Court forcing the government to give a refugee hearing to someone that had been denied one due to claimed links to terrorism. So Canada could not deport a refugee claimant without proving a security risk until their claim was reviweed and rejected. As I understand it, this decision was reached because the Refugees Convention has been both ratified and incorporated into Canadian law.

Given the result in Suresh, I cannot imagine that Canadian law would allow for the deportation of any refugee claimant because of illegal entry. If anything, I could easily see the First Safe Country Agreement being disqualified on the grounds that the US is no longer a safe country upholding it's obligations under international law to protect legitimate refugees. That agreement is, after all, trumped by Canadian Law.

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

Now, I am not a lawyer either, so I am not entirely confident in my reading over yours, but my understanding is that Canadian law does not allow for the deportation of someone who is at risk of torture unless it can be shown that they represent a serious risk to Canadian national security. As I understand it, Suresh resulted in the Court forcing the government to give a refugee hearing to someone that had been denied one due to claimed links to terrorism. So Canada could not deport a refugee claimant without proving a security risk until their claim was reviweed and rejected.

The reason I referenced Suresh was that it established precedence that Canada could deport establishing primacy of Canadian law. You are correct in that it was eventually found that Canada had to define the he was a security risk in order to do so due to the death penalty in Sri Lanka. Now since none of the asylum seekers appear to be on a death row threat in the US, I assume that Suresh could be used to establish that when a death penalty is not looming (unlike Suresh) Canadian law supersedes international law. Again, I am not a lawyer, but it appears that the precedence is there.

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

If anything, I could easily see the First Safe Country Agreement being disqualified on the grounds that the US is no longer a safe country upholding it's obligations under international law to protect legitimate refugees. That agreement is, after all, trumped by Canadian Law.

The problem with this is establishing that SCTA is no longer in effect. At this time it is all speculative and I do not believe you can build a case on what could happen.


Again I am not advocating that anyone be charged, but just identifying that it appears that Canada could exercise sovereignty control if it wished.

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Here is the deal:

If you walk to the border at an official crossing and ask for asylum they can turn you away immediately because the U.S. is considered a safe country. But if you cross the border (your chances of succeeding are better at a non-crossing) and set foot on Canadian soil then Canada is obliged to process your request for asylum and you can stay until it's heard.

Part two of the deal (e.g. why people do this).

Let's say you're a Syrian family who's been in the U.S. since 2015. You've requested asylum as a refugee but your case has not been heard.
...

Oh I get it. And hell, if I was in their shoes I can't say that I wouldn't be doing the same thing, however the point was that under Canadian law, what they are doing is illegal.

Does it mean it's wrong in a moral sense?? Not sure about that, though I am leaning towards no on that one. I don't want it to become an open door for many reasons, though primarily since I am a queue nazi (ohhh, Godwin!) and I hate anyone who jumps a queue for any reason. That said, desperate time and desperate measures. I'm just glad that no one has froze to death ... yet.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by shreddog

Oh I get it. And hell, if I was in their shoes I can't say that I wouldn't be doing the same thing, however the point was that under Canadian law, what they are doing is illegal.

Does it mean it's wrong in a moral sense?? Not sure about that, though I am leaning towards no on that one. I don't want it to become an open door for many reasons, though primarily since I am a queue nazi (ohhh, Godwin!) and I hate anyone who jumps a queue for any reason. That said, desperate time and desperate measures. I'm just glad that no one has froze to death ... yet.

Putting yourself in the other guy's shoes is rarely an element that goes into public policy development or legal analysis. Maybe it should. Maybe it shouldn't. I dunno.

[Aylmer]

I think that Shreddog and Bassic Lab win the Most substantive SSP exchange of the month award. To think that we went from mudslinging to jurisprudence in a matter of hours

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by shreddog

Now since none of the asylum seekers appear to be on a death row threat in the US, I assume that Suresh could be used to establish that when a death penalty is not looming (unlike Suresh) Canadian law supersedes international law. Again, I am not a lawyer, but it appears that the precedence is there.

However, this was not a case of international vs domestic laws - it was a conflict between the vagueness of refugee laws vs the rights outlined in our constitution.

1. Charter and risk of torture: Canada is not just an involuntary intermediary--- the guarantee of fundamental justice applies even to deprivations of life, liberty or security effected by actors other than our government, if there is a sufficient causal connection between our government's participation and the deprivation ultimately effected.

... and the constitution won. We can't deport people if there is cause to believe that they will face a deprivation of fundamental justice (life, liberty, security) in their home country, not the US.

As I've stated before, if you do not have a permanent status in the US (refugee, landed immigrant, citizen, etc), once you cross into Canada, the STCA does not apply and the fact that you came from the US is irrelevant to the evaluation of your case.