Emerson, Manitoba border crossings

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by lio45

It's crystal clear that the reason for people moving north is that the border is porous and that's well known. Change that perception, and you partly fix the problem instantly.

That doesn't make it about Trudeau's tweet at all. The perception of the border is not what has changed. This has very little if anything to do with Canada.

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by JM5

As for the Charter, once you break Canadian law (by crossing the international border illegally), the Charter will not protect you from the consequences of your actions much like it does not protect people from going to jail for stealing cars.

That's actually completely false, as the Charter overrides pretty much any other non constitutional law.

jmt, why exactly are you so hell bent on proving that we simply HAVE to let everyone in?

Because no one has come up with a legal or realistic way to stop it. The most realistic thing is to work with the American's to enforce the border from their side.

What if reports are true and many are simply criminals hoping to avoid whatever consequences are awaiting them in their home countries?

Then they should be detained - as we're doing now.

Have you ever considered that those of us calling attention to the weakness in our policies might be right? What if we are? Shouldn't a bit more caution be prudent? Are you really advocating that we remain a magnet for criminals fleeing their home countries so they can get free room and board here for months at a time and live at large in our community until the gov eventually gets all their papers in order and pays for their one way flight home? What if they commit a crime in the meantime? Why should we be responsible for all of this?

That's a lot of fear mongering. I'm not big on that.

[JM5]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

That's actually completely false, as the Charter overrides pretty much any other non constitutional law.

Clearly I'm missing something. How does the Charter protect the rights of someone who broke the law by entering the country illegally? Their crime doesn't count, but stealing cars does?

Edit:
"9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned"

There you go. That's the only relevant sentence I could find in the Charter. Very reasonable I would say, but illegal entry IS CURRENTLY ILLEGAL (as the phrase itself suggests, lol) so they can be quickly processed and deported with minimal expense if we only decide to enforce these laws. While the issue at hand can never be "solved" so as to prevent someone hell bent on setting foot on Canadian soil from doing so, it can easily be minimized to a level that would make all but the most paranoid among us feel secure with only a few minor tweaks of our current policy. Not to mention, this would make the lives of legit asylum seekers safer as well, not having to trek through frozen fields. All it would take is the political will to do so.

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by JM5

Clearly I'm missing something. How does the Charter protect the rights of someone who broke the law by entering the country illegally? Their crime doesn't count, but stealing cars does?

They still have other rights. For example, if they broke a law, they have the right to go through a trial related to that law. If they claim asylum, they have the right to a fair hearing on that claim. Even alleged criminals have rights.

[mistercorporate]

Refugees and Asylum Seekers are completely different things?? And you state that as if it's a fact?? Jesus...

If you want to be anal about it, a refugee is actually an asylum seeker who has been granted status after a hearing. Before they can be Charter Refugees, they have to be Asylum Seekers.

I think I'm talking to a wall, however...

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by mistercorporate

Refugees and Asylum Seekers are completely different things?? And you state that as if it's a fact?? Jesus...

If you want to be anal about it, a refugee is actually an asylum seeker who has been granted status after a hearing. Before they can be Charter Refugees, they have to be Asylum Seekers.

I think I'm talking to a wall, however...

I'm assuming that was directed at me, because it was after my post. I didn't say anything about that however. You're thinking of someone else.

[JM5]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

They still have other rights. For example, if they broke a law, they have the right to go through a trial related to that law. If they claim asylum, they have the right to a fair hearing on that claim. Even alleged criminals have rights.

True, but their trial and hearing can be handled rather quickly. The crown can present evidence that there is no record of them entering the country at a legal point of entry and they have no travel documents or visas, etc. Plus they were caught at such and such a place heading North from the border. The defence can then make their argument to the contrary if any. If found guilty, a quick immigration hearing is held whereby their application is summarily rejected on the grounds of them having broken the laws of this country upon entering illegally and Bob's your uncle. Yes, resources would need to be dedicated in order to process such matters quickly, but I firmly believe that if the STCA were scrapped and claimants could just go to the ports of entry, very few of these trials would ever be needed.

If such a change were to be made to our policies, the government would need to take the initiative to widely advertise this fact in the US and direct possible asylum seekers to the points of entry in order to avoid the unfortunate possibility of legit asylum seekers continuing to enter illegally and being summarily deported. All of this would certainly ruffle some eagle feathers south of the border, so I can understand why the gov is NOT looking forward to taking the necessary steps. I, otoh think that it will need to be done at some point by the way things are going right now.

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by JM5

True, but their trial and hearing can be handled rather quickly.

Last week, I was a material witness in an assault case. It took 6 months to come to a preliminary hearing. That was, according to the Crown, remarkably fast. She said most trials don't get to that point for two years. There are more important matters. Good luck with the quick thing.

The crown can present evidence that there is no record of them entering the country at a legal point of entry and they have no travel documents or visas, etc. Plus they were caught at such and such a place heading North from the border. The defence can then make their argument to the contrary if any. If found guilty, a quick immigration hearing is held whereby their application is summarily rejected on the grounds of them having broken the laws of this country upon entering illegally and Bob's your uncle.

Or, we just give them a fair hearing, and everyone quits fear mongering.

I, otoh think that it will need to be done at some point by the way things are going right now.

There is very little actually happening. We're talking about a few hundred people. Big deal.

[JM5]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

Last week, I was a material witness in an assault case. It took 6 months to come to a preliminary hearing. That was, according to the Crown, remarkably fast. She said most trials don't get to that point for two years. There are more important matters. Good luck with the quick thing.



Or, we just give them a fair hearing, and everyone quits fear mongering.



There is very little actually happening. We're talking about a few hundred people. Big deal.

Right, as I said resources would need to be dedicated. Eventually our government will need to start listening to it's citizens and I know that it will, just as soon as the voices get loud enough. Otherwise what are you implying? Let's not deal with the problem because we already have other problems? Good luck with that.

What about the hearing I described is unfair exactly? How about we start being fair to those who live, work and pay taxes here?

Tbh, I realise it's not a big deal yet and such measures can wait and may never be needed but your closed mindedness bothers me. Seems like you not only disagree with doing anything about the issue now, which would be fair enough but rather you want to rule out not only that there are viable measures we COULD take, but even the debate of such measures. Seems to me like you just want everyone to shut up and fall in line, just my impression. Good luck with that as well 😆

P.S. watch me get banned and jmt get the last laugh, lol.

[jmt18325]

I told you what would work. The US is our closest ally. Only they can enforce the border laws on their side, before someone crosses in to Canada. Their border patrol could stop these potential crossers within the 100 mile (or whatever it is) border area. There's not a lot that can be done otherwise. By all means, speed up the hearing process, but don't change a process that has done nothing to cause harm up to this point.

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by Bluenote

Refugee ( Syria. War torn country. Homeless people. Fleeing for their lives )
Asylum seeker jumping from one first world country to another ( person who already took a plane woth their own money to the USA. Then USA elects a tool. They now don't like the country they chose. Now they want the next best thing on their lis. Canada.

There is NO similarity between the two.

This is factually false. Not just in a "technically, this isn't true" way, but truly on the level of "Winnipeg is the capital of Tanzania".


An asylum seeker is a refugee whose status hasn't been confirmed. A refugee is a former asylum seeker. That's why we also call them "refugee applicants".
Here's a helpful primer:

"Asylum seeker" means a person who has applied for asylum under the 1951 Refugee Convention on the Status of Refugees on the ground that if he is returned to his country of origin he has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, political belief or membership of a particular social group. He remains an asylum seeker for so long as his application or an appeal against refusal of his application is pending.
"Refugee" in this context means an asylum seeker whose application has been successful.

So saying that there is no link between an asylum-seeker and refugee is like saying that eggs are completely unrelated to chickens, or that job seekers have nothing to do with employees.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

There is very little actually happening. We're talking about a few hundred people. Big deal.

Do we have any new numbers now that temperatures have started to warm up? It would seem to me that the media would be reporting on a major spike if there was one. At this point it does not seem that the barbarian hordes are at the gates. Though one never knows what the future holds.

[JM5]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

I told you what would work. The US is our closest ally. Only they can enforce the border laws on their side, before someone crosses in to Canada. Their border patrol could stop these potential crossers within the 100 mile (or whatever it is) border area. There's not a lot that can be done otherwise. By all means, speed up the hearing process, but don't change a process that has done nothing to cause harm up to this point.

Okay, I was not aware of the existence of the "100 mile border zone" in the US so I looked into it:
https://www.aclu.org/other/constitut...le-border-zone

So to be clear, what you're suggesting is that the US government rely on it's highly controversial policy of denying people their constitutional rights within 100 miles of a physical border to detain and process possible migrants, deporting those that have criminal records at their own expense thus effectively ensuring that only legit asylum seekers make it to Canada? How about all the US citizens/residents that might mistakenly get caught up in such a dragnet? What about the massive financial and societal costs that would be involved in doing such a thing? I'd give it a snowball's chance in hell of happening.

And another thing: that wording in the UN convention where it suggests that countries ignore the illegal border crossing laws in the case of refugees. Wasn't the intent of that language exactly this situation? People fleeing a regime where they can be arbitrarily stopped and detained, have their constitutional rights stripped if they try to come within 100 miles of the state border, all intended to prevent their escape to another country?

Sir, you are verging on hypocrisy. I suggest you to stop now before you go too far.

But MY solutions would never work, just 'cause you say so.

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by JM5

Okay, I was not aware of the existence of the "100 mile border zone" in the US so I looked into it:
https://www.aclu.org/other/constitut...le-border-zone

So to be clear, what you're suggesting is that the US government rely on it's highly controversial policy of denying people their constitutional rights within 100 miles of a physical border to detain and process possible migrants, deporting those that have criminal records at their own expense thus effectively ensuring that only legit asylum seekers make it to Canada? How about all the US citizens/residents that might mistakenly get caught up in such a dragnet? What about the massive financial and societal costs that would be involved in doing such a thing? I'd give it a snowball's chance in hell of happening..

It's really simply - the protections in the US Constitution don't apply to non Americans. The protections in the Constitution Act, 1982, apply to everyone in Canada. It's much easier for them to do what you want done. It's also much more practical for us - it's not people in our country causing the problem, after all.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

This is factually false. Not just in a "technically, this isn't true" way, but truly on the level of "Winnipeg is the capital of Tanzania".


An asylum seeker is a refugee whose status hasn't been confirmed. A refugee is a former asylum seeker. That's why we also call them "refugee applicants".
Here's a helpful primer:




So saying that there is no link between an asylum-seeker and refugee is like saying that eggs are completely unrelated to chickens, or that job seekers have nothing to do with employees.

You're being overly technical. Bluenote's point seemed obvious: on one side, people fleeing for their lives ("refugees") in war-torn regions, on the other side, people who are already in a Safe Third Country.

[JM5]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

It's really simply - the protections in the US Constitution don't apply to non Americans. The protections in the Constitution Act, 1982, apply to everyone in Canada. It's much easier for them to do what you want done. It's also much more practical for us - it's not people in our country causing the problem, after all.

Agreed, at first sight it would seem to be in Canada's best interest if the US simply did what you suggest, no question.

None the less, you are advocating people's Charter rights within Canada while at the same time reminding me that they enjoy no similar rights in the US. I guess that makes their arbitrary treatment okay in your books as long as it happens in the US. You clearly care more deeply about the letter of the law rather than the way these laws affect actual human beings.

As well, although your proposal seems viable under US law, I firmly believe the intent of the US' draconian "100 mile border zone" laws is the exact opposite of what you are suggesting: to keep illegal aliens from entering the US, not to prevent people from leaving the country. The whole intent of borders is to prevent unwanted people from entering, not to prevent those inside from leaving. The US isn't a prison state like North Korea after all. I sincerely doubt they would simply take over our responsibility of protecting our own border for us, nor should we give up our own sovereignty in order for them to do so. Even if they would be willing to pay the costs involved.

[Aylmer]

They way I interpreted it was that there is no link between asylum-seekers and refugees. I see how he probably meant "refugee vs. asylum-seeker arriving from another first world country".

I stand by my point however. A first world country isn't a guarantee of fair treatment. In places like the US, gang-related threats are not grounds for asylum, whereas they are in Canada. So if you stay in the US, they will send you back to a place where you will be killed. In some sense, you are "fleeing" the US, not because you fear the US, but because you fear that they will not protect you.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

They still have other rights. For example, if they broke a law, they have the right to go through a trial related to that law. If they claim asylum, they have the right to a fair hearing on that claim. Even alleged criminals have rights.

They don't have the right to a trial when entering the country illegally, they only have the right to a hearing. They have actually very few rights. Anyone can try to misinterpret the constitution, however that does not make the misinterpretation correct.

You have very few recourse options with the CBSA and the CBSA rights to apprehend and deport extend into Canada and past the time of the border crossing so long as it is related to the border crossing. This has gone through the courts. They can literally grab you x hours past the time you crossed where ever in the country and apprehend you and remove you in exactly the same way as if you just pulled up to the CBSA officer at the border, there in fact is no real difference.

And this is common sense. I dont know what motivation anyone would have to try and break common sense.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

They way I interpreted it was that there is no link between asylum-seekers and refugees. I see how he probably meant "refugee vs. asylum-seeker arriving from another first world country".

Well, yeah, obviously, literally, you're correct / he's incorrect. I never disputed that. I just find it generally unproductive, discussion-wise, to grab what's obviously not the other party's intended meaning then run with it.

In places like the US, gang-related threats are not grounds for asylum, whereas they are in Canada. So if you stay in the US, they will send you back to a place where you will be killed. In some sense, you are "fleeing" the US, not because you fear the US, but because you fear that they will not protect you.

But then, wouldn't anyone in this situation be perfectly able to show up at a Canadian entry point even under the STCA and get in for processing...?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by JM5

As well, although your proposal seems viable under US law, I firmly believe the intent of the US' draconian "100 mile border zone" laws is the exact opposite of what you are suggesting: to keep illegal aliens from entering the US, not to prevent people from leaving the country.

Correct.

In fact, from the U.S.'s point of view, it's really convenient (and cheaper!) to let these people leave by their own means. It's almost a wonder we haven't yet seen city or state governments buy one-way bus tickets to the corners of MN/ND just across Emerson for any undocumented caught having done bad stuff, the same way we've already witnessed in the Prairies towards Van......

They'd be crazy to accept to spend money to try to keep these problematic people in the country.