HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #19301  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2018, 2:25 PM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 2,805
A loophole that would only ever really disadvantage Canada, so I can see why it was left in. It's pretty far fetched that a refugee would make his way unseen into Canada then head south across the border.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19302  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2018, 2:29 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 14,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
A loophole that would only ever really disadvantage Canada, so I can see why it was left in. It's pretty far fetched that a refugee would make his way unseen into Canada then head south across the border.
Except for the "unseen" part, it happens all the time. Canada's nightmare scenario since 9/11 has been that terrorists might enter the USA by crossing illegally from Canada. Thank the Creator it has not happened.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19303  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2018, 2:40 PM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 2,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwoldtimer View Post
Except for the "unseen" part, it happens all the time. Canada's nightmare scenario since 9/11 has been that terrorists might enter the USA by crossing illegally from Canada. Thank the Creator it has not happened.
What I mean is, the only way that someone could use the 'loophole' to get into the US is to enter Canada from another continent somehow (by boat?), then travel south across the border and claim asylum. There's no land border with Canada and a country that isn't the USA, and anyone travelling here by air would be picked up at the airport.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19304  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2018, 3:33 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 14,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
What I mean is, the only way that someone could use the 'loophole' to get into the US is to enter Canada from another continent somehow (by boat?), then travel south across the border and claim asylum. There's no land border with Canada and a country that isn't the USA, and anyone travelling here by air would be picked up at the airport.
Most of the people entering Canada illegally from the USA entered the USA legally, afaik. I assume the same would be true in the reverse direction.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19305  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2018, 3:40 PM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 2,805
Would that not violate the agreement? There would be proof they had already arrived in a safe third country before Canada, and if that's the case they should be seeking asylum in the US, not Canada.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19306  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2018, 4:26 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 14,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
Would that not violate the agreement? There would be proof they had already arrived in a safe third country before Canada, and if that's the case they should be seeking asylum in the US, not Canada.
Again, if they cross the border illegally, the Safe Third Country agreement does not apply.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19307  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2018, 5:06 PM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 2,805
It's completely pointless and achieves nothing then.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19308  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2018, 8:19 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 14,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
It's completely pointless and achieves nothing then.
Actually, it works as intended, but as I said earlier I'm not sure what the rationale was to limiting its provisions to legal border crossings.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19309  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2018, 9:49 PM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 2,805
What was the intention? Unless I'm mistaken, it was for refugees to settle in the first country they came to. Which it is quite clearly failing to do, and there was no way it could have ever worked with the 'loophole' in place. It's not really a loophole at all, the law is more 'you can declare in whichever country you want, just don't go to the actual border crossing'.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19310  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2018, 8:22 AM
casper casper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,739
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwoldtimer View Post
Most of the people entering Canada illegally from the USA entered the USA legally, afaik. I assume the same would be true in the reverse direction.
I don't think that statement is true.

Canada had its first large wave being people from Haiti. After the earthquake there was some temporary program that allowed people from Haiti to be in the US temporarily. The program kept being extended and when it was clear it would be extended any more, that generated that wave. So technically they were there legally. That is one of the reason the US authorities were powerless to stop this.

The second wave was from Nigeria and mostly people who entered the US on tourist visas.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19311  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2018, 8:26 AM
casper casper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,739
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
What was the intention? Unless I'm mistaken, it was for refugees to settle in the first country they came to. Which it is quite clearly failing to do, and there was no way it could have ever worked with the 'loophole' in place. It's not really a loophole at all, the law is more 'you can declare in whichever country you want, just don't go to the actual border crossing'.
I think the intention was that refuges are processed in a similar way as they are in most other parts of the world. In other parts of the world the UN and NGOs setup a refugee camp at the boarder in a safe country. The refugees are indexed, processed, assessment and provided food and shelter. They are then placed with a host country that will take them if it is clear they will not be able to return.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19312  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2018, 11:29 AM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 14,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by casper View Post
I don't think that statement is true.

Canada had its first large wave being people from Haiti. After the earthquake there was some temporary program that allowed people from Haiti to be in the US temporarily. The program kept being extended and when it was clear it would be extended any more, that generated that wave. So technically they were there legally. That is one of the reason the US authorities were powerless to stop this.

The second wave was from Nigeria and mostly people who entered the US on tourist visas.
Yes, many of the Haitians and Central Americans in the USA are/were there with temporary protected status, having entered legally or illegally.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19313  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2018, 8:35 PM
ssiguy ssiguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 5,813
What`s the point of having a border unless it`s enforced? I think it`s scandalous that people are circumventing the law by declaring refugee status from the US a few block from an official border crossing. Yes, the government says they are not guaranteed refugee status but have to apply but the reality is that will take years if not a decade before getting these people thru the endless appeal process aka the immigration lawyer`s government funded make-work project. After all those years and they are denied they then will slip into the woodwork or just head right back to the US.


It makes a mockery of our very generous refugee system and undermines what very little confidence the public has with our immigration system to begin with. Ford is 100% right...........this is a made in Ottawa problem and hence Ottawa should be paying 100% of all of their expenses including housing.


Laws without enforcement are nothing more than suggestions.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19314  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2018, 8:36 PM
Doug Doug is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 8,756
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwoldtimer View Post
Yes, many of the Haitians and Central Americans in the USA are/were there with temporary protected status, having entered legally or illegally.
Haiti may be poor and places like El Salvador have rampant crime, but no country with land or easy water access to Canada or the US is a war zone. Why are any citizens of the Western Hemisphere eligible for refugee status?

Nigeria is the biggest source of refugees and an undisputed war zone. Rather than making refugee claims directly to Canada, many Nigerians are doing so after flying to the US on travel visas. Clearly they know how to game the system.

The Liberals could easily define the entire border to be a port of entry to close the Safe Third Country loophole but won't out of whatever motivation. Perhaps they are trying to stoke anti-immigrant sentiment to conjure a wedge issue for the 2019 campaign.

Last edited by Doug; Jul 12, 2018 at 8:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19315  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2018, 9:33 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 14,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug View Post
Haiti may be poor and places like El Salvador have rampant crime, but no country with land or easy water access to Canada or the US is a war zone. Why are any citizens of the Western Hemisphere eligible for refugee status?

Nigeria is the biggest source of refugees and an undisputed war zone. Rather than making refugee claims directly to Canada, many Nigerians are doing so after flying to the US on travel visas. Clearly they know how to game the system.

The Liberals could easily define the entire border to be a port of entry to close the Safe Third Country loophole but won't out of whatever motivation. Perhaps they are trying to stoke anti-immigrant sentiment to conjure a wedge issue for the 2019 campaign.
I guess the short answer would be for the same reason as people from anywhere else in the world are eligible. The basis for a claim of refugee status is not dependent on country of origin, although it is a factor in the decision whether to grant refugee status.

I note that the USA has decided not to accept refugee claims from people fleeing violence in Central America. These people could well qualify for refugee status in Canada, were they to apply here. I have no views re which position is "better", although I have no doubt that someone legitimately fleeing from gang threats in El Salvador, for example, who is subequently sent back there, is at high risk of death.

Re the idea of defining the whole border as a port of entry, I know that it has been suggested, but I don't know whether it is legally possible, or whether the USA would accept such a designation in the context of the Safe Third Country agreement. I imagine the government has received legal advice on the matter, but I've not seen any analysis of how/whether it could be done or made effective.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19316  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2018, 11:58 PM
ssiguy ssiguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 5,813
According to the UN Declaration unless you are in an actual war-zone or a member of a specific group that is targeted by a government or power which puts your personal safety at risk you are NOT a refugee.


Under no definition are poverty or crime reasons for a legitimate refugee claim. You can't help but feel bad for these people but that does not make them refugees. These are simply people skipping the immigration que and nothing more and just the fact that they don/t make a claim at the border exemplifies that they know this. It makes a mockery of our refugee system and is a slap in the face to the thousands who are waiting in line for their immigration application throughout the world because they want to enter the country legally. They, unlike these 'refugees' don't want their first actions in their new countries to be illegal ones. In other words they have far more respect for the laws and people of their new country than these 'refugees' do.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19317  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2018, 12:45 AM
Andy6's Avatar
Andy6 Andy6 is online now
Starring as himself
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Toronto Yorkville
Posts: 7,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwoldtimer View Post
Re the idea of defining the whole border as a port of entry, I know that it has been suggested, but I don't know whether it is legally possible, or whether the USA would accept such a designation in the context of the Safe Third Country agreement. I imagine the government has received legal advice on the matter, but I've not seen any analysis of how/whether it could be done or made effective.
If the whole border were a port of entry, would that not mean that anyone could cross as long as they declared themselves to Border Services at a place that would have to be designated but which in many cases would be a long way from the point of crossing? If so, there would be no effective way to police the border at all, because anyone caught crossing could say that they were intending to declare themselves later, at the nearest CBSA office.
__________________
crispy crunchy light and snappy
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19318  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2018, 1:53 AM
MonctonRad's Avatar
MonctonRad MonctonRad is online now
Wildcats Rule!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Moncton NB
Posts: 15,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssiguy View Post
According to the UN Declaration unless you are in an actual war-zone or a member of a specific group that is targeted by a government or power which puts your personal safety at risk you are NOT a refugee.
How about climate refugees (famine, drought, flood)? What about other natural disasters (earthquake, volcanic eruption)?

Surely victims of these catastrophes can be counted as refugees as well.
__________________
Go 'Cats Go
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19319  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2018, 2:12 AM
FrankieFlowerpot's Avatar
FrankieFlowerpot FrankieFlowerpot is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,792
Will JT send out any tweets about Andy getting his house fixed up?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19320  
Old Posted Jul 13, 2018, 2:49 AM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 14,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssiguy View Post
According to the UN Declaration unless you are in an actual war-zone or a member of a specific group that is targeted by a government or power which puts your personal safety at risk you are NOT a refugee.


Under no definition are poverty or crime reasons for a legitimate refugee claim. You can't help but feel bad for these people but that does not make them refugees. These are simply people skipping the immigration que and nothing more and just the fact that they don/t make a claim at the border exemplifies that they know this. It makes a mockery of our refugee system and is a slap in the face to the thousands who are waiting in line for their immigration application throughout the world because they want to enter the country legally. They, unlike these 'refugees' don't want their first actions in their new countries to be illegal ones. In other words they have far more respect for the laws and people of their new country than these 'refugees' do.
I don't know which UN Declaration you are referring to (UN Convention on the Status of Refugees, perhaps?). You are correct that poverty is not a grounds for the granting of refugee status in Canada (hence references to "economic migrants"). Persons in need of protection (one category of people eligible to claim refugee status) would include certain victims of crime and of domestic violence (i.e. those who cannot be protected by their home State).

I agree that our refugee determination process can be abused.
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 1:54 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.