HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2017, 3:15 PM
Aylmer's Avatar
Aylmer Aylmer is online now
Still optimistic
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Montreal (C-D-N) / Ottawa (Aylmer)
Posts: 4,778
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
Then let's stop talking about migrants in terms that make them sound less than human. If someone wants to assert their right to call them "pieces of shit", then I will assert my right to call them rejects who are failing at being Canadian.
I can understand the sentiment, but there's no end game to it. Saying that may satisfy your own self-satisfaction, but it certainly won't bring many other people around to your point of view. Heck, I agree with your substantive arguments, but even I can't stomach the unnecessary, inflammatory jabs.

If your goal is to convince people of your position, please remove you comments (I'll remove my previous post as well). If your goal is to just lash out in order to make yourself feel good, please do it elsewhere.

This doesn't just apply to you, either. Cornholio's statements aren't any better.
__________________
I've always struggled with reality. And I'm pleased to say that I won.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2017, 3:20 PM
shreddog shreddog is offline
Beer me Captain
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In a Van down by the river
Posts: 3,475
FWIW, these people crossing the border illegally are desperate and I do sympathize for them. Remember the main difference between them and a "native born" Canadian is the fluke of sperm. Anyone of us could easily be them. That said, I am curious about a certain aspect of the story - namely the possibility of human traffickers bringing these people close to the border for insane amounts of money. If true, that makes this story even sadder.

I do wonder though if the Canadian gov't should do a heavy/targeted advertising program telling these would be immigrants that they will be turned away under SCTA and that the best way to get into Canada is a apply through "normal" channels. Not sure that would resonate though as it is likely that due to their history (country of origin) there is probably a bit of distrust of any "gov't messaging".
__________________
It really is later than you think!

Do something about your future.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2017, 3:21 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is online now
Think about Winnipeg.
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 15,633
^^ Maybe to you it's lashing out, to me it's calling out assholes who were shown a shred of mercy and now that they're comfortable, not only refuse to show it to others, but stoop so low as to put others in a position similar to one that was once theirs in subhuman terms.

That said, if Cornholio deletes his comments, I'll delete mine.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2017, 3:27 PM
Aylmer's Avatar
Aylmer Aylmer is online now
Still optimistic
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Montreal (C-D-N) / Ottawa (Aylmer)
Posts: 4,778
Quote:
Originally Posted by shreddog View Post
FTR, in Canada it is ONLY legal to enter the country is at an authorized port of entry. To do otherwise is illegal (in Canada).
You are correct. In isolation, crossing the border is illegal.

However, I will reiterate that according to international law, including notably the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, people have a right to claim asylum in another country. In Canada, that means that people crossing the border for the purposes of claiming asylum will not be charged.

Similarly, going above the speed limit is illegal. Doing so in an ambulance is not.
__________________
I've always struggled with reality. And I'm pleased to say that I won.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2017, 3:32 PM
Aylmer's Avatar
Aylmer Aylmer is online now
Still optimistic
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Montreal (C-D-N) / Ottawa (Aylmer)
Posts: 4,778
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
[...] to me it's calling out assholes who were shown a shred of mercy and now that they're comfortable, not only refuse to show it to others, but stoop so low as to put others in a position similar to one that was once theirs in subhuman terms.
You see? That is an intelligent, well-formulated comment. I can totally agree with this post, whereas I couldn't agree with the last.
__________________
I've always struggled with reality. And I'm pleased to say that I won.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2017, 3:34 PM
shreddog shreddog is offline
Beer me Captain
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In a Van down by the river
Posts: 3,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aylmer View Post
You are correct. In isolation, crossing the border is illegal.

However, I will reiterate that according to international law, including notably the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, people have a right to claim asylum in another country. In Canada, that means that people crossing the border for the purposes of claiming asylum will not be charged.
International law in of itself DOES NOT trump Canadian law. They can be charged in Canada under existing Canadian law. Whether they are or not is up to the gov't and their direction to CBSA and the RCMP

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aylmer View Post
Similarly, going above the speed limit is illegal. Doing so in an ambulance is not.
Your analogy is incorrect. Provincial traffic laws allow restricted vehicles (police, EMS, fire) to speed ONLY if they are responding to an emergency. An ambulance CAN NOT break the law when just heading over to Timmies.

Similarly Canadian customs/immigration law DOES NOT have exemption for asylum seakers to illegally enter the country. Lawfully they must enter at an authorized port of entry.

Again, I am not saying they will/should be charged only they could be charged.
__________________
It really is later than you think!

Do something about your future.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2017, 4:00 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
C'est quoi l'affaire?
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vieux Canada
Posts: 25,933
What shreddog is saying is all technically true, but I find there's a lot nitpicking about this on here.

What Aylmer is saying is bang-on.

I find it odd that we're almost down to criticizing people that have fled a war zone for not making proper plans in advance and filling out the right forms online under prescribed timelines.

I'll say it again: since the upsurge began at the end of 2016, I don't see any evidence that refugee claimants coming to Canada by way of the United States are primarily trying to sneak into the country unknown to Canadian authorities.

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

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.

It's also worth noting that several of the main border crossing points are on controlled access high speed divided highways where pedestrians are not allowed.

This all seems quite different from the majority of migrants in the human wave that flooded over Europe, and that had a high proportion of 20-something dudes in downfilled jackets, skinny jeans and Puma sneakers, asking where they could charge their iPhones...
__________________
Vos veaux sont après chier - John Diefenbaker
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2017, 4:20 PM
Aylmer's Avatar
Aylmer Aylmer is online now
Still optimistic
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Montreal (C-D-N) / Ottawa (Aylmer)
Posts: 4,778
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
This all seems quite different from the majority of migrants in the human wave that flooded over Europe, and that had a high proportion of 20-something dudes in downfilled jackets, skinny jeans and Puma sneakers, asking where they could charge their iPhones...
What should they ideally be wearing? The refugees who have the ressources to fly across the ocean or pay smugglers to get them to Greece were generally well-to-do before war or persecution forced them to leave everything behind. Talking to some Syrian refugees in my neighbourhood, it was really eye-opening for me to hear about their lives before the war; They had a nice house, good jobs, went on road trips on long weekends, kept up with the same TV shows I do, etc. And yeah, they even had decent shoes, jeans and cell phones.

There, but by the grace of God, go I. And if I had to flee tomorrow, you bet I'd take my good hiking shoes, my warm jacket and my phone. I wouldn't look like the stereotypical Oliver-Twist-esque refugee, but conforming to others' expectations of my appearance would probably be the least of my concerns at that exact moment.
__________________
I've always struggled with reality. And I'm pleased to say that I won.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2017, 4:49 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
C'est quoi l'affaire?
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vieux Canada
Posts: 25,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aylmer View Post
What should they ideally be wearing? The refugees who have the ressources to fly across the ocean or pay smugglers to get them to Greece were generally well-to-do before war or persecution forced them to leave everything behind. Talking to some Syrian refugees in my neighbourhood, it was really eye-opening for me to hear about their lives before the war; They had a nice house, good jobs, went on road trips on long weekends, kept up with the same TV shows I do, etc. And yeah, they even had decent shoes, jeans and cell phones.

There, but by the grace of God, go I. And if I had to flee tomorrow, you bet I'd take my good hiking shoes, my warm jacket and my phone. I wouldn't look like the stereotypical Oliver-Twist-esque refugee, but conforming to others' expectations of my appearance would probably be the least of my concerns at that exact moment.
This is a valid counter-point. What I wanted to express and maybe didn't get across very well is that a lot of the migrants in Europe seemed to be young single guys going to a richer continent in search of work and a better life. There is nothing wrong with this as humans have been doing this type of migration forever. But in our era according to the conventionally accepted definition, if you're fleeing poverty or even just a shitty country and looking to start anew, you don't necessarily count as a "refugee".

A refugee is someone who is persecuted or in danger of harm.
__________________
Vos veaux sont après chier - John Diefenbaker
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2017, 4:56 PM
Aylmer's Avatar
Aylmer Aylmer is online now
Still optimistic
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Montreal (C-D-N) / Ottawa (Aylmer)
Posts: 4,778
Entirely valid. One point which is important, however, is that a lot of young men fled Syria because they would have been forced to fight for the regime if they stayed. I know this was the case of a guy about my age who left Syria to study in Hong Kong, but once his student visa ran out, he faced the very real possibility of being forcibly enrolled in the Army on the wrong side of a civil war. Thanks to some family here in Gatineau (and the office of a certain MP ), he was able to come to Canada.

But yes, I do understand your point.
__________________
I've always struggled with reality. And I'm pleased to say that I won.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2017, 5:14 PM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cocoa FL
Posts: 13,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aylmer View Post
You are correct. In isolation, crossing the border is illegal.

However, I will reiterate that according to international law, including notably the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, people have a right to claim asylum in another country. In Canada, that means that people crossing the border for the purposes of claiming asylum will not be charged.

Similarly, going above the speed limit is illegal. Doing so in an ambulance is not.
I'm pretty sure shreddog's point is that whenever local law in a given country says something that disagrees with the contents of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, local law is what applies.

We might, or not, end up charging them, but it remains that it's illegal to cross the border outside a point of entry. You can get away with it, depending on your situation, just like you can easily hope to get away with speeding, which as you point out is also illegal.

(Edit: just read the rest of the thread, now this post feels a bit redundant.)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2017, 7:05 PM
ssiguy ssiguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 4,742
I have NO empathy for these people, none whatsoever.

They are in a safe country where they can claim refugee status and if their life or limb is in danger, I don't think, even under Trump, they will be sent back. If they were rejected, most would simply "disappear" into the woodwork like millions of Latinos have done. These people are criminals.

I have already contacted and left messages with my local MP and the Liberal Party of Canada...............make sure YOU do the same.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2017, 7:26 PM
Aylmer's Avatar
Aylmer Aylmer is online now
Still optimistic
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Montreal (C-D-N) / Ottawa (Aylmer)
Posts: 4,778
For anyone looking for a good news ressource on the issue of overland refugees, the Globe and Mail has put together a little portal with links to some decent articles.
__________________
I've always struggled with reality. And I'm pleased to say that I won.

Last edited by Aylmer; Feb 21, 2017 at 7:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2017, 9:26 PM
JM5 JM5 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 148
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.

I'm not here to argue that here in Canada our way of life is in any danger from a temporary slight rise in refugees entering from the US, but if circumstances were different - as in if we were a small country close to a large conflict zone, then by these rules we might face a serious threat to our culture.

Doesn't that seem a bit nonsensical to anyone? Are you really obliged to accept EVERYBODY that wants to come to your country? What if you're a small rich country of 2 million next to a country where a conflict has displaced 8 million? Such a country could choose to withdraw from the treaty or it could change it's laws making it less attractive to asylum seekers. I guess if you're really facing a serious threat of being swamped, there's always a way out.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2017, 9:37 PM
cornholio cornholio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,573
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
^^ Maybe to you it's lashing out, to me it's calling out assholes who were shown a shred of mercy and now that they're comfortable, not only refuse to show it to others, but stoop so low as to put others in a position similar to one that was once theirs in subhuman terms.

That said, if Cornholio deletes his comments, I'll delete mine.
Of course I won't delete my comment because what I said I believe from the bottom of my heart and support it with my knowledge and experience. These people are literarlly pieces of shit, abusing our generosity, jumping que and they are in no way shape or form refugees crossing over from the US. They are economic migrants. All 20's to 30s males looking for a hand out. No respect for the law. No respect for Canada. The way they enter here they will live here and when the gravy train ends they will just pack up and repeat the same to some other country. There are legitimate refugees waiting to come here through legitimate channels. These people ruin it for them. They are like some person kicking out your legs from under you at the store check out line and laughing as they take your spot.

Also are you calling me a second class citizen? Am I to you a second class citizen thst does not have the right to vote, to a opinion? To share my expereience and try to protect this country and it's values and people and everything that makes is decent?

Also I am not from the Balkans, I came through there over 30 years ago because the Yugoslavia border was the lease defended. Going straight from Czechia you would hit mine fields and sniper positions, it was not possible to cross there. Yugoslavia had a unique relationship with both the west and east at the time yet you could not apply for asylum there or from there at the time. You had to get to Austria or Italy or Western Germany etc. otherwise you were returned back and treated as a defector and all the fun that came with that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2017, 9:47 PM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cocoa FL
Posts: 13,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssiguy View Post
I have NO empathy for these people, none whatsoever.

They are in a safe country where they can claim refugee status...
True, that's the entire point.

Have we witnessed cases yet of Syrian refugees from the past year crossing illegally into the U.S. from Canada claiming Canada doesn't qualify anymore as safe under the STCA? (They could show there's a chance they'll get killed based on their faith.) If so, how are they processed? Does the argument actually work?

Personally, I don't think any court or government would ever accept to lower the bar for what constitutes "safety" to such an extreme level. By these standards, no place will ever be safe, so there are no safe third countries anymore.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2017, 9:51 PM
Aylmer's Avatar
Aylmer Aylmer is online now
Still optimistic
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Montreal (C-D-N) / Ottawa (Aylmer)
Posts: 4,778
Quote:
Originally Posted by JM5 View Post

Doesn't that seem a bit nonsensical to anyone? Are you really obliged to accept EVERYBODY that wants to come to your country? What if you're a small rich country of 2 million next to a country where a conflict has displaced 8 million? Such a country could choose to withdraw from the treaty or it could change it's laws making it less attractive to asylum seekers. I guess if you're really facing a serious threat of being swamped, there's always a way out.

Keep in mind that we are not forced to accept everyone, but our international commitments do preclude from sending someone back to a place where there is a reasonable expectation that they will face persecution.

Although the laws and commitments around the treatment of refugees are not watertight. We could do super extra sketchy shit like Australia (which may or may not amount to crimes against humanity, which isn't, y'know, super great). But we don't have any third-world islands which we could illegally ship people off to, lest we renounce sovereignty over PEI or something.

In any case, we wouldn't be able to send people who have already set foot into Canada. Once you're 1mm into Canada, we are bound to hear them out as per international law, and bound to treat everyone fairly as per our own constitution (things like not being able to detain them arbitrarily in a camp, having to allow them access to care and services, etc.).

But, of course, we are lucky enough to not have 8 million people at our doorstep. If we did, we might have different laws. But we don't. Canada has won the cosmic lottery in many a sense, and that is certainly one of them.
__________________
I've always struggled with reality. And I'm pleased to say that I won.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2017, 9:53 PM
Pinus Pinus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 546
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
^^ Maybe to you it's lashing out, to me it's calling out assholes who were shown a shred of mercy and now that they're comfortable, not only refuse to show it to others, but stoop so low as to put others in a position similar to one that was once theirs in subhuman terms.

That said, if Cornholio deletes his comments, I'll delete mine.
So because Cornholio oversteps his bounds and calls them pieces of shit (which I don't agree with btw), you decide to call him an asshole? Do two wrongs make a right? Seems a tad hypocritical. I think this thread is starting to become out of control.
__________________
Canada's biggest downfall: our proximity and physical attachment to 'Murca.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2017, 9:54 PM
cornholio cornholio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,573
Quote:
Originally Posted by JM5 View Post
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.

I'm not here to argue that here in Canada our way of life is in any danger from a temporary slight rise in refugees entering from the US, but if circumstances were different - as in if we were a small country close to a large conflict zone, then by these rules we might face a serious threat to our culture.

Doesn't that seem a bit nonsensical to anyone? Are you really obliged to accept EVERYBODY that wants to come to your country? What if you're a small rich country of 2 million next to a country where a conflict has displaced 8 million? Such a country could choose to withdraw from the treaty or it could change it's laws making it less attractive to asylum seekers. I guess if you're really facing a serious threat of being swamped, there's always a way out.
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. What you read from the UN us regarding people entering the first safe country to apply for asylum. This is not what is happening here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2017, 10:06 PM
Aylmer's Avatar
Aylmer Aylmer is online now
Still optimistic
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Montreal (C-D-N) / Ottawa (Aylmer)
Posts: 4,778
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
True, that's the entire point.

Have we witnessed cases yet of Syrian refugees from the past year crossing illegally into the U.S. from Canada claiming Canada doesn't qualify anymore as safe under the STCA? (They could show there's a chance they'll get killed based on their faith.) If so, how are they processed? Does the argument actually work?

Personally, I don't think any court or government would ever accept to lower the bar for what constitutes "safety" to such an extreme level. By these standards, no place will ever be safe, so there are no safe third countries anymore.
It depends:
- If this person has been sponsored (or otherwise acquired refugee status or permanent residence in Canada), then they have to prove that they are escaping persecution in Canada. Ditto if they're coming from the US.

- If this person has applied for asylum in Canada, but it has been refused, they can actually cross into the States and claim asylum at a proper border crossing.

- If this person does not have any permanent status in Canada, and they cross into the States irregularly, then they just have to prove that they would face persecution in Syria. If they have started a claim in the USA, that claim will become invalid.

- They cannot claim asylum if they have been found to be "inadmissible [...] on the grounds of security, for violating human or international rights, or for serious criminality [...].
So the people crossing the border irregularly are not people who have already been accepted as refugees in the States. If they are, they are almost certain to be turned back since, as so many people have pointed out, the USA is a safe country.

The issue is not whether the USA is safe. It is whether their home country is safe.
__________________
I've always struggled with reality. And I'm pleased to say that I won.
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 1:09 PM.

     

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