Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
rodheadlee

what is our position on the Caravan

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thanks for the report. Good on Canada.

My scenario was meant as a hypothetical to compare with the caravans in Mexico rather than a query about Canadian immigration policy. In Mexico, the groups have declared their intention to march through the country illegally and enter the US illegally thousands of miles away. They appear to be unstoppable. Are you saying Canada would intervene and absorb or deport such groups? Would that require more force than the failed Mexican attempts to stop them?

Cool. Good thing we can compare your hypothetical against a reality Canada is facing. In the United States and Nigeria, Haitians and Nigerian groups have declared their intent to march or drive through the United States and enter Canada illegally from thousands of miles away. Haitians living in Florida with Temporary Protected Status, and Nigerians being given tourist visas by the United States with the intention of crossing into Canada. In sum both of these groups specifically approximate to around 25,000 individuals in a planned migration over the past year and a half.

And yes, Canada has intervened and absorbed these groups. Some will be accepted, and others rejected and deported, pending a thorough review of their case by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada.

I'm not sure what you mean by "more force than the failed Mexican attempts." Canada isn't forcing anything. The Canada Border Services Agency and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have organized an impressively well run reception for claimants, detaining them upon arrival and warning that they're crossing illegally, but recognizing their right to make a claim upon crossing. This complies with Canadian and International precedent which renders an illegal crossing as "irregular" pending a review of a claimants case, recognizing that claimants may not always be able to cross legally to make a claim. A good example of this is Elder Uchtdorf's irregular crossing between legal ports of entry of East and West Germany with his mother.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Not sure how FOX got into this, but I feel the same about the "Caravan", as I would any other large group seeking to violate our laws, be it from the North, South, East, or West. Now, that may be the Army in me, or the Cop in me, but laws do matter. 

what is your feeling about when man's laws go against Gods laws?

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Jeanne said:

Because on this board, I was assuming that "our" meant the religion.

I can understand that.  But I've never seen a nonmember's contributions not accepted on this board, unless someone specifically states that they are looking for member replies only.  Nonmembers have been posting on this thread since it was first opened with no problems so hopefully that helped clarify.  :)  

Share this post


Link to post

Second (armed) Mob hits Mexico's southern border.

https://apnews.com/03271025cd6843deabe6e2bd537fe15b

Quote

An Associated Press journalist saw about 600 migrants Monday morning on the bridge, where Mexican federal police had blocked one end. The migrants had gasoline bombs made of soft-drink bottles, and improvised PVC tubes to launch fireworks or other projectiles.

Quote

Guatemala’s Interior Ministry said the second group had wounded Guatemalan police and used children as human shields, and Guatemalan firefighters confirmed that a 26-year-old Honduran had been killed from a blow to the head.

Lawless individuals from lawless countries bringing their lawlessness to the US.

 

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That's not really responsive to the points in my post.

Why are the folks in the caravan rejecting Mexico's offer?

From the article I quoted:

I am wondering if there is a "legal or moral imperative for permitting entry."  I don't really see it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Why Are they rejecting Mexico's offer?

Probably because they don't feel safe in Mexico.  I suppose each person may have their own reasons. 

Legal imperative?

I understand that some people may have  a "Legal" imperative in seeking asylum.  That, of course will depend on the facts and circumstances of each claimant.  We currently have a legal system that is supposed to be able to adjudicate their claims. 

Moral Imperative?

I think we can find much more authorities for the moral case than the legal case.  I would suggest  referring to Mathew 25 and the difference between the sheep and the goats as a starting point. 

We can also find helpful parallels in the way the Nephites treated the converts of Ammon in the book of Mormon. 

Other example can be provided if you don't think theses example sufficient.  

Edited by Danzo

Share this post


Link to post

A thoughtful piece.

https://amgreatness.com/2018/10/28/caravan-contradictions/

Quote

To be sure, Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala are often violent places. They have been so for centuries, both before and after the Spanish conquest. But pause and reflect on the ensuing paradox: fury and fear over endemic lawlessness now prompts thousands to wish to break the law to enter the United States, and continue to ignore statutes by illegally residing here.

Do the migrants ever pause and wonder whether their own past and present attitude to the law in the abstract may in some small part explain why their own country in the concrete is often prone to lawlessness? In other words, why would a host country welcome in aliens who break the law to enter it because their own former home is lawless?

. . . . .

In other words, immigration has been historically a brutal bargain, one that demands of the immigrant not to live as he did in the past, because to do so would replicate the failures from which he was escaping. Those in Tijuana, for example, live according to customs, protocols and laws quite different from those a few thousand yards away in San Diego, which explains why the two municipalities are themselves so different.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Vance said:

Second (armed) Mob hits Mexico's southern border.

https://apnews.com/03271025cd6843deabe6e2bd537fe15b

Lawless individuals from lawless countries bringing their lawlessness to the US.

 

Pehaps they are just showing their support for the second amendment?

They already seem to be integrating with our society. 

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Vance said:

Actually an extremely thoughtless peace.  

The authors are making the mistake that anyone that not understanding and not being able to apply  US immigration law is somehow should disqualify people from living here.

By that standard most of the people on this board should pack up and go.

Edited by Danzo

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Why Are they rejecting Mexico's offer?

Probably because they don't feel safe in Mexico.  I suppose each person may have their own reasons. 

Then we're not speaking of a moral/ethical/legal imperative, but of personal preferences.  Again, from the link I provided: "Implicit in the offer is freedom from whatever persecution the migrants may have experienced in Honduras. Presumably, it also entails relief from gang violence, though this can never be guaranteed — not in Mexico and not in U.S. immigrant communities."

That seems correct to me.

6 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Legal imperative?

Yes, there does not appear to be a legal imperative to allow the caravan folks entry.

6 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I understand that some people may have  a "Legal" imperative in seeking asylum. 

But most, it seems, do not.  If they did, they would have accepted the offer from Mexico.  As it is, the lion's share of the caravan did not accept the offer.

6 minutes ago, Danzo said:

That, of course will depend on the facts and circumstances of each claimant.  We currently have a legal system that is supposed to be able to adjudicate their claims.

We also have a legal system that is intended to keep our borders secure.

6 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Moral Imperative?

Yes, there does not appear to be a moral imperative to allow the caravan folks entry.

6 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I think we can find much more authorities for the moral case than the legal case. 

I'm not sure about that.  Again, the rejection of the offer from Mexico needs to be addressed.

6 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I would suggest  referring to Mathew 25 and the difference between the sheep and the goats as a starting point. 

I don't understand this reference.

6 minutes ago, Danzo said:

We can also find helpful parallels in the way the Nephites treated the converts of Ammon in the book of Mormon. 

Again, the rejection of the offer from Mexico needs to be addressed.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Danzo said:
Quote

Second (armed) Mob hits Mexico's southern border.

https://apnews.com/03271025cd6843deabe6e2bd537fe15b

Lawless individuals from lawless countries bringing their lawlessness to the US.

Pehaps they are just showing their support for the second amendment?

They already seem to be integrating with our society. 

You seem to be mocking a serious point.  Not helpful.

From the article:

Quote

Several hundred migrants appeared to be preparing for a second day of confrontations on a bridge between Mexico and Guatemala Monday as a much larger group of several thousand Central American migrants ahead of them resumed their trek through southern Mexico toward the United States.

...

An Associated Press journalist saw about 600 migrants Monday morning on the bridge, where Mexican federal police had blocked one end. The migrants had gasoline bombs made of soft-drink bottles, and improvised PVC tubes to launch fireworks or other projectiles.

...

Guatemala’s Interior Ministry said the second group had wounded Guatemalan police and used children as human shields, and Guatemalan firefighters confirmed that a 26-year-old Honduran had been killed from a blow to the head.

...

Navarrete Prida said Mexican federal police and immigration agents were attacked with rocks, glass bottles and fireworks when migrants broke through a gate on the Mexican side of the border, but were prevented from entering. Navarrete said some of the attackers carried guns and firebombs.

...

“The Mexican government rejects the acts of violence on the border with Guatemala, and reiterates that the only way to enter Mexico is to obey immigration laws,” he said.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, halconero said:

Cool. Good thing we can compare your hypothetical against a reality Canada is facing. In the United States and Nigeria, Haitians and Nigerian groups have declared their intent to march or drive through the United States and enter Canada illegally from thousands of miles away. Haitians living in Florida with Temporary Protected Status, and Nigerians being given tourist visas by the United States with the intention of crossing into Canada. In sum both of these groups specifically approximate to around 25,000 individuals in a planned migration over the past year and a half.

And yes, Canada has intervened and absorbed these groups. Some will be accepted, and others rejected and deported, pending a thorough review of their case by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada.

I'm not sure what you mean by "more force than the failed Mexican attempts." Canada isn't forcing anything. The Canada Border Services Agency and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have organized an impressively well run reception for claimants, detaining them upon arrival and warning that they're crossing illegally, but recognizing their right to make a claim upon crossing. This complies with Canadian and International precedent which renders an illegal crossing as "irregular" pending a review of a claimants case, recognizing that claimants may not always be able to cross legally to make a claim. A good example of this is Elder Uchtdorf's irregular crossing between legal ports of entry of East and West Germany with his mother.

Claims for asylum in Canada in 2017: 20,593

Claims for asylum in US in 2017: 331,700

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/refugees/asylum-claims-2017.html

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/united-states-global-leader-asylum-requests_us_5b28eea9e4b0f0b9e9a50f57

Immigrants granted status in Canada in 2017: 144,302

Immigrants granted status in the US in 2008-2017: 

2008 1,107,126
2009 1,130,818
2010 1,042,625
2011 1,062,040
2012 1,031,631
2013 990,553
2014 1,016,518
2015 1,051,031
2016 1,183,505
2017 1,127,167

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/annual-report-parliament-immigration-2017.html

https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics

 

“Asylum is a slow process in the U.S. and it’s always been sort of a neglected activity within our judicial system. Never really have adequate resources been allocated to this particular legal component of the work,” said Erol Kekic, executive director of the immigration and refugee program at the Church World Service, a global humanitarian agency. 

The political will to deal with the asylum issue hasn’t been strong enough over the last 15 to 20 years, meaning that the government doesn’t have the personnel in place to make the process more efficient, Kekic said. 

The Trump administration, he noted, claims it’s trying to address the backlog by moving officers who had been working overseas on refugee resettlement back to the U.S. to deal with asylum claims."

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, halconero said:

All good questions, I'll start with these ones, as they're essentially the same question. First off, refugee claimants differ from resettled refugees. Resettled refugees were those who were brought from abroad as pre-vetted refugees, and who were previously registered by the UNHCR or another third party refugee agency. The vetting of these refugees abroad is shared by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC). It includes standard criminal background checks, identity checks, biometric scans, 5 Eyes checks, social media scans, and other more confidential vetting. They are then selected for resettlement after weighing this option against the more preferable durable solutions of voluntary repatriation and local integration in their first country of asylum.

Refugee claimants are those who arrive at a Canadian port of entry, or who make an inland claim at an IRCC or CBSA office. Canada is obligated by both international treaty, domestic legislation, and the Singh Decision by the Supreme Court of Canada to provide a fair hearing for all those who make a claim, until which time they have temporary status in Canada, which provides the opportunity to work and access the most basic of services. The criteria for deciding whether a claimant or a potential refugee abroad may be classified for resettlement or protected person status is outlined under the Refugee Conventions, as well as domestic legislation and court decisions. Generally, a person has to provide evidence for fear of persecution on the basis of:

1. Race - Described in the handbook as "race … has to be understood in its widest sense to include all kinds of ethnic groups that are referred to as 'races' in the common usage."

2. Nationality - "'nationality' in this case encompasses not only 'citizenship' but it refers also to ethnic or linguistic groups...this ground may overlap with race."

3. Religion - "Defined broadly, religion typically involves a particular and comprehensive system of faith and worship. Religion also tends to involve the belief in a divine, superhuman or controlling power. In essence, religion is about freely and deeply held personal convictions or beliefs connected to an individual's spiritual faith and integrally linked to one's definition and spiritual fulfillment, the practices of which allow individuals to foster a connection with the divine or with the subject or object of that spiritual faith." " A law which requires a minority of citizens to breach the principles of their religion . . . is patently persecutory. One might add, so long as these religious tenets are not unreasonable as, for example, exacting human sacrifice or the taking of prohibited drugs as a sacrament."

4. Political opinion - "any opinion on any matter in which the machinery of state, government, and policy may be engaged."

5. Membership in a "particular social group" - The Supreme Court of Canada established a "good working rule" that helps identify a particular social group as any association or identity defined by "innate or unchangeable characteristics," voluntary associations whose relinquishing would be contrary to "human dignity," or whose relinquishing is "unalterable due to historical permanence." Examples of these include widespread persecution on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, human rights advocacy, language, or membership in the military of an overthrown government.

Participation in human rights violations or criminality renders any of the above void. If a refugee claimant cannot provide evidence supporting persecution on the basis of the above criteria their claim will not be accepted, and they will be given a deportation order.

I'm not sure what this is asking, but if you're wondering who decides these cases, the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) decides cases. They act as a quasi-judicial body, and include lawyers, former judges, and other experts in immigration, law enforcement, and related fields. Cases may be appealed to the Refugee Appeal Division.

I think you may be conflating refugee claims with citizenship applications, but correct me if I'm wrong. I'll answer both to cover my bases:

1. Citizenship may be granted after 3 years of permanent residency in Canada. The application includes a reasonable provision of proof for residency (shows entry/exit stamps on passports, renewal of Permanent Residency cards), along with needing to file income taxes for each year prior to citizenship. It is granted on the basis of passing an approved official language test (English or French), a citizenship test covering various basis of Canadian history, basic constitutional law, and values deemed generally agreed upon by Canadian society. Applicants take their oath of citizenship before a judge, swearing (or affirming) to be faithful and bear true allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II of Canada, her heirs and successors, and to faithfully observe the laws of Canada to fulfill the duties of Canadian citizenship. These ceremonies typically include round tables with new citizens to explain these duties, including active participation in the electoral process, sitting on juries, rendering community service, and obeying the law. I'll be running one of these round tables this Thursday actually.

2a. If you're asking what investigation goes into permanent residency applications, it depends under which category you are applying for it. If you're an economic immigrant coming under one of the federal skilled worker, provincial nominee, business class, or caregiver streams, generally you have to provide proof of means to support yourself (a savings threshold in bank records, proof of Canadian skilled work experience of at least one year, or a letter of employment (including contact info) from a Canadian employer). You also have to provide a criminal background check dated no more than 3 months back from every country you've spent a cumulative 4 months or more since the age of 18 or within the past 10 years, whichever is sooner. If your PR application includes points on the basis of education, you also have to provide proof of that education in the form of notarized certificates, but also via government-approved assessment agency showing the country of origin's equivalency in Canadian education.

2b. Vetting of refugee claims for permanent residency (or protection in Canada, as its legally called) includes criminal background checks, biometric scans of eyes, finger prints, and blood work, a scan of social media, and a verification of the credibility of testimony/proof granted at their claim hearing. A good example of a recently rejected claim was where a Colombian ex-military dude claimed he feared for his life in Colombia, but upon studying his facebook it was discovered he had multiple pictures advertising his attendance at parties with his location included. His claim was rejected and he was deported.

3. Canada most certainly cares if people don't obey Canadian law, or have been convicted of serious crimes abroad. A criminal record as a temporary resident or a permanent resident is grounds for having your legal status revoked, and being deported. Crimes abroad, whether committed by someone under the economic, family, or refugee classes, is grounds for rejecting a claim.

Thank you. I don't know what the US can learn from Canada, but clearly Canada does not throw its doors wide open to every person who comes knocking at its doors. 

There are a few on this thread who seem to suggest we should. Just because some or even most immigrants are hard working and would make good citizens, doesn't mean they all are the same. It doesn't mean some are not militant, and join a throng to gain access to the US. 9/11 should be a reminder to all that there are those in the world with evil intentions who wish to gain access to the US for ulterior motives. 

Further, there are those whose ideals simply are not American. Their ideals do not correspond to the ideals of liberty and justice for all at the heart of our constitution and legal system. The most prominent among these would in my mind be political Islam. These types of people are already in England, and have gotten into the US in the past. I think with such people a hearing of each individual case may become necessary. Some such as Anjem Choudary have blatantly  stated on film what they would do if someone criticizes Muhammed, or leaves Islam - he flat states it is his duty and the duty of every Muslim to kill them. Clearly, this could get exposed at a hearing, and applications rejected. I also feel it is the duty of our government to provide our protections and maintain peace. That is why we have governments. There is no Christian duty to allow such people into our republic. To come here they should espouse our goals of liberty and justice for all. It is unwise to assume that all others share our goals, and that is why they are coming here. I believe to be a citizen they need to be able to show they will abide by US law. To me this involves more than just checking past criminal records. I assume Canada has no problem with asking an applicant what he believes should happen to someone who criticizes Mohammed for instance? And do they ask those types of questions at hearings?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

This thread has focused on the land travel method....what if an enterprising group organized an airborne or seaborne "caravan"?  Any thoughts on how to handle those methods of entry, or if they would pose any greater risks/threats?

Also, whatever happened to AoF #12 in this discussion?  Of course, in this discussion..there may be those here who feel that in order to obey #12 they are disobeying #13....fascinating discussion though!  enjoying it!

Just wanted to add that I just saw on one of the major Cable News shows....an interview with a member of the Caravan who was from Honduras...who was asked about the possibility of some in the Caravan being dangerous or otherwise having a questionable background, and he himself confessed that he had been wanted for attempted murder in his home country.

 

Edited by randy

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Claims for asylum in Canada in 2017: 20,593

That's 20,593 RCMP interceptions. You neglected to include inland claims with the IRCC, or claims at the port of entry, which are located at the bottom of the page you linked.

Including those, the number jumps to 50,375. Add in third country resettlement and it goes to 84,000. On a per capita basis that is double the combined amount of both asylum seekers and resettled refugees on a annual basis.

 

19 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Claims for asylum in US in 2017: 331,700

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/refugees/asylum-claims-2017.html

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/united-states-global-leader-asylum-requests_us_5b28eea9e4b0f0b9e9a50f57

Immigrants granted status in Canada in 2017: 144,302

Immigrants granted status in the US in 2008-2017: 

2008 1,107,126
2009 1,130,818
2010 1,042,625
2011 1,062,040
2012 1,031,631
2013 990,553
2014 1,016,518
2015 1,051,031
2016 1,183,505
2017 1,127,167

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/annual-report-parliament-immigration-2017.html

https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics

 

“Asylum is a slow process in the U.S. and it’s always been sort of a neglected activity within our judicial system. Never really have adequate resources been allocated to this particular legal component of the work,” said Erol Kekic, executive director of the immigration and refugee program at the Church World Service, a global humanitarian agency. 

The political will to deal with the asylum issue hasn’t been strong enough over the last 15 to 20 years, meaning that the government doesn’t have the personnel in place to make the process more efficient, Kekic said. 

The Trump administration, he noted, claims it’s trying to address the backlog by moving officers who had been working overseas on refugee resettlement back to the U.S. to deal with asylum claims."

No disagreement that the U.S. asylum system process is a mess. I enjoyed the last sentence. They're able to move officers who have been working on overseas resettlement because they slashed their intake ceiling by more than half. 2018 doesn't look any better considering their ceiling was cut again, but they're only on track to resettle about 20,000 compared to Canada's 45,000.

image.png.aab0d4f630297b0926af36d1b5f0f3aa.png

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I can understand that.  But I've never seen a nonmember's contributions not accepted on this board, unless someone specifically states that they are looking for member replies only.  Nonmembers have been posting on this thread since it was first opened with no problems so hopefully that helped clarify.  :)  

I am fortunate that in many ways and means that I can participate on this board and feel gratitude for that.  I have been listened to.  I just felt that "Our" in the topic just substituded for "members" as in what does the church or leaders believe.  I am also very grateful that so many of ouu have spoken your own minds and not in unison with one voice.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I am fortunate that in many ways and means that I can participate on this board and feel gratitude for that.  I have been listened to.  I just felt that "Our" in the topic just substituded for "members" as in what does the church or leaders believe.  I am also very grateful that so many of ouu have spoken your own minds and not in unison with one voice.

Jeanne....I have always loved hearing your thoughts on things over the years!  I think you're wonderful!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Thank you. I don't know what the US can learn from Canada, but clearly Canada does not throw its doors wide open to every person who comes knocking at its doors. 

Depends if "not throw[ing] open its doors wide open" is defined as not giving every asylum seeker permanent residency. If so, I agree.

If "not throw[ing] open its doors wide open" means Canada doesn't hear every case and process them in an orderly fashion, I disagree, as the Canadian government most certainly does that.

30 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

There are a few on this thread who seem to suggest we should. Just because some or even most immigrants are hard working and would make good citizens, doesn't mean they all are the same. It doesn't mean some are not militant, and join a throng to gain access to the US. 9/11 should be a reminder to all that there are those in the world with evil intentions who wish to gain access to the US for ulterior motives. 

I wasn't aware 9/11 was perpetrated by asylum seekers. It's hard draw an equivalency between them and entering on tourist or student visas. Very different processes, the latter of which has changed significantly since 9/11.

30 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Further, there are those whose ideals simply are not American. Their ideals do not correspond to the ideals of liberty and justice for all at the heart of our constitution and legal system. The most prominent among these would in my mind be political Islam. These types of people are already in England, and have gotten into the US in the past. I think with such people a hearing of each individual case may become necessary. Some such as Anjem Choudary have blatantly  stated on film what they would do if someone criticizes Muhammed, or leaves Islam - he flat states it is his duty and the duty of every Muslim to kill them. Clearly, this could get exposed at a hearing, and applications rejected. I also feel it is the duty of our government to provide our protections and maintain peace. That is why we have governments. There is no Christian duty to allow such people into our republic.

I wasn't aware that Wahhabi=militants comprised a significant number in the caravan.

30 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

To come here they should espouse our goals of liberty and justice for all. It is unwise to assume that all others share our goals, and that is why they are coming here. I believe to be a citizen they need to be able to show they will abide by US law. To me this involves more than just checking past criminal records. I assume Canada has no problem with asking an applicant what he believes should happen to someone who criticizes Mohammed for instance?

Nope. Turns out it generally isn't a big issue among asylum seekers coming to Canada. Self-radicalization of Canadian citizens is a bigger issues as it relates to militant Wahhabism, and more significantly at the moment nativist white supremacy.

30 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

And do they ask those types of questions at hearings?

Yeah.

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, halconero said:

No disagreement that the U.S. asylum system process is a mess. I enjoyed the last sentence. They're able to move officers who have been working on overseas resettlement because they slashed their intake ceiling by more than half. 2018 doesn't look any better considering their ceiling was cut again, but they're only on track to resettle about 20,000 compared to Canada's 45,000.

It has been a mess for a long time and I find it completely normal to move resources around. The asylum backlog is over 300,000 in the US with border apprehensions at 1-2000 a day. It makes sense since asylum applications are up that refugee grants are down. And, since Canada has had more incoming asylum cases and illegal border crossings, their system has also felt the strain. Maybe, to properly and expeditiously deal with this, we should raise taxes? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, randy said:

Jeanne....I have always loved hearing your thoughts on things over the years!  I think you're wonderful!

I so appreciate that.  Sometimes I feel like my life and experiences don't matter any more...to any one..  Thank you!!

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, halconero said:

Depends if "not throw[ing] open its doors wide open" is defined as not giving every asylum seeker permanent residency. If so, I agree.

If "not throw[ing] open its doors wide open" means Canada doesn't hear every case and process them in an orderly fashion, I disagree, as the Canadian government most certainly does that.

I wasn't aware 9/11 was perpetrated by asylum seekers. It's hard draw an equivalency between them and entering on tourist or student visas. Very different processes, the latter of which has changed significantly since 9/11.

I wasn't aware that Wahhabi=militants comprised a significant number in the caravan.

Nope. Turns out it generally isn't a big issue among asylum seekers coming to Canada. Self-radicalization of Canadian citizens is a bigger issues as it relates to militant Wahhabism, and more significantly at the moment nativist white supremacy.

Yeah.

Thank you again. I was simply saying Canada doesn't have open borders. I think it's pretty clear that there are militant types in central and S. America. I was simply drawing a parallel. I don't think militant communists, socialists,  or drug dealers are any more desirable than militant Wahhabi Muslims would be. However, they are probably lesser known. 

What does Canada do with a group of 20,000 asylum seekers while they are awaiting the application process? Is there a fee for seeking asylum?

Share this post


Link to post

We are getting a lot of reports on this thread.  Everyone needs to calm down with the personal insults and political rhetoric or it'll be locked.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Duplicate

 

Edited by Danzo

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Then we're not speaking of a moral/ethical/legal imperative, but of personal preferences. 

Obviously it's personal preference.  All choices boil down to personal preferences. They are probably making a judgement call on where they would be safer.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Yes, there does not appear to be a legal imperative to allow the caravan folks entry.

Don't we have a legal system here set up to decide that? Do we have the facts for each individuals case? 

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

We also have a legal system that is intended to keep our borders secure.

Perhaps we should let it do its job.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure about that.  Again, the rejection of the offer from Mexico needs to be addressed.

  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Again, the rejection of the offer from Mexico needs to be addressed.

Perhaps we could have discussion what the value of an offer from mexico really is.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Iguala_mass_kidnapping

I think that some people could be forgiven for questioning "protection" from the Mexican government. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand this reference.

" For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:"

Hope that helps

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Danzo said:

what is your feeling about when man's laws go against Gods laws?

 

The only one I have issue with right now is abortion on demand. Is there some law concerning immigration that you are referring too so tha this thread does not get hijacked? 

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...