Canadian Money Forum banner

21 - 37 of 37 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,530 Posts
The court's position is that the US is not a safe country to send asylum claimants to. I only took issue with the fact that you're saying that these are criminals, and criminals should not be eligible to claim asylum, which doesn't make sense, as many legitimate asylum seekers are seeking asylum from places where they are breaking the law.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,657 Posts
The court's position is that the US is not a safe country to send asylum claimants to. I only took issue with the fact that you're saying that these are criminals, and criminals should not be eligible to claim asylum, which doesn't make sense, as many legitimate asylum seekers are seeking asylum from places where they are breaking the law.
If they're not criminals why are they fearing imprisonment?
While there are outliers, the US doesn't make a habit of putting innocent people in prison.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,530 Posts
If gay people in Saudi Arabia are not criminals, why are they fearing the fact that that country treats homosexuality as a crime punishable by death? The whole point of asylum is that some countries believe that the law in other countries is unjust and persecution. So it is incorrect to argue that anyone considered to be a criminal in some jurisdiction to be inherently unworthy of asylum on that basis. Supposed criminality cannot be used as the sole basis to deny asylum applications.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,657 Posts
If gay people in Saudi Arabia are not criminals, why are they fearing the fact that that country treats homosexuality as a crime punishable by death? The whole point of asylum is that some countries believe that the law in other countries is unjust and persecution. So it is incorrect to argue that anyone considered to be a criminal in some jurisdiction to be inherently unworthy of asylum on that basis. Supposed criminality cannot be used as the sole basis to deny asylum applications.
I agree, however if you're in the US, they're not persecuting you for being gay.
The imminent threat to your well being that existed in Saudi Arabia is gone.
Now that you're in a safe country, you should apply for refugee status.

At this point, if you try to enter Canada, you're no longer fleeing persecution for being gay, that flight ended in the US.

If you were being persecuted by the US government, then seeking refugee status in Canada would be appropriate. But that's not what's happening. People are simply venue shopping.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,530 Posts
You're arguing a specific situation. My point is that criminality absent context can't be used as a basis for denying asylum. What about draft dodgers, if you narrowly need a situation that was considered criminal in the US but for which Canada previously provided asylum?

Perhaps what the court is considering is that the US cannot be considered safe, whether they would bundle that person back to Saudi or would detain them in a ICE gulag.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,657 Posts
You're arguing a specific situation. My point is that criminality absent context can't be used as a basis for denying asylum. What about draft dodgers, if you narrowly need a situation that was considered criminal in the US but for which Canada previously provided asylum?

Perhaps what the court is considering is that the US cannot be considered safe, whether they would bundle that person back to Saudi or would detain them in a ICE gulag.
You're arguing specific cases.

US Draft dodgers should not be permitted asylum.
If it was likely that they'd be sent to Saudi Arabia, and they were likely to face immediate harm, asylum should be considered.

There is nothing wrong with detaining people who do not have authorization to enter the country. Or who have illegally entered the country.
I think it's a problem that we allow most people into the country without proper screening, and that we lack sufficient proper pre-immigration holding facilities.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,253 Posts
Discussion Starter #28
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.
And I would hope that none of their descendants read your flippant answer to what happened to their family members.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,253 Posts
Discussion Starter #29
Regardless of what YOU THINK MrMatt, the judge has ruled. You may have more knowledge of the issues than the judge researched before making her ruling, but somehow I doubt that. So I will go with the judges decision over your opinion.

You should be happy with that ruling anyway since it means that there is no reason for them to cross our border illegally, they can enter legally at a normal border crossing and claim asylum when they do. Isn't that what you want?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,891 Posts
And I would hope that none of their descendants read your flippant answer to what happened to their family members.
Those were the times. Very different. None of us were there. What was done was done was done by elected leaders who considered they were doing the right thing at the time and with the support of the electorate. I think we have gone too far in looking back through history and re-evaluating and apologizing and compensating for actions that, in hindsight and viewed through a modern lens, appear to have been wrong.

Taken to its logical conclusion, all past "wrongs" must be righted. For the past quarter century or so, Canada and the provinces have been playing a game of trying to do what is currently seen as doing the right thing by what are now called "First Nations". We started off, in colonial times, with treaties and such. More has been demanded and we have been trying to keep pace with demands. Well, LTA, you and I should get the hell out of Canada if we are truly to fix that one. We are trespassers. We took their country. No amount of recognizing "self-government" or giving FNs total control of fisheries and other resources, or recognizing "aboriginal title" over vast tracts of land, or paying compensation, could ever be adequate. Aboriginal title extends to the whole. Only one way to fix it. Get out. Are you ready to leave?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,657 Posts
Yes, a single example is sufficient to disprove a blanket statement that criminals should not be eligible for asylum.
No, I'm saying that people who are in the US are done fleeing, and should apply for refugee status in the USA, they're safe, they should apply there.

I've never said criminals should not be eligible for asylum. It really depends on the crime.

I've previously stated, I literally do not understand your position, and you've refused to clarify.
Instead you accuse me of a position I don't hold, and have never suggested I hold. You're clearly not discussing this in good faith.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,123 Posts
Here's an article that explains the judge's decision a little more:

Basically, the judge found that people who are turned back from the Canadian border as asylum seekers are imprisoned by US authorities as soon as that happens.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,657 Posts
Here's an article that explains the judge's decision a little more:

Basically, the judge found that people who are turned back from the Canadian border as asylum seekers are imprisoned by US authorities as soon as that happens.
Did you read the article?
Lets take their example Nedira Jemal Mustefa.

She was safe in the US, chose not to apply for refugee status, instead she remained in the country illegally.
When caught violating US law, the justice system took over.

It doesn't seem she was denied refugee status in the US, apparently she may have never even applied for it.


I have a question, and again, since I don't understand your position.
Lets look at this situation.
1. Someone is in Canada.
2. Someone commits a crime in Canada.
3. We catch them and put them in prison.

What's wrong with that?
Like seriously, isn't that how it should work?

If this person, YOUR example, not mine, didn't commit a crime in the US, the US wouldn't be jailing her.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,123 Posts
I didn't really have a position, I was just trying to clarify the situation as it seemed you and Andrew were talking at cross-purposes.

However, here is the official judgement from the Canadian court:

In it, they say that this particular person believed she was ineligible to apply for asylum in the US, hence she applied in Canada. I googled the rules for applying for asylum in the US and it does say you need to do it within a year of arriving in the country. I feel like her situation is very complicated since she was brought to the US at age 11. It was obviously not her fault that she was in the country illegally, at least before age 18. She was 19 (based on the years stated, it may have been before or after her birthday, I don't know) when she decided to apply for asylum in Canada. I feel like this was a responsible thing to do, given she knew she was in the US illegally, she did not think she was eligible to apply for asylum in the US, and she was afraid to return to Ethiopia. She was also still very young. When she was turned back at the Canadian border, she was then placed into solitary confinement for a week and spent a month in prison altogether. If you were her, would you feel this was fair/just? I would not.

Now, if you read the "Detention" section of the above-linked PDF, it says that most asylum seekers returned to the US are detained (imprisoned). Even people with lawful US status can be detained and can have their visas revoked. It goes on to describe very harsh conditions in the detention centres.

So all in all, I agree with the decision.

To me, seeking asylum is not something that should be prison-worthy. I am against illegal immigration, but I think if someone is seeking asylum, they should be given the chance to make their case, and once a decision has been reached, they should either be granted residency as a refugee or deported. I do not think holding them in solitary confinement is appropriate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,657 Posts
I think people who do not have a lawful status should not be permitted entry.
This is one of the failings of Canadian Border Security policy.
To me it actually seems insane that we'd let people into our country, before we let determine their admisibility.

Second in her specific case, maybe it should be an exception. I don't think it is fair that the asylum clock is ticking on a minor who may not be able to make the claim. Since she was actually unable to make such a claim there are unique circumstances at play.
So perhaps in her specific case the US policy is not fair.

However for adults, who were capable of applying under the US law, the situation is much simpler.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,253 Posts
Discussion Starter #36
I think people who do not have a lawful status should not be permitted entry.
This is one of the failings of Canadian Border Security policy.
To me it actually seems insane that we'd let people into our country, before we let determine their admisibility.

Second in her specific case, maybe it should be an exception. I don't think it is fair that the asylum clock is ticking on a minor who may not be able to make the claim. Since she was actually unable to make such a claim there are unique circumstances at play.
So perhaps in her specific case the US policy is not fair.

However for adults, who were capable of applying under the US law, the situation is much simpler.
MrMatt, you are entitled to an opinion. However, I believe the majority of Canadians and certainly the judge who made this decision, do not agree with you. Returning someone to the USA who wants to claim asylum in Canada when we know they will be imprisoned in the USA, is not what we want to do.

As I tried to explain to you once already, you should be happy with this decision as it makes what you want to happen, happen. There is no longer any reason for someone to enter Canada illegally from the USA as they can now enter at a normal border crossing LEGALLY and claim asylum. It was the STPA that stopped them from doing that!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,657 Posts
MrMatt, you are entitled to an opinion. However, I believe the majority of Canadians and certainly the judge who made this decision, do not agree with you. Returning someone to the USA who wants to claim asylum in Canada when we know they will be imprisoned in the USA, is not what we want to do.

As I tried to explain to you once already, you should be happy with this decision as it makes what you want to happen, happen. There is no longer any reason for someone to enter Canada illegally from the USA as they can now enter at a normal border crossing LEGALLY and claim asylum. It was the STPA that stopped them from doing that!
1. I am not happy with judges overturning valid treaties.
2. What I want to happen is to help as many people as possible. Putting further pressure on our refugee system, doesn't help.
3. This ruling rejects democratic principles.

In short, I'm not happy because this ruling is undemocratic and hurts refugees.
 
21 - 37 of 37 Posts
Top