what is our position on the Caravan

[why me]

If one allows one 'caravan' into the country, then one must also allow other caravans to come to the US. However, should central america be emptied as more and more of their populations go over the US border? But of course, the US has a lot of people waiting to come legally into the US. They often have to wait a long time to immigrate to the US. Why not just join a caravan and claim domestic violence and gang violence. But then again,  maybe people from Chicago can migrate to Europe because of gang violence. Also, the caravan may be carrying various diseases such as TB and various viruses that could harm the native population. Who will check them at the border as was done on Ellis Island? How many illegal immigrants can the US hold? Why not just open the border for all who wish to come? Finally, since many are young men, who will do a background check on these individuals? If I move to a foreign country and wish to be a teacher or work in a people's profession, the employer would want my police records from my home country. What should be done with the people coming over illegally and being allowed in? Do they have police records? Can one check? Maybe not.

Maybe I have too many questions.

Edited October 29, 2018 by why me

[why me]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If it has done so, it has been invisible to me. In all the news reports and commentary I’ve seen unfavorable to Soros, I’ve never seen even an oblique reference to his being Jewish. As I said, I didn’t even know it until I saw you bring it up today. 

But this is now being used to give him a free pass. If one is critical of his policies one must be prejudice. Of course this is a deflect from his policies and his foundation's policies where the debate should be. It matters not if he is christian, jewish, muslim, agnostic, or a humanist. Lets look at the pope. He is pro-migration and refugee. If one is critical of the pope's stance, is one anti-catholic? Probably not. One just disagrees with his position on immigration.

Edited October 29, 2018 by why me

[halconero]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If it has done so, it has been invisible to me. In all the news reports and commentary I’ve seen unfavorable to Soros, I’ve never seen even an oblique reference to his being Jewish. As I said, I didn’t even know it until I saw you bring it up today. 

Soros being Jewish is fairly well known, and isn’t exactly a secret. The narrative of him being a conspiratorial mastermind of current events, including the recent one of sponsoring the migrant caravan, has its origins in explicitly anti-semitic circles. The trope of the Jewish cabal, financier, banker, or conspirator trying to replace white people is an old one, and was explicitly stated at Charlottesville in “Jews will not replace us!” 

What happens with this discourse is that it goes from explicit racism into becoming coded language. Jews become “globalists.” Soros takes the role of being the lead conspirator. Suddenly he is the head of the state department, as stated on Fox News a few days ago (“Zionist-Occupied Government,” or “ZOG” is a common refrain among anti-semites. It’s zero coincidence that Lou Dobbs called this caravan being funded a “Soros-Occupied State Department.”) He’s also the funder of the migrant caravan, which is also transporting people from the Middle East according to POTUS. Neither of these have any basis in reality, according to both documented fact, and my own sources in the well vetted circles I run in with regards to national security and immigration. Both play on easily recognizable tropes.

I think concerns regarding the caravan are fine. It isn’t actually new though, and recent hysteria around it and who is funding is spurred on by those with far more nefarious ends.

A good quote on how coded language hides anti-semitic sentiments, which are then disseminated for public digestion to both witting and unwitting:

”Soros has been the target of anti-Semitism more globally, too. In March, far-right Hungarian leader Viktor Orban gave a Jew-baiting speech denouncing Soros and his Open Society Foundations as “crafty” and someone who “speculates with money.” Orban said Soros was “not national but international.” This rhetoric echoed in a speech in which Trump declared that he was a “nationalist,” not a “globalist” — delivered on the same day Soros received a mail bomb. The term “globalist” is frequently used as a euphemism for Jew, including by far-right news site Breitbart, which surrounds Jewish former Trump economic adviser Gary Cohn’s name with globe emoji, for “globalist.” The notion of Jews as internationally beholden to some Jewish conspiracy and its goals, rather than serving as loyal subjects of their home countries, dates back at least to a 1920s pamphlet, “The International Jew,” published by Henry Ford. Nazi-era political cartoons depicted the Jew as an octopus, encircling the world with its many devious tentacles, exerting an irresistible, slimy control.”

“Soros’s Jewish heritage is well known — his experiences in the Holocaust formed his identity as a philanthropist, in a decades-long effort to beat back a revanchist right. And his name has become a synonym for a well-worn anti-Semitic canard: the idea that Jews are malevolent fomenters of social dissent, agitators slyly funding and masterminding protest, seeking to undermine a white, Christian social order. It is a canard that resonates not just in European history, where the deadly consequences of anti-Semitic conspiracies are well-known, but throughout American history, and its renewed form draws on a long tradition of American anti-Semitism.”

Edited October 29, 2018 by halconero

[why me]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

.

MS 13 kidnaps and trafficks children already in the USA, while govt officials look the other way.  No sincere effort is being made to eliminate MS 13.  A lot of talk, but no action.  Typical of the current admin.

This problem goes way back. MS 13 did not come with the current administration. I do believe that they have been around for quiite some time. And if I remember correctly some people are calling for ICE to be abolished. Not sure if that would help. Before Trump, most politicisns, including Bernie was against illegal immigration because they would claim that it lowers wages. Bernie in an interview with VOX claimed this before he announced his running for president. Who allowed this gang to grow in such size across the US? And how was such a gang allowed to be imported into the US? And can people be sure that not one MS 13 member or prospective member is not in the caravan coming to the US? It seems that many politicians who were against illegal immigration are now for it because of the current administration attitude toward it. Wasn't their criticism when Trump called the MS 13 members animals? Here is Bernie on open borders. He was just about to announce that he was running to become president. Ignore the second video which is the full interview which I posted by mistake and can't seem to take away.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 29, 2018 by why me

[halconero]

I want to clarify my last few posts:

I don’t think being wary of the caravan and its funding sources makes you a racists or anti-semite. I don’t think not liking Soros makes you an anti-semite. His shorting of the Bank of England is good enough for me personally.

I bring it up because his rather rapid rise as a conspiratorial financier and puppet master in the United States, ideas like he’s funding the caravan, and recent deragotory use of the word “globalist,” all have explicit origins in anti-semitic tropes. The concept of “International Jewery” as opposed to National pride. The concept of a Jewish figurehead financing social discord. There are plenty of richer and more left-wing poliocal financiers, and yet Soros is the one brought up. These are all old tropes which dates back to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. They originate among explicit racists, but understanding that their explicit anti-semiticism can’t be direct fed to the public, these tropes are re-packaged and made more palatable with the words I’ve mentioned: globalist, Soros, deep state, etc.

It’s entirely possible to recognize conspiracy, recognize secret combinations, without falling for these tropes and their origins speicfically.

Edited October 29, 2018 by halconero

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

There’s several ideas that i would agree with here...though a number that logistically and respecting the boundaries of other sovereign nations would likely not work (the migrant centers in por countries)...which would also mean some of the earlier half would still be a problem realistically. I also dont think being wholly against the caravan is necessary in wanting to help. Because, ideally, there would be safe means of transport when you’re likely a refugee. But due to the fundamental nature of refugees or compromised populations, that’s difficult to implement. 

I cannot emphasize how much i would like and want safe passage for people seeking refuge....It’s just more whether its right or fair to expect idealistic methods to relief and helping our fellow man in extremely difficult, unjust, and chaotic situations. From what i’ve seen, that’s not often the best mix.

 

With luv,

BD

Where there's a will, there's a way, no? 

If we were really concerned, we would not countenance this situation. Their coming is no surprise. It takes months to make the trip. The news media covers them from border to border. We see pathetic images and read horror stories daily. 

 Where are the humanitarians rushing down to provide them safe passage? Which rock stars give Save the Caravans concerts?  Which politicians are not hoping the migrants will be a cause of embarrassment for the other party? Which news outlets or politicians are not hoping something goes really wrong so they can beat up furor against their opponents? Which isn’t hoping for a border confrontation with American soldiers that ends badly for the migrants? 

If they pay the coyotes thousands of dollars to make the dangerous trek, why is no one organizing a way for them to pay that money to agencies that will provide quick and safe passage and resettlement in a better place instead?

Who along the way from start to finish is not using them for their own purposes without any thought about their welfare? Who is angry enough to find the coyotes and hold them accountable? Who really cares? 

It’s been going on for years and there will be a steady stream of caravans. It’s the bunk. What are our plans?

 

 

Edited October 29, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, why me said:

If one allows one 'caravan' into the country, then one must also allow other caravans to come to the US. However, should central america be emptied as more and more of their populations go over the US border? But of course, the US has a lot of people waiting to come legally into the US. They often have to wait a long time to immigrate to the US. Why not just join a caravan and claim domestic violence and gang violence. But then again,  maybe people from Chicago can migrate to Europe because of gang violence. Also, the caravan may be carrying various diseases such as TB and various viruses that could harm the native population. Who will check them at the border as was done on Ellis Island? How many illegal immigrants can the US hold? Why not just open the border for all who wish to come? Finally, since many are young men, who will do a background check on these individuals? If I move to a foreign country and wish to be a teacher or work in a people's profession, the employer would want my police records from my home country. What should be done with the people coming over illegally and being allowed in? Do they have police records? Can one check? Maybe not.

Maybe I have too many questions.

On the same track, let’s suppose a fleet carrying 5,000 Middle Eastern refugees makes it to the Canadian shore. They disembark without permission at various places and gather together with a declared intent to march across Canada by foot or whatever and enter the US illegally somewhere around North Dakota. (About the same distance from Tapachula to El Paso.) Meanwhile, other fleets are being put together back in the Middle East.

Would Canada do anything? Should Canada do anything?

Would the US have legitimate concerns? Should the US and Canada work out something with the countries on the other side??

Would they have the right to demand asylum once they reached North Dakota?

Would it be reasonable to question how they got organized and who paid for the trip?

What would be the correct Christian response?

 

 

Edited October 29, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[why me]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

What would be the correct Christian response?

 

 

This is the problem when one brings up christianity. What should christians do? In Europe, with the rise of Islamism or political islam we see a group of people who may be less tolerant of Jews, gays, lesbians and arab christians and women. This was confirmed in the leak of John Podesta's emails but was ignored by the media when he wished to find out about immigration in Europe and received the following emails:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/295

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/197

It seems like a desperate situation in Europe. What should be the christian response?

Edited October 29, 2018 by why me

[Gray]

11 hours ago, Vance said:

Everyone of my statements are true.

It is a mob and an army

 

 

https://moonbattery.com/migrant-caravan-is-invasion-force-and-behaves-like-it/

 

 

How did you become addicted to fake news?

[halconero]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

On the same track, let’s suppose a fleet carrying 5,000 Middle Eastern refugees makes it to the Canadian shore. They disembark without permission at various places and gather together with a declared intent to march across Canada by foot or whatever and enter the US illegally somewhere around North Dakota. (About the same distance from Tapachula to El Paso.) Meanwhile, other fleets are being put together back in the Middle East.

Would Canada do anything? Should Canada do anything?

Would the US have legitimate concerns? Should the US and Canada work out something with the countries on the other side??

Would they have the right to demand asylum once they reached North Dakota?

Would it be reasonable to question how they got organized and who paid for the trip?

What would be the correct Christian response?

 

 

Given that Canada currently has a backlog of about 60,000 asylum seeker cases, with about 80,000 who crossed the border in the past year, at least 12,000 of which were from the Middle East, I actually have an answer for you:

We process them. Those from the expidited country list have a high acceptance rate. Those with flimsy cases are given deportation orders, sometimes enforced by the CBSA. We’re doing fine.

Source: literally my job to know this stuff, but if requested I can give you various tables, graphs, and backgrounders on the numbers, process, and results of the Canadian asylum seeker system.

Side note: Canada surpassed the United States in terms of raw (not per capita, but absolute numbers) refugee and asylum seeker settlement this year, and will continue to outstrip it next year, accounting for 25%+ of all global third country refugee resettlement.

[BlueDreams]

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Where there's a will, there's a way, no? 

If we were really concerned, we would not countenance this situation. Their coming is no surprise. It takes months to make the trip. The news media covers them from border to border. We see pathetic images and read horror stories daily. 

 Where are the humanitarians rushing down to provide them safe passage? Which rock stars give Save the Caravans concerts?  Which politicians are not hoping the migrants will be a cause of embarrassment for the other party? Which news outlets or politicians are not hoping something goes really wrong so they can beat up furor against their opponents? Which isn’t hoping for a border confrontation with American soldiers that ends badly for the migrants? 

If they pay the coyotes thousands of dollars to make the dangerous trek, why is no one organizing a way for them to pay that money to agencies that will provide quick and safe passage and resettlement in a better place instead?

Who along the way from start to finish is not using them for their own purposes without any thought about their welfare? Who is angry enough to find the coyotes and hold them accountable? Who really cares? 

It’s been going on for years and there will be a steady stream of caravans. It’s the bunk. What are our plans?

 

 

To your first question, no. There isn't a single will to have a way with. In other words there isn't a single concern, conflict or issue to manage. "The caravan" has become oversimplified shorthand and snapshots for several complex issues....several of which entail concerns with multiple sovereign nations and their own legal systems. We and our government could make our nation a refugee paradise and it still wouldn't necessarily translate that caravans trekking to the US would simply disappear. Of course, this is not what we're currently doing as a governing body/nation (one source). Quite to opposite....and more often than the recent past, based on reasoning that is fear-based at best and veering in and out of racist sentiments. Halcenero, mentioned one branch of said prejudice becoming more and more  apparent. It's certainly not the only form though, coming through and having deadly effects at the most extreme ends of it. We people as individuals or even as NGO's and volunteer groups, can only do so much. At some point the governments involved also have to change. For these central american countries where infrastructure is flagging to an extreme, that will likely take more work and time than some of these threatened families had. For us, it likely entails voting, corresponding, and making sure that the messages for a safer more christian and/or humane asylum/immigration policies are being sought after by those we vote for. 

 

As for the humanitarians, some of the NGO's (particularly puebla sin fronteras) are tied to organizing the caravan and supporting it somewhat along the way already. The caravan, in part, is a humanitarian effort to maintain greater safety through greater numbers. As opposed to individual or small group runs, more likely to be picked off or targeted by dangerous groups.   

 

With luv,

BD

[Glenn101]

10 hours ago, longview said:

Yes, through legal immigration.  They should be willing to learn the official language and assimilate into our society.

I agree with that.

10 hours ago, longview said:

A lot of them know how to get on welfare and act like they are entitled to benefits but still show no gratitude.

They are taught how to get on welfare. The ones that I know personally are hard workers and feel that they can better realize their dreams that way.

Glenn

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, halconero said:

Given that Canada currently has a backlog of about 60,000 asylum seeker cases, with about 80,000 who crossed the border in the past year, at least 12,000 of which were from the Middle East, I actually have an answer for you:

We process them. Those from the expidited country list have a high acceptance rate. Those with flimsy cases are given deportation orders, sometimes enforced by the CBSA. We’re doing fine.

Source: literally my job to know this stuff, but if requested I can give you various tables, graphs, and backgrounders on the numbers, process, and results of the Canadian asylum seeker system.

Side note: Canada surpassed the United States in terms of raw (not per capita, but absolute numbers) refugee and asylum seeker settlement this year, and will continue to outstrip it next year, accounting for 25%+ of all global third country refugee resettlement.

What constitutes a "flimsy" case? Not really being involuntary refugees? Or not really being in danger for their lives? Who answers these types of questions? What investigation does Canada do into the backgrounds of citizenship applicants? Does it care if people don't agree to live by the standards of its constitution or laws or haven't done so in the past (they have murdered or been convicted of crimes)?

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

To your first question, no. There isn't a single will to have a way with. In other words there isn't a single concern, conflict or issue to manage. "The caravan" has become oversimplified shorthand and snapshots for several complex issues....several of which entail concerns with multiple sovereign nations and their own legal systems. We and our government could make our nation a refugee paradise and it still wouldn't necessarily translate that caravans trekking to the US would simply disappear. Of course, this is not what we're currently doing as a governing body/nation (one source). Quite to opposite....and more often than the recent past, based on reasoning that is fear-based at best and veering in and out of racist sentiments. Halcenero, mentioned one branch of said prejudice becoming more and more  apparent. It's certainly not the only form though, coming through and having deadly effects at the most extreme ends of it. We people as individuals or even as NGO's and volunteer groups, can only do so much. At some point the governments involved also have to change. For these central american countries where infrastructure is flagging to an extreme, that will likely take more work and time than some of these threatened families had. For us, it likely entails voting, corresponding, and making sure that the messages for a safer more christian and/or humane asylum/immigration policies are being sought after by those we vote for. 

 

As for the humanitarians, some of the NGO's (particularly puebla sin fronteras) are tied to organizing the caravan and supporting it somewhat along the way already. The caravan, in part, is a humanitarian effort to maintain greater safety through greater numbers. As opposed to individual or small group runs, more likely to be picked off or targeted by dangerous groups.   

 

With luv,

BD

Thanks. I think we have the ability to solve the problems, but we do not yet have the will.  Time will tell. This cannot go on forever.

There is nothing humanitarian about these caravans. The people are sadly just pawns in larger games. Until that is resolved, they will continue to come.

Edited October 29, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[LoudmouthMormon]

18 hours ago, The Nehor said:

There is nothing in the statement about the  “impending destabilization of society”. I think it would require a mental disorder to interpret the text in that fashion.

Either that, or a slight exaggeration for humorous purposes.   I'm ok with either being true.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, halconero said:

Given that Canada currently has a backlog of about 60,000 asylum seeker cases, with about 80,000 who crossed the border in the past year, at least 12,000 of which were from the Middle East, I actually have an answer for you:

We process them. Those from the expidited country list have a high acceptance rate. Those with flimsy cases are given deportation orders, sometimes enforced by the CBSA. We’re doing fine.

Source: literally my job to know this stuff, but if requested I can give you various tables, graphs, and backgrounders on the numbers, process, and results of the Canadian asylum seeker system.

Side note: Canada surpassed the United States in terms of raw (not per capita, but absolute numbers) refugee and asylum seeker settlement this year, and will continue to outstrip it next year, accounting for 25%+ of all global third country refugee resettlement.

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?

Edited October 29, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Danzo]

11 hours ago, longview said:

Yes, through legal immigration.  They should be willing to learn the official language and assimilate into our society.  I have seen too many pictures of illegal aliens in America flaunting flags of their countries of origin and burning the Stars and Stripes.  A lot of them know how to get on welfare and act like they are entitled to benefits but still show no gratitude.

 

Unfortunately, legal immigration has nothing to do with being willing to "learn the official language and assimilate into our society."

It has nothing to do with being on welfare or not.  I have seen millionaires being unable to get "legal" status and people with living off the system with nothing getting "legally" in.  

I have seen people who know no other language besides our own and no other society being "illegal" out while others who can't speak a word of English being "legally" let in.

I think many people here who advocate "legal" immigration have absolutely no idea what it takes to come here legally.  They seem to be advocating immigrants adhere to a fantasy set of laws (not the actual set of laws).

 

[smac97]

Hmm:

Quote

Rick Moran at PJ Media reports that “only about 1,700 of the estimated 7,000 Central American refugees in the caravan heading to the U.S. border have accepted an offer from the Mexican government for asylum.” For the remaining 5,300 (or so), it’s USA or bust.

What has Mexico offered the migrants? According to Moran, the offer is:

Temporary ID cards and work permits
Medical care
Schooling for their children
Housing in local hostels

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.

What can we infer from the decision of so many in the caravan to turn down Mexico’s generous offer and instead trek on for 1,000 more miles, in many cases with children in tow? Moran infers that “someone is trying to make a political statement using the refugees as both stage props and human shields.” Thus, settling in Mexico will not do.

Another reasonable inference is that the migrants are motivated not by a desire to escape persecution and violence, but by a desire to participate in the American economy. They likely believe their future, and the future of their children, will be considerably brighter in the U.S. than in Mexico.

They are almost certainly correct. But from the U.S. perspective, the desire of migrants to improve their economic status provides no legal or moral imperative for permitting entry.

Those who turned down Mexico’s offer aren’t acting on a serious fear of persecution in their home country, the standard under international law for refugee status. They aren’t acting on fear of violence, either.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Danzo]

9 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?

How should we stop them?

Should we shoot them? 

Waterboard them?

Sell them into slavery?

[Danzo]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Hmm:

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

Why don't we let them work?

Its not like we are going to pick our own strawberries.

 

[Tacenda]

12 hours ago, bluebell said:

BlueDreams. 😊

Thanks bluebell, I corrected it but couldn't reply to you until now, ran out of posts yesterday! 😌

[Guest]

On October 26, 2018 at 11:28 AM, rodheadlee said:

 what is our position on the Caravan headed to our borders?

 I got so angry watching Fox news last night with those guys and gals invoking God's name praying that the Caravan doesn't reach our border. What are your thoughts?

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. 

[halconero]

42 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

What constitutes a "flimsy" case? Not really being involuntary refugees? Or not really being in danger for their lives?

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.

Quote

Who answers these types of questions?

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.

Quote

What investigation does Canada do into the backgrounds of citizenship applicants? Does it care if people don't agree to live by the standards of its constitution or laws or haven't done so in the past (they have murdered or been convicted of crimes)?

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.

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Why don't we let them work?

Its not like we are going to pick our own strawberries.

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:

Quote

Another reasonable inference is that the migrants are motivated not by a desire to escape persecution and violence, but by a desire to participate in the American economy. They likely believe their future, and the future of their children, will be considerably brighter in the U.S. than in Mexico.

They are almost certainly correct. But from the U.S. perspective, the desire of migrants to improve their economic status provides no legal or moral imperative for permitting entry.

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

Thanks,

-Smac

[Jeanne]

14 hours ago, bluebell said:

Why?

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