Tamil migrant ship headed for BC (Arrived 13 Aug 2010)
- Thread starter CougarKing
- Start date
Just a quick couple of points.
1- Once the ship is in Canadian waters, it is really tough to turn it back. Apparently the ship's 'Captain' (who IMHO should be arrested, charged, and inprisoned for many years for human smuggling) declared right off the bat there were people aboard who needed asylum/refuge. I'm not 100% up on my immigration law, but I know that if a person says that to a Canadian Official, we are obligated to allow them to make a claim. I guess you could argue that the refugee/asylum seeker themselves did not make that claim (as stated it was the ship's Captain over the radio), and justify turning the ship around on those grounds, but at the very least the spirit of IRPA would have been violated, if not the letter of it.
2- Refugees claims that are accepted, vetted, and approved are immediately given Permanent Resident Status, which is in accordance with the UN Convention on Refugees and IRPA. It is NOT a temporary refuge.
3- There are two ways to come to Canada as a refugee - the 'proper' way is to apply outside Canada from a country other than that from which you flee (refugee camp for instance). It takes years and only a very small few are accepted. Travel documents are issued and you're flown here to start your new life. The other is to come here under false pretenses (visitor with a visa, or by boat like these people) and claim asylum/refuge. In the second way, CBSA deems you inadmissible due to any number of regs (financial, non-genuine visitor, breaking the law while entering Canada, etc.) but this is put on hold while the refugee claim is assessed. If denied, the inadmissibility kicks in and the removal order enforced. Unfortunately, the wait time is 2 years plus for the hearing. The VAST majority of refugee claimants that choose the second method are denied and sent home (or at least ordered home).
1- Once the ship is in Canadian waters, it is really tough to turn it back. Apparently the ship's 'Captain' (who IMHO should be arrested, charged, and inprisoned for many years for human smuggling) declared right off the bat there were people aboard who needed asylum/refuge. I'm not 100% up on my immigration law, but I know that if a person says that to a Canadian Official, we are obligated to allow them to make a claim. I guess you could argue that the refugee/asylum seeker themselves did not make that claim (as stated it was the ship's Captain over the radio), and justify turning the ship around on those grounds, but at the very least the spirit of IRPA would have been violated, if not the letter of it.
2- Refugees claims that are accepted, vetted, and approved are immediately given Permanent Resident Status, which is in accordance with the UN Convention on Refugees and IRPA. It is NOT a temporary refuge.
3- There are two ways to come to Canada as a refugee - the 'proper' way is to apply outside Canada from a country other than that from which you flee (refugee camp for instance). It takes years and only a very small few are accepted. Travel documents are issued and you're flown here to start your new life. The other is to come here under false pretenses (visitor with a visa, or by boat like these people) and claim asylum/refuge. In the second way, CBSA deems you inadmissible due to any number of regs (financial, non-genuine visitor, breaking the law while entering Canada, etc.) but this is put on hold while the refugee claim is assessed. If denied, the inadmissibility kicks in and the removal order enforced. Unfortunately, the wait time is 2 years plus for the hearing. The VAST majority of refugee claimants that choose the second method are denied and sent home (or at least ordered home).
A
aesop081
Guest
Brutus said:
We could have turned it back well before it got into the 12nm zone. The EEZ is not Canadian waters.
CDN Aviator said:
I was wondering about that. I am sure there's someone here that has a lot of knowlege about International Waters (maybe you?). Under International Law, could we force that ship to change course? What could Canada have legally done to stop; them?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
- Reaction score
- 5,949
- Points
- 1,260
HavokFour said:
And that's a fine if, and it's a vital Big IF, the law applies to all refugee claimants because the mode of their arrival, including whatever lawbreaking might have contributed to it, is, relatively, unimportant. What is important is that we have a coherent, sensible (comprehensible), consistent refugee policy that, simultaneously, reminds us that we, as a civilized society, have a duty to help those who find themselves in legitimate need of refuge and does not make it easy for refugees to migrate to Canada - by legal or illegal means.
We should strengthen the laws regarding human smuggling so that ship's captains and crews will be unwilling to come here; that same law should make it a crime to shield human smugglers - as some "boat people" have done by refusing to identify them to the Canadian authorities. That particular crime must carry a penalty that is, pretty much, as bad as the 'punishments' threatened by the smugglers against those who would "rat them out."
Thucydides said:
I don't know about you, but I think that housing them in inhospitable or miserable conditions for the sole purpose of discouraging others seems a little unethical to me. Of course we have to address the security concerns, which Ibelieve are adequatley addressed in housing them in detention centres while their identities and security checks are being completed.
- Reaction score
- 5,949
- Points
- 1,260
Brutus said:
I agree with you on both moral and, as I understand them, legal grounds. Changing the laws, massively, is an option; that option might even include concentration camps; punitive 'housing' is not an option - at least not one that the Supremes would (or could) accept.
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 97
- Points
- 560
Brutus said:
Perhaps locating them in a province/city/town other than Toronto/Vancouver/Montreal may be a bit harsh, but it may also help to integrate them into Canadian culture a little quicker. We have many towns in rural Canada that are seeing their populations dwindle; would one of them be considered inhospitable and miserable conditions in your mind?
Canada has a serious problem with new immigrants and refugees settling in the major metropolitan areas and creating ghettos. Perhaps we should discourage this, and encourage newcomers to settle in smaller towns and villages in rural Canada.
GAP said:
They are applying under a different section of IRPA, so income is irrelevant.
If they are deemed to be legitimate refugees, they are of course accepted into Canada with open arms. If they are denied, they are removed under any number of inadmisibility classes (financial, non-genuine visitor, terrorism, security, etc.), and can never make another refugee claim again. Usually, they would never be allowed to enter Canada for any reason once they are denied refugee status.
George Wallace said:
I understand what you're saying and don't necessarily disagree with you, but they won't be integrating into any community while incarcerated. The location of the jail is irrelevant this problem. IIRC, new immigrants ARE encouraged to settle in rural and less settled areas, so I suspect the same policy would apply to a successful refugee claimant.
A use for Baffin Island
Article Link
By MINDELLE JACOBS, Edmonton Sun Last Updated: August 18, 2010
Admit it. If you were a refugee or pretending to be one -- and had the chance to go asylum shopping, you'd probably pick Canada, too.
No big surprise that the boat carrying 490 Tamils from Sri Lanka made a beeline for Canada instead of docking anywhere else along the way.
Canada means free health care, social assistance and legal fees. It's a safe, tolerant, wealthy country that, as Ezra Levant noted in his column Tuesday, grants broad charter rights to anyone who sets foot on our soil.
Even if you're denied refugee status, the authorities have to find you before they can kick you out of the country. But if you don't bother showing up for your deportation hearing, that stalls the process.
Then the authorities issue a warrant for your arrest. They might find you. But if you put on a good disappearing act, you can probably stay here indefinitely.
After all how many Canada Border Services Agency officials are hunting down the tens of thousands of failed refugee claimants living under the radar?
Because of our generous social programs and reputation as a pushover, Canada is one of the most sought-after countries for refugees and economic migrants. As I pointed out in a piece earlier this year, even the U.S. is among Canada's top-10 source countries for refugee claimants.
We've got it pretty good and lots of people want a piece of the Canadian pie. I wasn't able to get a breakdown of how many refugee claimants arrive in Canada annually by boat, plane and through land crossings in time to make my deadline.
But in terms of asylum seekers abroad, Canada was the third-largest recipient of asylum claims behind the U.S. and France last year. More than 30,000 people abroad applied for asylum in Canada, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). We accepted 12,500 for resettlement.
Every industrialized country is grappling with how to deal fairly and expeditiously with the hundreds of thousands of refugee claimants seeking a safe haven annually. The question is how to balance compassion with the very real concerns that too many refugees can overburden social services.
And the waves of would-be citizens will keep coming. There were 43 million people forcibly displaced worldwide in 2009, the highest number of people uprooted by conflict and persecution since the mid-1990s, notes the UNHCR. It adds that the number of refugees voluntarily returning to their home countries has fallen to its lowest level in two decades.
Personally, I would rather Canada pluck people out of refugee camps, where many have been living in terrible conditions for years, than take in people who are wealthy enough to pay suspected human smugglers $50,000 for a ticket to the good life.
But not all refugees are poverty- stricken, I suppose, and we have to respect the system that's in place. We can't blow up a foreign boat nearing our shores. And we can't turn boats away without giving refugee claimants a hearing. We do, after all, have to adhere to certain standards of decency and law. (Asylum seekers routinely arrive by plane and we don't shoot them, for heaven's sake.)
What we can do is speedily process refugee claimants and deport those who aren't real refugees. That's the intent of the new refugee reform legislation and if it requires more staff, let the feds go on a hiring spree.
As for the disappearing act, we don't have Christmas Island to process claimants like Australia does. But, hey, there's always Baffin Island.
end
Article Link
By MINDELLE JACOBS, Edmonton Sun Last Updated: August 18, 2010
Admit it. If you were a refugee or pretending to be one -- and had the chance to go asylum shopping, you'd probably pick Canada, too.
No big surprise that the boat carrying 490 Tamils from Sri Lanka made a beeline for Canada instead of docking anywhere else along the way.
Canada means free health care, social assistance and legal fees. It's a safe, tolerant, wealthy country that, as Ezra Levant noted in his column Tuesday, grants broad charter rights to anyone who sets foot on our soil.
Even if you're denied refugee status, the authorities have to find you before they can kick you out of the country. But if you don't bother showing up for your deportation hearing, that stalls the process.
Then the authorities issue a warrant for your arrest. They might find you. But if you put on a good disappearing act, you can probably stay here indefinitely.
After all how many Canada Border Services Agency officials are hunting down the tens of thousands of failed refugee claimants living under the radar?
Because of our generous social programs and reputation as a pushover, Canada is one of the most sought-after countries for refugees and economic migrants. As I pointed out in a piece earlier this year, even the U.S. is among Canada's top-10 source countries for refugee claimants.
We've got it pretty good and lots of people want a piece of the Canadian pie. I wasn't able to get a breakdown of how many refugee claimants arrive in Canada annually by boat, plane and through land crossings in time to make my deadline.
But in terms of asylum seekers abroad, Canada was the third-largest recipient of asylum claims behind the U.S. and France last year. More than 30,000 people abroad applied for asylum in Canada, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). We accepted 12,500 for resettlement.
Every industrialized country is grappling with how to deal fairly and expeditiously with the hundreds of thousands of refugee claimants seeking a safe haven annually. The question is how to balance compassion with the very real concerns that too many refugees can overburden social services.
And the waves of would-be citizens will keep coming. There were 43 million people forcibly displaced worldwide in 2009, the highest number of people uprooted by conflict and persecution since the mid-1990s, notes the UNHCR. It adds that the number of refugees voluntarily returning to their home countries has fallen to its lowest level in two decades.
Personally, I would rather Canada pluck people out of refugee camps, where many have been living in terrible conditions for years, than take in people who are wealthy enough to pay suspected human smugglers $50,000 for a ticket to the good life.
But not all refugees are poverty- stricken, I suppose, and we have to respect the system that's in place. We can't blow up a foreign boat nearing our shores. And we can't turn boats away without giving refugee claimants a hearing. We do, after all, have to adhere to certain standards of decency and law. (Asylum seekers routinely arrive by plane and we don't shoot them, for heaven's sake.)
What we can do is speedily process refugee claimants and deport those who aren't real refugees. That's the intent of the new refugee reform legislation and if it requires more staff, let the feds go on a hiring spree.
As for the disappearing act, we don't have Christmas Island to process claimants like Australia does. But, hey, there's always Baffin Island.
end
- Reaction score
- 4,155
- Points
- 1,260
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I don't like how people from other countries are exploiting our country for their own gain. Just isn't right. I know people will be like "Well, we're Canada, that's what we do" but when the country is swarming with terrorists and/or refugees that never work and just suck welfare money out of the system, there are still going to be people going "Wow, how did THIS happen?"
- Reaction score
- 5,949
- Points
- 1,260
It is trite to say but we are a "nation of immigrants." Damned few of us are, within the last few generations, not from somewhere else. It is true that most recent immigrants* have darker skin tones and different eye shapes from some of us - that makes them and their Canadian born children or grandchildren no less Canadian than I. They, immigrants per se, also have better educations but still manage to earn less than native born Canadians - maybe because of somewhat lesser social and language skills, maybe because of their skin colour or eye shape.
Refugees - real or contrived - are likely to need social assistance. By definition, almost, refugees arrive with the shirt on their backs and no real, useful skills. We take them in (even when we should not) as an act of human compassion. Real immigrants are, broadly, less likely to use social assistance than are native born Canadians.
Despite recent arrests and convictions we are hardly "swimming" in terrorists.
----------
* Immigrants and refugees are not the same; they are not even very much alike. It is fundamentally wrong to consider them together - as most people in Canada do.
Refugees - real or contrived - are likely to need social assistance. By definition, almost, refugees arrive with the shirt on their backs and no real, useful skills. We take them in (even when we should not) as an act of human compassion. Real immigrants are, broadly, less likely to use social assistance than are native born Canadians.
Despite recent arrests and convictions we are hardly "swimming" in terrorists.
----------
* Immigrants and refugees are not the same; they are not even very much alike. It is fundamentally wrong to consider them together - as most people in Canada do.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Brutus said:
I'm referring to the whole situation as being ridiculous. The people probably paid the Tamil Tigers for a "ticket" on the boat. Canada wasn't even their FIRST CHOICE. They were in Australia apparently before getting booted from there and then came here. I just find it odd/sad that people can come here and get welfare, health care, etc, while we have a lot of homeless people who are living on the streets.
Similar threads
