Canadian Money Forum banner

1 - 20 of 37 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,253 Posts
Discussion Starter #1

Watching CTV news this morning, not one word was said about this ruling. Instead, at least half of their time was spent on issues happening in the USA.

Now it is up to our federal government to decide whether to appeal that ruling or suspend the STCA agreement.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,659 Posts

Watching CTV news this morning, not one word was said about this ruling. Instead, at least half of their time was spent on issues happening in the USA.

Now it is up to our federal government to decide whether to appeal that ruling or suspend the STCA agreement.
Putting criminals in prison is a human rights violation?

That's nuts. Really, can anyone explain the logic of how it is a human rights violation to put a criminal in prison?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,253 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Putting criminals in prison is a human rights violation?

That's nuts. Really, can anyone explain the logic of how it is a human rights violation to put a criminal in prison?
I don't think you really understand the issue MrMatt.

First, it is not up to you or me to decide who is a criminal, that is a court's decision to make. Someone fleeing persecution in their home country is not a criminal.

The Safe Third Country agreement is based on the premise that someone coming into Canada to seek asylum, did not have to come in because they were coming from a SAFE third country. If being sent back to the USA results in imprisonment, that is not a SAFE country. In a 'Safe Country' the asylum seeker would be given the same chance to make their case as they would here in Canada. That is not what is happening in the USA since Trump came into office.

If we reject the STCA in regards to the USA, there will be no need for any asylum seeker to cross our border illegally. They can enter through any normal border crossing and claim asylum then and there. They will then go through the process we have in place to examine their claim and will be accepted or rejected according to the merits of their situation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,659 Posts
I don't think you really understand the issue MrMatt.

First, it is not up to you or me to decide who is a criminal, that is a court's decision to make. Someone fleeing persecution in their home country is not a criminal.

The Safe Third Country agreement is based on the premise that someone coming into Canada to seek asylum, did not have to come in because they were coming from a SAFE third country. If being sent back to the USA results in imprisonment, that is not a SAFE country. In a 'Safe Country' the asylum seeker would be given the same chance to make their case as they would here in Canada. That is not what is happening in the USA since Trump came into office.

If we reject the STCA in regards to the USA, there will be no need for any asylum seeker to cross our border illegally. They can enter through any normal border crossing and claim asylum then and there. They will then go through the process we have in place to examine their claim and will be accepted or rejected according to the merits of their situation.
I understand the issue, I just see it differently and disagree with you.

Firstly, there are effectively no asylum claims from US citizens to Canada.
If they're entering Canada from the US, they are not fleeing their home country, they're fleeing the US.

I fail to see how being imprisoned in accordance with US law makes the country "unsafe".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,253 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
I understand the issue, I just see it differently and disagree with you.

Firstly, there are effectively no asylum claims from US citizens to Canada.
If they're entering Canada from the US, they are not fleeing their home country, they're fleeing the US.

I fail to see how being imprisoned in accordance with US law makes the country "unsafe".
Either you are being deliberately obtuse or really do not understand the issues.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,659 Posts
Either you are being deliberately obtuse or really do not understand the issues.
We disagree, I don't think there is a massive misunderstanding on the issues.

You seem to think that the US is not a safe country for asylum seekers.
I think that the US is a safe country for asylum seekers.

Simple difference of opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,530 Posts
Putting criminals in prison is a human rights violation?

That's nuts. Really, can anyone explain the logic of how it is a human rights violation to put a criminal in prison?
Isn't that rather circular? What if you're criminal because you're gay, or say, spreading COVID misinformation ;).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,659 Posts
It's not circular logic.
If you're a criminal, you should be in prison.

It isn't a crime to be gay in the US. If it is, show the law.
Canada is the country trying to criminalize spreading information contrary to the government narrative.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,699 Posts
The Supreme Court sent a clear message to this and future Canadian governments.

The message is that Canada is a sovereign nation and will not live under the dictates of the US.

I say bravo.......to the Canadian Supreme Court.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,253 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
We disagree, I don't think there is a massive misunderstanding on the issues.

You seem to think that the US is not a safe country for asylum seekers.
I think that the US is a safe country for asylum seekers.

Simple difference of opinion.
How is the USA a Safe Third Country when any asylum seeker we return to the USA is immediately imprisoned? That is exactly why the judge ruled as she did.
"Justice Ann McDonald ruled the U.S. is no longer a safe country for refugees sent back from Canada due to the risk of imprisonment."

These asylum seekers are not coming into Canada because they prefer Canada over the USA. They are coming in because they believe they can get a fair hearing as a refugee in Canada, that they cannot currently get in the USA. They fled their home and are looking for a safe haven. They'd go to Iceland if they thought that was the only place to get a fair chance.

Ultimately, when countries start turning their backs on refugees, what does it say about us? We already have examples in our history of shameful behaviour. We do not need to add to that shame.

I believe we should welcome any legitimate refugee regardless of how they enter the country. The STCA has simply forced some to enter illegally. If I had been on the SS St. Louis in 1939, I would have jumped ship in the night and swam ashore, landing illegally. What would you have done?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,435 Posts
If I had been on the SS St. Louis in 1939, I would have jumped ship in the night and swam ashore, landing illegally. What would you have done?
Sure, because 1939 is just like today. I can use the same logic too...had I lived in Oka in 1990 then many parts of the US would have provided safe asylum.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,659 Posts
How is the USA a Safe Third Country when any asylum seeker we return to the USA is immediately imprisoned? That is exactly why the judge ruled as she did.
"Justice Ann McDonald ruled the U.S. is no longer a safe country for refugees sent back from Canada due to the risk of imprisonment."

These asylum seekers are not coming into Canada because they prefer Canada over the USA. They are coming in because they believe they can get a fair hearing as a refugee in Canada, that they cannot currently get in the USA. They fled their home and are looking for a safe haven. They'd go to Iceland if they thought that was the only place to get a fair chance.

Ultimately, when countries start turning their backs on refugees, what does it say about us? We already have examples in our history of shameful behaviour. We do not need to add to that shame.

I believe we should welcome any legitimate refugee regardless of how they enter the country. The STCA has simply forced some to enter illegally. If I had been on the SS St. Louis in 1939, I would have jumped ship in the night and swam ashore, landing illegally. What would you have done?
They are coming to Canada, because they prefer their chances in Canada vs their chances in the USA.
If you're a refugee from Syria in the US, you're no longer fleeing persecution in Syria.

Why were they imprisoned?
Maybe because they committed a crime where the sentence includes a prison sentence?

Now, I'm sure what's really going on is you're playing word games and calling it "imprisonment", when they're actually not in prison. That's really the game being played, people imagine new definitions of words, so that we're not actually talking about the same thing, and the general population is misled about what's really going on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,530 Posts
It's not circular logic.
If you're a criminal, you should be in prison.

It isn't a crime to be gay in the US. If it is, show the law.
Canada is the country trying to criminalize spreading information contrary to the government narrative.
My point is that some countries persecute people with 'the law'. Those people might seek asylum while also being criminals in their own country. You are saying we should not take asylum seekers who are breaking laws in their country. Frankly, this doesn't track for me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,659 Posts
My point is that some countries persecute people with 'the law'. Those people might seek asylum while also being criminals in their own country. You are saying we should not take asylum seekers who are breaking laws in their country. Frankly, this doesn't track for me.
No I'm not saying that.
I even specifically said I wasn't, and provided an example of what I mean.
It actually seems like you're purposely trying to misinterpret what I say.


Lets put it really simple.
1. There is a person who leaves Home Country (Not USA, Not Canada).
2. They enter the US, as a refugee who is fleeing persecution. They are a refugee from Home Country.
3. They go to enter Canada, but they are no longer fleeing persecution, because they are not in the country that was persecuting them. They are safe from the forces they were fleeing from.

I think we agree up to that point.

Now point 4 is the question.
4. Should Canada let this person claim into Canada and evaluate their asylum claim.
I think no, they are not in immediate risk. They can immigrate like normal through the normal channels
You seem to think yes, they should be allowed to skip the immigration queue. I don't understand this, they are no longer at immediate risk of harm.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,891 Posts
Ultimately, when countries start turning their backs on refugees, what does it say about us? We already have examples in our history of shameful behaviour. We do not need to add to that shame.
I would hope that we have tracked down the descendants of all who were aboard that vessel and awarded compensation of $10 million (well, throw in a bit more for inflation adjustment) to each and all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,530 Posts
No I'm not saying that.
I even specifically said I wasn't, and provided an example of what I mean.
It actually seems like you're purposely trying to misinterpret what I say.


Lets put it really simple.
1. There is a person who leaves Home Country (Not USA, Not Canada).
2. They enter the US, as a refugee who is fleeing persecution. They are a refugee from Home Country.
3. They go to enter Canada, but they are no longer fleeing persecution, because they are not in the country that was persecuting them. They are safe from the forces they were fleeing from.

I think we agree up to that point.

Now point 4 is the question.
4. Should Canada let this person claim into Canada and evaluate their asylum claim.
I think no, they are not in immediate risk. They can immigrate like normal through the normal channels
You seem to think yes, they should be allowed to skip the immigration queue. I don't understand this, they are no longer at immediate risk of harm.
You were the one characterizing them as criminals. I assume you say this because they crossed illegally?

It seems like the problem is that the US is not living up to their obligations wrt asylum seekers, which is why some are coming to Canada via the US. Are they 'safe' in the US if they are just deported back to their original country?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,659 Posts
You were the one characterizing them as criminals. I assume you say this because they crossed illegally?

It seems like the problem is that the US is not living up to their obligations wrt asylum seekers, which is why some are coming to Canada via the US. Are they 'safe' in the US if they are just deported back to their original country?

If they're not actually refugees, they shouldn't be allowed to immigrate under the refugee process.
If they have a legitimate refugee claim, they'll be allowed to stay in the country they made the claim. (Be it US or Canada)

Are you saying that if someone makes a refugee claim, they should simply be able to go wherever they want, even if the claim is found to be invalid?
Is it "unsafe" to deport failed refugee claimants?


I literally don't know what your position is.
 
1 - 20 of 37 Posts
Top