More than anything this case should highlight how broken our asylum programs are. They are not in Canadians best interest, or the international communities. Demand change from your MP - public safety is a bipartisan issue and all parties should agree this is a failure of our system.
In Canada, when an extortion suspect claims asylum, deportation is paused while the refugee claim is reviewed. During this period, they may access basic health care through the Interim Federal Health Program, apply for a work permit, and remain legally in the country. Before making an asylum claim, they had no such protections or benefits and were subject to immediate removal.
The problem with having charter rights and due process is that criminals will abuse it to delay punishment.
All we have to do to solve that problem is give up some of our rights and trust the government to use that new power responsibly and go after the right people.
It's not the asylum program or legislation that's causing this problem.
It's the courts.
Long ago our courts ruled that anyone who claims asylum has a right to a trial, and any criminal behavior they may have engaged in can't be used against that claim.
The only way around this problem is to use the notwithstanding clause to enforce the immigration act, which would essentially deprive all travellers of their section 7 charter rights.
However that solution is untested and may also require repealing the bill of rights, and the notwithstanding clause itself is facing it's own legal challenges.
How long is it going to take before people come around to the idea that the Charter is a poorly crafted document and needs to be revised? This is nuts.
Nothing but we really should see the ability to claim asylum limited to people's first 72 hours within Canada. Claims after that should have to prove substantial changes to the conditions of the home country before being allowed to apply (such as civil war for example).
You don't have a charter right to make an asylum claim. The government is free to limit who is allowed to be claimed asylum. I'm saying it should be more limited then it currently is.
You don't have a charter right to make an asylum claim.
The Supreme Court of Canada and a bunch of international treaties say you do.
The government is free to limit who is allowed to be claimed asylum.
Yes but it must follow due process. The government has to give the claimant the opportunity to prove their claim.
A lot of asylum claimants get rejected, but it's a process that takes time, because that's how due process works.
Without due process the government could just show up at your door accusing you of being somebody else and arrest and deport you. Due process is what allows you to take the matter before a judge, because the government isn't always right.
Unfortunately having these rights means criminals get to take advantage of them. That's the price of freedom.
They'd just have to have signage in all languages upon entry warning people that they're passing the point of no return: either claim asylum now and be heard out in due course, or prove that something changed in your home country later on.
Arrive from Poland and don't claim protection? Okay.
Germany and Russia simultaneously invade Poland a few months later? Okay, claim protection now.
Nothing changes in Poland, but you want to stay in Canada forever by claiming asylum after a few months? Okay, here's your one-way ticket back to Poland, escorted in handcuffs by CBSA.
They'd just have to have signage in all languages upon entry warning people that they're passing the point of no return: either claim asylum now and be heard out in due course, or prove that something changed in your home country later on.
The courts would call this arbitrary.
Sending someone back to their home country to be persecuted because they didn't read a sign clearly violates the charter.
The courts have to consider the claim without arbitrary bias.
Sending someone back to their home country to be persecuted because they didn't read a sign clearly violates the charter.
The 'to be persecuted' part in your reply is begging the question.
Also, even the UNHCR concedes that countries are allowed to reject certain claims upfront as being manifestly unfounded. Are you saying that the UNHCR is itself a violator of international law for their stance on this?
Ouch, sounds complicated and like it would take 10 years to solve for our government. I also understand the "any criminal behavior can't be used against the claim" if it was outside of the country like rebels fighting against their government then fleeing, but inside? Why wouldn't it affect the claim? It doesn't make any sense.
Because asylum isn't supposed to be a "can I move here please" it's supposed to be "If you send me back I'll be killed for existing". The purpose of the trail is to determine if the second is true.
However I am of the belief that if someone had a different residency status in Canada before their asylum claim it should be denied immediately. Living in Canada as a student or TFW proves any claim for asylum fraudulent. Unless someone like a war or violent revolution has broken out in their home.
It does make sense. A claim of asylum is intended to protect the individual from persecution unrelated to criminal behavior.
Sending someone back to a country where they would be persecuted because of their race or religion simply because they're also a criminal would be considered a cruel and unusual punishment, and that's a clear violation of section 7.
So we keep criminals because we don't want them to be persecuted? See how weird that sounds? I mean our prisons are already full. We can't keep criminals here because they are afraid. Maybe think about it before you start committing crimes? We opened the door to you. Do not be a criminal, become a Canadian and you will not be persecuted. Sounds simple enough.
So we keep criminals because we don't want them to be persecuted?
Yes we keep criminals, preferably in jail. That's how the criminal justice system deals with crime. We don't persecute people because we're a free country with protected rights and freedoms.
It's illegal for the government to impose cruel and unusual punishments. If you disagree with that, all you need to do is give up some of your rights and trust the government to use that new power to go after the right people.
Canadian rights are for Canadians. We can open our doors under certain limits; the limits should be criminality on Canadian territory. I'm not talking about Canadians surrendering their rights, but people who did not respect Canada by committing crimes.
That's the part of the charter that stops the government from subjecting you to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatments or Punishments.
Do you think the government should be allowed to do that?
Right, and who is responsible for the charter and the amendment process? The House of Commons, the Senate, and the provinces. Our legislators are fully capable of addressing this issue and should be doing so in Canadas best interests. Demand change from your MP.
They have no shame. Send them on the next plane back to their country and strip any citizenship of children they conveniently birthed here.
And their lawyers should have law society complaints filed for making bad faith arguments. It’s not advocacy to willfully undermine the justice system.
Recently, the Canada Border Services Agency said it had zeroed in on 103 foreign nationals suspected of involvement in the extortion wave in B.C., and had started scrutinizing their immigration cases. But just as the CBSA began investigating the group further, 15 of these individuals claimed refugee status – effectively halting the probe in its tracks.
These 15 individuals could obtain work permits while waiting for their cases to be adjudicated. Just submitting their claims makes them eligible for free health care. They have the right to open a bank account, transfer funds and access other banking services. B.C.’s Safe Haven program offers claimants wrap-around services to help them find housing, job support, legal aid and income assistance.
All opposition parties indicated they would oppose it, so it got spilt into 2 bills.
Most of the border stuff and immigration/asylum stuff made it into bill c-12 which passed on 3rd reading in the house. (With government, CPC, and BQ support)
Current status of C-12 is awaiting Senate approval before getting Royal assent.
Nobody voted against C-2. It passed first reading and was never moved for second reading. There were plenty of concerns with it though. It was a 130 page omnibus bill that tackled a variety of different issues, for one. For another, it would have allowed CSIS, police and peace officers to demand personal info from online service providers without a warrant based only on vague suspicions of potential crime or legal breaches of any act of Parliament. Note that Acts of Parliament include everything from the Criminal Code to the Canadian Dairy Commission Act. It was a dramatic overreach that would have, in effect and in combination with the proposed changes to the Human Rights Code in C-63, allowed police warrantless access to your personal information over an arguably racist Reddit post.
In response to those concerns the border measures were broken off into Bill C-12 in October, left Committee at the end of November, and passed the report stage and third reading on December 11th with the support of the Conservatives and Bloc Quebecois.
Jenny Kwan for the NDP noted their opposition on a number of bases, for example:
Bill C-12 also undermines due process, as it would deny individuals access to a full oral hearing before the refugee protection division. The Minister of Public Safety, a refugee himself, said to not worry and be happy because there are safeguards and guardrails in place. What are they? He cites the pre-removal risk assessment system, a process with one of the worst records in recognizing legitimate need for protection.
The NDP proposed amendments to maintain access to hearings. We proposed reducing the severity of the time limit, even though all arbitrary deadlines violate basic principles of refugee protection. Every one of our amendments was defeated.
Bill C-12 does not stop here. It also grants the government sweeping unprecedented powers to cancel immigration applications, suspend processing and revoke people's status en masse. These powers can be applied to entire classes of people without individualized assessment, without due process and without clear constraints. Families who have lived and work here for years could wake up one morning to learn that their pathway to permanent residence has simply been erased, not because of anything they did but because the minister granted themselves the authority to do so.
The Canadian Bar Association expressed “grave concerns about the vague and undefined language throughout the Bill”, describing the power as “overreaching”, “undemocratic” and specifically insulated from normal regulatory scrutiny. It warned that, once granted, these powers “will be impossible to control.”
Amnesty International reinforced this warning, noting that the bill opens the door to politically driven decisions capable of destabilizing lives, separating families and uprooting people who have built their entire future here. It cautions that this legislation risks violating international law, including the right to a fair and effective asylum procedure, the right not to be deported to danger and the prohibition on discrimination.
While I tend to vote Conservative, those are very legitimate concerns.
The biggest impediment to gaining all-party support for this isn't the goal of the legislation, it is, and has been from the beginning, the particular means the Liberals have chosen to advance that goal.
All I'm saying is that bill c-2 was introduced in June and could've recieved Royal assent in time to prevent this particular group of alleged criminals from claiming asylum.
That Conservatives now have a problem with lawful access provisions that were first introduced by Vic Toews during the Harper government is more than a bit hypocritical.
All I'm saying is that bill c-2 was introduced in June and could've recieved Royal assent in time to prevent this particular group of alleged criminals from claiming asylum.
At a significant cost to democratic norms and the civil liberties of all Canadians, yes. Seems like kind of an important thing to leave out, and speaks a lot to your agenda.
That Conservatives now have a problem with lawful access provisions that were first introduced by Vic Toews during the Harper government is more than a bit hypocritical.
Access provisions that they declined to actually pass after these concerns were brought up to them? No, that sounds perfectly consistent to me, and those concerns were echoed by the NDP and Bloc Quebecois.
Asylum claims are protected under section 7 of the charter. To block undesirable claims the government would have to give itself sweeping powers at the border, and then most likely use the notwithstanding clause to override court challenges against those powers.
The problem with that is it would impact all travellers or anyone who goes anywhere near a border. The government would basically have the power to conduct warrantless searches on those people, specifically regarding their travel and international communications.
Ah didn’t realize this was a constitutional issue. At this point, given the consensus on this, they should go the regular route, get provinces on board and make a constitutional amendment rather than using NWC. Because with NWC, the concern is if its use is normalized, where does it stop? At that point your constitution pretty much becomes obsolete which is dangerous
I agree, the best method is actually a constitutional amendment. Politicians are scared to ever attempt it, but it is a much needed discussion.
Mulroney made constitutional amendments into this huge deal where everything needed to be discussed and looked into. Obviously finding a consensus on every constitutional matter is going to take a lot of time and will likely not even be successful.
However, doing single-issue constitutional amendments would likely be so much easier. Make it clear that each amendment is only to address a single issue at a time. It is probably not as difficult to address the issue in a way that 7/10 provinces will agree to.
Another 20 years of this, and Canada will vote in an authoritarian govt to clean up the mess, with permanent loss of freedoms for all in important spheres - Argentina, v2.
Asylum claimants should not have the same rights as Canadian citizens. Why is this a thing? People want to immigrate, then better come with a squeaky clean record or home you go. Commit crime as an asylum claimant in Canada? You aren’t a citizen, home you go. Why do we force ourselves to protect these people?
This khalistan asylum scam needs to go. That + all the African/Middle-eastern asylum seekers claiming theyre LGBTQ+ are the 2 biggest scams in the industry
The extortion criminals asking for asylum is not related to Khalistan. If anything, they are anti-Khalistan as they are used by the Indian government to commit crimes in Canada.
Of course it does. Where did I deny the Khalistani thugs roaming free in Canada? I am specifically taking about thr extortion gang which is allied with Bishnoi gang, which in turn is hired by the Indian government. Or do you think the Indian government is not involved in committing crimes in Canada?
Nobody is arguing that. They are entitled to a trial but they are not entitled to make a bogus asylum claim to delay or change the circumstances of their prosecution.
You kind of are. Until they have a trial they are innocent. So what you're suggesting is barring an innocent person from claiming asylum. I get the frustration and anger at something like this. It's very relatable, and this certainly seems like abuse of the system. But the alternative is just as open to abuse from outside actors. Imagine a forgien state has someone making a legitimate claim in Canada for Asylum, theg want to stop that. So they hire a Canadian to accuse them of a rape. That alone would end the Asylum process, and or prevent them from making that claim.
They are not legitimate refugees, if they were they would have claimed so upon entering the country. A quick determination of their status is reasonable.
So what you're suggesting is barring an innocent person from claiming asylum.
No. You are barring an obvious liar from claiming asylum.
Someone who is in Canada for a while, then gets suspected of committing crimes by Canadian authorities, and only then files a refugee claim is an obvious liar. So such claims should not be allowed.
But the alternative is just as open to abuse from outside actors.
No it is not. There is no possible way for abuse and what you said makes no sense.
If someone was a legitimate refugee, they would have made a refugee claim when they got to Canada. They wouldn't have waited until someone "falsely accused them of rape" and only then made a refugee claim.
And if they did, then they are also clearly lying and should be ignored.
They haven't even been charged with anything so why would the government block them from claiming asylum?
Notice there are tons of opinion pieces like this but there will be no article at all in a few months time when those asylum claims are rejected and they actually are deported.
The only purpose of this opinion piece is to make people angry and to foster anti-immigrant feelings.
More than anything this case should highlight how broken our asylum programs are. They are not in Canadians best interest, or the international communities. Demand change from your MP - public safety is a bipartisan issue and all parties should agree this is a failure of our system.
In Canada, when an extortion suspect claims asylum, deportation is paused while the refugee claim is reviewed. During this period, they may access basic health care through the Interim Federal Health Program, apply for a work permit, and remain legally in the country. Before making an asylum claim, they had no such protections or benefits and were subject to immediate removal.
The problem with having charter rights and due process is that criminals will abuse it to delay punishment.
All we have to do to solve that problem is give up some of our rights and trust the government to use that new power responsibly and go after the right people.
There should be a charter of responsibilities to go along with those rights!
Which is an entirely unsafe and ludicrous idea.
What could go wrong?
I sent a note to our MP...heard nothing at all, not even an acknowledgement
It's not the asylum program or legislation that's causing this problem.
It's the courts.
Long ago our courts ruled that anyone who claims asylum has a right to a trial, and any criminal behavior they may have engaged in can't be used against that claim.
The only way around this problem is to use the notwithstanding clause to enforce the immigration act, which would essentially deprive all travellers of their section 7 charter rights.
However that solution is untested and may also require repealing the bill of rights, and the notwithstanding clause itself is facing it's own legal challenges.
How long is it going to take before people come around to the idea that the Charter is a poorly crafted document and needs to be revised? This is nuts.
What in particular do you think is wrong with our section 7 rights?
Nothing but we really should see the ability to claim asylum limited to people's first 72 hours within Canada. Claims after that should have to prove substantial changes to the conditions of the home country before being allowed to apply (such as civil war for example).
That would violate section 7 of the charter.
How exactly? Right to due process doesn't mean you can't limit eligibility for programs.
No but it can prevent the government from enforcing a deportation.
They can limit eligibility all they want. The claimant can then take that issue to court.
Charter rights come first.
You don't have a charter right to make an asylum claim. The government is free to limit who is allowed to be claimed asylum. I'm saying it should be more limited then it currently is.
The Supreme Court of Canada and a bunch of international treaties say you do.
Yes but it must follow due process. The government has to give the claimant the opportunity to prove their claim.
A lot of asylum claimants get rejected, but it's a process that takes time, because that's how due process works.
Without due process the government could just show up at your door accusing you of being somebody else and arrest and deport you. Due process is what allows you to take the matter before a judge, because the government isn't always right.
Unfortunately having these rights means criminals get to take advantage of them. That's the price of freedom.
Not necessarily.
They'd just have to have signage in all languages upon entry warning people that they're passing the point of no return: either claim asylum now and be heard out in due course, or prove that something changed in your home country later on.
Arrive from Poland and don't claim protection? Okay.
Germany and Russia simultaneously invade Poland a few months later? Okay, claim protection now.
Nothing changes in Poland, but you want to stay in Canada forever by claiming asylum after a few months? Okay, here's your one-way ticket back to Poland, escorted in handcuffs by CBSA.
The courts would call this arbitrary.
Sending someone back to their home country to be persecuted because they didn't read a sign clearly violates the charter.
The courts have to consider the claim without arbitrary bias.
The 'to be persecuted' part in your reply is begging the question.
Also, even the UNHCR concedes that countries are allowed to reject certain claims upfront as being manifestly unfounded. Are you saying that the UNHCR is itself a violator of international law for their stance on this?
Ouch, sounds complicated and like it would take 10 years to solve for our government. I also understand the "any criminal behavior can't be used against the claim" if it was outside of the country like rebels fighting against their government then fleeing, but inside? Why wouldn't it affect the claim? It doesn't make any sense.
Because asylum isn't supposed to be a "can I move here please" it's supposed to be "If you send me back I'll be killed for existing". The purpose of the trail is to determine if the second is true.
However I am of the belief that if someone had a different residency status in Canada before their asylum claim it should be denied immediately. Living in Canada as a student or TFW proves any claim for asylum fraudulent. Unless someone like a war or violent revolution has broken out in their home.
It does make sense. A claim of asylum is intended to protect the individual from persecution unrelated to criminal behavior.
Sending someone back to a country where they would be persecuted because of their race or religion simply because they're also a criminal would be considered a cruel and unusual punishment, and that's a clear violation of section 7.
So we keep criminals because we don't want them to be persecuted? See how weird that sounds? I mean our prisons are already full. We can't keep criminals here because they are afraid. Maybe think about it before you start committing crimes? We opened the door to you. Do not be a criminal, become a Canadian and you will not be persecuted. Sounds simple enough.
Yes we keep criminals, preferably in jail. That's how the criminal justice system deals with crime. We don't persecute people because we're a free country with protected rights and freedoms.
It's illegal for the government to impose cruel and unusual punishments. If you disagree with that, all you need to do is give up some of your rights and trust the government to use that new power to go after the right people.
Canadian rights are for Canadians. We can open our doors under certain limits; the limits should be criminality on Canadian territory. I'm not talking about Canadians surrendering their rights, but people who did not respect Canada by committing crimes.
What's wrong with cruel and unusual punishment for criminals?
It violates section 12 of the charter.
That's the part of the charter that stops the government from subjecting you to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatments or Punishments.
Do you think the government should be allowed to do that?
So let's change that.
Make torture legal?
No, just remove rights for criminals. They can't get along with the rest of society, so they don't get the benefits of being in a society.
Maybe you should take in these fine fellas in your house? Put your money where your mouth is
The law is written by law makers who are our elected officials. It is our legislation.
No. It's the courts interpretation of the charter that's the issue.
Right, and who is responsible for the charter and the amendment process? The House of Commons, the Senate, and the provinces. Our legislators are fully capable of addressing this issue and should be doing so in Canadas best interests. Demand change from your MP.
Despicable - throw them out.
They have no shame. Send them on the next plane back to their country and strip any citizenship of children they conveniently birthed here.
And their lawyers should have law society complaints filed for making bad faith arguments. It’s not advocacy to willfully undermine the justice system.
This is the solution here. The courts always refuse to call out lawyers for lying. Seems like a good place to start.
Can't cause:
This Liberal government is a joke.
Who writes these laws lmao.
The Singh Decision
Can this not be addressed through a legislation, or is the government that oblivious?
Government, as asked by the public service, tabled a bill to fix this. Opposition had problems with it.
https://www.canada.ca/en/services/defence/securingborder/strengthen-border-security/understanding-strong-borders-act.html
Cons voted against it?
The information access stuff that was crammed in there for no reason was pretty terrible.
All opposition parties indicated they would oppose it, so it got spilt into 2 bills.
Most of the border stuff and immigration/asylum stuff made it into bill c-12 which passed on 3rd reading in the house. (With government, CPC, and BQ support)
Current status of C-12 is awaiting Senate approval before getting Royal assent.
Nobody voted against C-2. It passed first reading and was never moved for second reading. There were plenty of concerns with it though. It was a 130 page omnibus bill that tackled a variety of different issues, for one. For another, it would have allowed CSIS, police and peace officers to demand personal info from online service providers without a warrant based only on vague suspicions of potential crime or legal breaches of any act of Parliament. Note that Acts of Parliament include everything from the Criminal Code to the Canadian Dairy Commission Act. It was a dramatic overreach that would have, in effect and in combination with the proposed changes to the Human Rights Code in C-63, allowed police warrantless access to your personal information over an arguably racist Reddit post.
In response to those concerns the border measures were broken off into Bill C-12 in October, left Committee at the end of November, and passed the report stage and third reading on December 11th with the support of the Conservatives and Bloc Quebecois.
Jenny Kwan for the NDP noted their opposition on a number of bases, for example:
While I tend to vote Conservative, those are very legitimate concerns.
The biggest impediment to gaining all-party support for this isn't the goal of the legislation, it is, and has been from the beginning, the particular means the Liberals have chosen to advance that goal.
All I'm saying is that bill c-2 was introduced in June and could've recieved Royal assent in time to prevent this particular group of alleged criminals from claiming asylum.
That Conservatives now have a problem with lawful access provisions that were first introduced by Vic Toews during the Harper government is more than a bit hypocritical.
At a significant cost to democratic norms and the civil liberties of all Canadians, yes. Seems like kind of an important thing to leave out, and speaks a lot to your agenda.
Access provisions that they declined to actually pass after these concerns were brought up to them? No, that sounds perfectly consistent to me, and those concerns were echoed by the NDP and Bloc Quebecois.
Yeah because it can be used against them.
Asylum claims are protected under section 7 of the charter. To block undesirable claims the government would have to give itself sweeping powers at the border, and then most likely use the notwithstanding clause to override court challenges against those powers.
The problem with that is it would impact all travellers or anyone who goes anywhere near a border. The government would basically have the power to conduct warrantless searches on those people, specifically regarding their travel and international communications.
At this point, go for it. Fuck it.
So you're okay with giving up some of your rights?
If you're not seeking asylum then your rights aren't affected.
Nope. If they use the notwithstanding clause it applies to the entire immigration act.
According to who?
Fear mongers.
No it can't. It's a charter issue. The only way to override is to use the notwithstanding clause.
I'm sorry but bill c-12 addresses this by limiting asylum claims to the first year within Canada.
Bill C-12 has to make it though the Senate and may not stand up in court.
Also it wouldn't solve all fraudulent claims just some of them.
Ah didn’t realize this was a constitutional issue. At this point, given the consensus on this, they should go the regular route, get provinces on board and make a constitutional amendment rather than using NWC. Because with NWC, the concern is if its use is normalized, where does it stop? At that point your constitution pretty much becomes obsolete which is dangerous
I agree, the best method is actually a constitutional amendment. Politicians are scared to ever attempt it, but it is a much needed discussion.
Mulroney made constitutional amendments into this huge deal where everything needed to be discussed and looked into. Obviously finding a consensus on every constitutional matter is going to take a lot of time and will likely not even be successful.
However, doing single-issue constitutional amendments would likely be so much easier. Make it clear that each amendment is only to address a single issue at a time. It is probably not as difficult to address the issue in a way that 7/10 provinces will agree to.
Making a constitutional amendment to remove section 7 rights would be a tough sell.
Another 20 years of this, and Canada will vote in an authoritarian govt to clean up the mess, with permanent loss of freedoms for all in important spheres - Argentina, v2.
Giving up rights and freedoms to get rid of a few refugees more quickly...
Few?
I mean, we're already staring this down. Legislation limiting cash transaction, digital ID, and so on.
Our entire court system is a farce.
We have Gypsies getting refugee here while in Europe they can go anywhere They need to tighten the rules
Asylum claimants should not have the same rights as Canadian citizens. Why is this a thing? People want to immigrate, then better come with a squeaky clean record or home you go. Commit crime as an asylum claimant in Canada? You aren’t a citizen, home you go. Why do we force ourselves to protect these people?
Say what you want about the US, but they wouldnt put up with this shit. This is an absolute farce and makes me sick as a Canadian
Anyone under criminal charges who claims asylum should be kept in custody.
And kicked the fuck out of Canada upon conviction.
This khalistan asylum scam needs to go. That + all the African/Middle-eastern asylum seekers claiming theyre LGBTQ+ are the 2 biggest scams in the industry
The extortion criminals asking for asylum is not related to Khalistan. If anything, they are anti-Khalistan as they are used by the Indian government to commit crimes in Canada.
The Venn diagram of Khalistanis and low-level thugs has far more overlap than your comment implies.
Of course it does. Where did I deny the Khalistani thugs roaming free in Canada? I am specifically taking about thr extortion gang which is allied with Bishnoi gang, which in turn is hired by the Indian government. Or do you think the Indian government is not involved in committing crimes in Canada?
Welcome to the joke that is Canada these days.
If they want to stay, fine. But they have to stay on Baffin Island, with only a tent and sleeping bag.
If there is a loophole it will be used...
The law should be rewritten that you must declare yourself a refugee as soon as you enter the country and not at some point later in your stay.
If they arent thrown out we cannot claim to be a serious country.
That's because this country is a farce.
Paywall bypass: https://archive.ph/hSskD
Thanks.
If only someone had tabled a bill in Parliament to fix this.https://www.canada.ca/en/services/defence/securingborder/strengthen-border-security/understanding-strong-borders-act.html
This country needs two changes immediately: more power and funding to the police, and tougher punishments.
This should fast track and deny them, move it along and get them out.
Pretty much everything is a farce in western countries right now.
Rubber dingy with a slow leak.
Non-paywall version: https://archive.is/hSskD
The judges love it though
Is there a way we can we send them to el salvador or something
Suspects aren't criminals. They might be, but until their day in court they're still innocent.
Nobody is arguing that. They are entitled to a trial but they are not entitled to make a bogus asylum claim to delay or change the circumstances of their prosecution.
Actually they are. Their circumstances can't be used as bias against their claim.
You kind of are. Until they have a trial they are innocent. So what you're suggesting is barring an innocent person from claiming asylum. I get the frustration and anger at something like this. It's very relatable, and this certainly seems like abuse of the system. But the alternative is just as open to abuse from outside actors. Imagine a forgien state has someone making a legitimate claim in Canada for Asylum, theg want to stop that. So they hire a Canadian to accuse them of a rape. That alone would end the Asylum process, and or prevent them from making that claim.
They are not legitimate refugees, if they were they would have claimed so upon entering the country. A quick determination of their status is reasonable.
Which is why I said:
I generally agree.
This still doesn't mean the system I'd broken.
No. You are barring an obvious liar from claiming asylum.
Someone who is in Canada for a while, then gets suspected of committing crimes by Canadian authorities, and only then files a refugee claim is an obvious liar. So such claims should not be allowed.
No it is not. There is no possible way for abuse and what you said makes no sense.
If someone was a legitimate refugee, they would have made a refugee claim when they got to Canada. They wouldn't have waited until someone "falsely accused them of rape" and only then made a refugee claim.
And if they did, then they are also clearly lying and should be ignored.
they key word in that headline is "suspects".
They haven't even been charged with anything so why would the government block them from claiming asylum?
Notice there are tons of opinion pieces like this but there will be no article at all in a few months time when those asylum claims are rejected and they actually are deported.
The only purpose of this opinion piece is to make people angry and to foster anti-immigrant feelings.