HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2017, 2:10 AM
Aylmer's Avatar
Aylmer Aylmer is offline
Still optimistic
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Montreal (C-D-N) / Ottawa (Aylmer)
Posts: 4,781
Have you tried a bit of research from some credible sources to see whether your views correspond with the reality of the situation?
__________________
I've always struggled with reality. And I'm pleased to say that I won.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2017, 2:13 AM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is online now
C'est quoi l'affaire?
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vieux Canada
Posts: 26,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by libtard View Post
I want to say this on facebook... I really do. But I feel as though I'll be lambasted
No, you'd get lambasted on Facebook because this is basically a perfectly flawed premise.

The people who are coming to Canada's border are not Americans or people with a legal right to be in the United States that cannot be taken away.

They are by and large people from dangerous countries (often extremely so) who, if they cannot remain in the U.S., will have to go back to those countries and face death or persecution or both.
__________________
This is not a joke.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2017, 2:26 AM
BobLoblawsLawBlog's Avatar
BobLoblawsLawBlog BobLoblawsLawBlog is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Metrotown
Posts: 347
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
Well, Syria and Somalia are in the "seven countries" that have been identified by Drumpf.
Fun fact, they were identified by Obama's administration

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/...ps-travel-ban/
__________________
"Looks cheap and spandrelly, as expected. But it's good that they're adding density, or whatever." -csbvan
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2017, 2:31 AM
niwell's Avatar
niwell niwell is offline
you go on ahead
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Parkdale, Toronto
Posts: 7,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLoblawsLawBlog View Post
Fun fact, they were identified by Obama's administration

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/...ps-travel-ban/

Why did you edit Acajack's quote to say "Drumpf"? Anyone who follows this forum knows he would never do that. And yes, we all know that the countries were identified under the Barrack "drone strike" Obama administration (albeit for somewhat different and slightly less overt reasons). I'm not sure why that changes anything he said?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2017, 3:00 AM
Spocket's Avatar
Spocket Spocket is offline
Keep yo pimp hand strong
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Changchun , China
Posts: 2,451
Well, they're not American refugees so in spite of the spin, that doesn't mean they're not actual refugees.

Having said that, I'm not sure I want people dropping into Canada without us at least having some clue who they are. As long as they make a claim that can be investigated then sure, let them in. They'll be processed and a decision made.

On the other hand, if these are just the people that know the U.S. won't take them, there has to be a reason why. Maybe we need to beef up our border security.
__________________
Giving you a reason to drink and drive since 1975.

I am the English teacher about whom your mother warned you .

They call me Captain Goodgitch . Nobody knows why .
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2017, 3:04 AM
BobLoblawsLawBlog's Avatar
BobLoblawsLawBlog BobLoblawsLawBlog is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Metrotown
Posts: 347
Quote:
Originally Posted by niwell View Post
Why did you edit Acajack's quote to say "Drumpf"? Anyone who follows this forum knows he would never do that. And yes, we all know that the countries were identified under the Barrack "drone strike" Obama administration (albeit for somewhat different and slightly less overt reasons). I'm not sure why that changes anything he said?
Oh my bad. I downloaded a thing that automatically changes "Trump" to "Drumpf" for fun. It must've stuck in the writing.
__________________
"Looks cheap and spandrelly, as expected. But it's good that they're adding density, or whatever." -csbvan
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2017, 3:18 AM
Pinus Pinus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
Yeah, if 500,000 people currently spread out all over the U.S. decide they're going to show up at the Canadian border over the next few months and demand asylum, there is little we can do to prevent this.

I know in Europe at one point they tried messaging that said "do not come - you will be turned away and have no chance of staying".

Not sure how effective this was.

I guess only time will tell us how big the wave will be.

We can prep for larger numbers of refugee claimants (which I am sure Citizenship and Immigration Canada is already doing to some degree) but such preparations can also be a waste of resources if people don't show up.
We may not be able to literally stop them from crossing the border, but we do indeed have the ability to NOT grant them asylum in Canada, and turn them back over to US Customs.

There is indeed a choice that can be made in this situation which will send a clear message to all that choose to come to Canada illegally.
__________________
Canada's biggest downfall: our proximity and physical attachment to 'Murca.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2017, 3:33 AM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is online now
C'est quoi l'affaire?
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vieux Canada
Posts: 26,505
I don't understand why people keep using the term "illegal".

From what we've seen so far, these people aren't trying to cross the border out of the view of Canadian authorities and looking to hide from them once in Canada. (Which would qualify as illegal immigration.)

What they're doing is following a process set in place by Canada for refugee claimants: you come up to the border and you declare that you want to obtain asylum as a refugee in Canada. This triggers a process under which your request can be granted or denied. There is nothing "illegal" about this. It's covered by Canadian and international laws.
__________________
This is not a joke.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2017, 4:24 AM
Pinus Pinus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
I don't understand why people keep using the term "illegal".

From what we've seen so far, these people aren't trying to cross the border out of the view of Canadian authorities and looking to hide from them once in Canada. (Which would qualify as illegal immigration.)

What they're doing is following a process set in place by Canada for refugee claimants: you come up to the border and you declare that you want to obtain asylum as a refugee in Canada. This triggers a process under which your request can be granted or denied. There is nothing "illegal" about this. It's covered by Canadian and international laws.
Are they not supposed to come through designated ports of entry to be properly processed and assessed? Is that not the "legal" way of entering Canada as a "refugee"? If they don't follow this process, like many people do, I don't see how that is not to be considered "illegal".
__________________
Canada's biggest downfall: our proximity and physical attachment to 'Murca.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2017, 4:27 AM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam/Rainbow Lake
Posts: 29,235
skimmed.

Under the 3rd safe country agreement, if these people who are crossing the border now have already started a refugee claim with the states cannot make a claim in Canada. Canada will send them back to the USA to finish the claim there as the USA is considered a safe country by Canada.
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2017, 4:29 AM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Think about Winnipeg.
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 16,278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
I don't understand why people keep using the term "illegal".

From what we've seen so far, these people aren't trying to cross the border out of the view of Canadian authorities and looking to hide from them once in Canada. (Which would qualify as illegal immigration.)

What they're doing is following a process set in place by Canada for refugee claimants: you come up to the border and you declare that you want to obtain asylum as a refugee in Canada. This triggers a process under which your request can be granted or denied. There is nothing "illegal" about this. It's covered by Canadian and international laws.
I don't get why people don't grasp this. It's like some Canadians just watch US TV news and secretly wish they could have bad hombre "illegals" to the south to complain about too.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2017, 4:31 AM
Pinus Pinus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpongeG View Post
skimmed.

Under the 3rd safe country agreement, if these people who are crossing the border now have already started a refugee claim with the states cannot make a claim in Canada. Canada will send them back to the USA to finish the claim there as the USA is considered a safe country by Canada.
So, in other words, you can't double dip; one can't make a refugee claim in the US, get spooked by Trump and then cross the Canadian border "without authority" (for those who are getting too caught up in semantics) and make a claim here. It's not permitted. Full stop. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

Send them back to the US post haste.
__________________
Canada's biggest downfall: our proximity and physical attachment to 'Murca.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2017, 5:42 AM
JM5 JM5 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 166
I don't think there are any rules against asylum seekers requesting assylum in multiple countries. People in refugee camps often apply to the US, Canada and Australia and go to wherever they're accepted first.

Otoh, what these people are doing is clearly illegal. They are entering Canada illegally to avoid the STCA. Our government chooses to ignore this fact and process them as assylum seekers even though they have decided not to abide by the UN treaty that grants them that right.

Please can we not be hypocrites and either follow our own laws or change them?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2017, 5:49 AM
ssiguy ssiguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 4,887
In my mind these people are not asylum seekers, refugees, immigrants or any other category a bureaucrat can think of. They are simply criminals and nothing more.

These people already know that they cannot apply for refugee status from the US so go out of their way to calculate a way to circumvent this law............their criminality is well calculated and executed well before they come near the border. As soon as they begin their journey to Canada there primary goal is circumvent Canadian Law. People caught doing this should be taken to the nearest border crossing and, at the most, give them a ticket back to the nearest major city and we are under no obligation, legally or morally, to do even that.

As far as people flying into Canada and declaring regugee status that is NOT the same. They are not coming from the US and an airport is a legal point of entry.

The feds have to declare a clear and unequivicable denunciation of this practice and that any one trying to enter from the US thru any non-legal point of entry will be immediately deported with no legal recource. If Canada refuses to do this, the flood gates would open making a mockery of our immigration laws and sending the message to anyone trying to get in that Canada is simply a country where laws are meant to be broken.

Last edited by ssiguy; Feb 21, 2017 at 6:46 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2017, 5:57 AM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam/Rainbow Lake
Posts: 29,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by JM5 View Post
I don't think there are any rules against asylum seekers requesting assylum in multiple countries. People in refugee camps often apply to the US, Canada and Australia and go to wherever they're accepted first.

Otoh, what these people are doing is clearly illegal. They are entering Canada illegally to avoid the STCA. Our government chooses to ignore this fact and process them as assylum seekers even though they have decided not to abide by the UN treaty that grants them that right.

Please can we not be hypocrites and either follow our own laws or change them?
I can't find the link now but it explains why they can't in the agreement canada implemented in 2004 with The United States. It says a refugee who enters a country and claims refugee status cannot go to a second country and claim it there, they are to be sent back to the country where the original claim was made as long as it is deemed a safe country by Canada and the USA is considered safe.
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2017, 5:58 AM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam/Rainbow Lake
Posts: 29,235
there is a petition going around to get Canada to halt enforcement of the agreement at this current time

http://ccrweb.ca/en/safe-third-country

Quote:
Overview
On 29 December 2004, the US and Canada implemented the Safe Third Country Agreement, by which each government closed the door on most refugee claimants at the US-Canada border.

The Canadian Council for Refugees strenuously opposes the Agreement, because the US is not a safe country for all refugees. The CCR also denounces the purpose and effect of reducing the number of refugees who can seek Canada’s protection.

Under the Safe Third Country Agreement, the US and Canada each declared the other country safe for refugees and established the general principle that refugee claimants should make their claim in the first of these countries that they reach. Thus refugees who are in the US are expected to pursue their claim in the US, rather than seeking protection in Canada. Similarly, those in Canada are expected to apply in Canada. However, in practice few asylum seekers move from Canada to the US to make a refugee claim: the Agreement is about preventing people who are in the US, or travelling through the US, from making a refugee claim in Canada.

The Agreement applies to refugee claims made at a land border port of entry. As a general rule, claims made at the border are summarily refused, based on safe third country. There are however some exceptions, including where the claimant has a family member in Canada or where the claimant is an unaccompanied minor whose parents are not in the US or Canada. (See below for practical information on the application of the Agreement).
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2017, 6:08 AM
cornholio cornholio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1overcosc View Post
Thanks to the third country agreement and relatively refugee-friendly American governments we've never really had to worry about unauthorized migration before. We've had control over pretty much every immigrant.

Now that this is no longer true we need a strategy to figure out how to move forward from here.
The people need to be detained and deported asap and there should be a effort to try and recoup some of these costs if at all possible. Not all of the people are broke and with no assets.

There is absolutely nothing to discuss here. Canada needs to act decisively and quickly and use a heavy hand to deter future economic migrants / criminals from entering illegally.

If there are any loopholes they need to be closed quickly and I would say the government should treat this as a emergency and priority.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2017, 6:13 AM
cornholio cornholio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by JM5 View Post
Okay, so the presumption is that the US would reject people from Syria and Somalia? I doubt that. Wait, is there still a war going on in Somalia?

As for poor people, they are NOT refugees.

I don't agree with the STCA because in my mind it clearly contravenes the UN treaty on refugees. Is the US still a safe third country if it's at war? That's meant to be funny because it's always at war. How about if war were to break out on American soil? Will the STCA be null and void suddenly in that case?

On the other hand, the STCA was enacted because the US and Canada are both pretty safe, open countries and signatories to the UN treaty on refugees. You have to be a bit suspicious of people who choose not to pursue their claim in the US because it probably indicates that their claim is not very strong to begin with.
Without STCA economic migrants and criminals just country shop. Canada and the US share security data, Canada already knows everything about everyone who enters the US once they enter Canada. None of these people have a valid claim and they should be locked up until they can be deported. Also there should be a attempt to recoup costs to Canada, which are significant.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2017, 6:21 AM
cornholio cornholio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aylmer View Post
No one is arguing that the US is, itself, unsafe. However, refugees - especially those from the countries targeted by the infamous executive order - do have legitimate concerns about how thorough or fair their hearing would be in the States. Without being able to access a lawyer or, in some cases, translation for the process, it is likely that they won't get a fair shake. As a consequence of that, they will likely get sent to persecution or death.

Our system here is far from perfect, but it does a much better job at accurately evaluating refugee cases.

Put yourself in the shoes of someone escaping the death in your home country because of your skin colour, sexual orientation, political views, etc. You arrive in a country where you have to argue your case in a legal system you don't know in a language you hardly speak. And if you don't manage to do that, you will get sent right back into the hands of a government which wants to kill you.
Now imagine that there's a country just across the border in which you will get the ressources to properly argue your case. I know that I'd cross that border.
In the 80's I along with my family made it across the Yugoslavia border to Austria, where they were shooting people who did not halt. We applied legally to come to Canada and came in as political refugees after living in Austria for some significant time as official refugees.

These pieces of shit (pardon my language) are nothing but economic migrants entering Canada illegally from a safe country. They are que jumpers and nothing but criminals and imo should be treated as such. Sorry for me being so bitter but unlike everyone else here I actually came to Canada via the refugees system and find the opinions of many here highly insulting.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2017, 6:28 AM
Pinus Pinus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by jm5 View Post
i don't think there are any rules against asylum seekers requesting assylum in multiple countries. People in refugee camps often apply to the us, canada and australia and go to wherever they're accepted first.

otoh, what these people are doing is clearly illegal. They are entering canada illegally to avoid the stca. Our government chooses to ignore this fact and process them as assylum seekers even though they have decided not to abide by the un treaty that grants them that right.

Please can we not be hypocrites and either follow our own laws or change them?
+1
__________________
Canada's biggest downfall: our proximity and physical attachment to 'Murca.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:26 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.