Federal Government & Politics II

[casper]

Originally Posted by P'tit Renard

Full data set here (to June 2024): https://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/en/statis...DStat2024.aspx

India and Bangledash together have more than 30K pending cases.

If you look at the situation in India through a Canadian lens, it is easy to see why you have refuge applicants.

Shocked, that table only has 89 from the US. I guess if Trump gets in we should expect a flood gate.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by casper

If you look at the situation in India through a Canadian lens, it is easy to see why you have refuge applicants.

Shocked, that table only has 89 from the US. I guess if Trump gets in we should expect a flood gate.

"US" would mean United States citizens. I'm struggling to think of a scenario where a US citizen would claim refugee status in Canada. I guess that's why there's only 89 of them.

[casper]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

"US" would mean United States citizens. I'm struggling to think of a scenario where a US citizen would claim refugee status in Canada. I guess that's why there's only 89 of them.

My understanding is most successful US nationals claiming refuge status in Canada are children, who have parents that are illegal in the US and also claiming refuge status in Canada. The parent(s) are given asylum in Canada and the kids come in as refuges as part of that family unit.

That said, our friend Trump is talking about rounding up democrats and tossing them into a political prison. How much of that is Trump being Trump who knows.

There have been solders who desert in the past and claim refugee status in Canada.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by casper

If you look at the situation in India through a Canadian lens, it is easy to see why you have refuge applicants.

Refugee is not someone who would rather live in another country, it is someone with a well founded fear of persecution.

The problem is that we grant residence and work permits to applicants, so there is little disincentive for an economic immigrants to apply. We should pay the UNHCR to set up facilities that meet their standards to house the applicants until their cases are heard.

[theman23]

Interesting Abacus poll looking at Canadians' views on climate change.


Pierre Poilievre has a substantial lead when Canadians are asked which leader is best equipped to tackle climate change and grow Canada's clean economy:


https://abacusdata.ca/from-climate-a...ediate-relief/

[Loco101]

The question says it best. Who is best to address climate change, not take action.

I remember the Harper government talking a lot and changing positions with announcements but never accomplishing much. They addressed the issue but that was about it. That's what a PP government would likely be like.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Refugee is not someone who would rather live in another country, it is someone with a well founded fear of persecution.

The problem is that we grant residence and work permits to applicants, so there is little disincentive for an economic immigrants to apply. We should pay the UNHCR to set up facilities that meet their standards to house the applicants until their cases are heard.

That is likely to make Canadians very nervous. Australia’s approach banning anyone who enters illegally ever having PR would stop the crossing almost immediately. They’d get a protective visa until the situation stabilizes in their home country.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

That is likely to make Canadians very nervous. Australia’s approach banning anyone who enters illegally ever having PR would stop the crossing almost immediately. They’d get a protective visa until the situation stabilizes in their home country.

Australia (or at least its approach to refugees) is clearly racist.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Australia (or at least its approach to refugees) is clearly racist.

Why? if they don't use the legal pathway why not bar them?

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Why? if they don't use the legal pathway why not bar them?

I think he was being sarcastic but being barred is very harsh for those who are legitimately refugees but have no other way to get here. That seems very unlikely of those crossing from the US as they would have had a good case there. There are people under great threat who have a bit of money to get to a third country like Dubai or something and the only way to claim asylum is to get a fake tourist visa. There is no process to get a refugee visa to Canada from a hotel in Dubai. It`s simply not possible. The problem is under our laws a lot of these economic migrants even without lying will meet the threshold. If you are gay in 150 countries in the world you are probably at risk of being persecutted. If you are a woman in at least 50. Is any male in Russia also at risk of persecution? The war is illegal and there was a lot of sympathy for this view for Americans forced to participate in the war and our answer was no that is a place with the rule of law. If you add up all those who could get approved you can see getting here is all that is neccessary in many cases.

[casper]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Why? if they don't use the legal pathway why not bar them?

Well. Australia has refuges that come by boat from neighboring (mostly non-white) countries. By plane, it is China, Malaysia, India, Pakistan and Vietnam.

Do you believe for one minute, that if most of the refuges were from Europe or North America that they would be treated this way?

While it is not racist in the sense they don't segregate based on race, it is pretty clear why they do what they do.

The same for the UK sending its refuges to camps in Africa.

In fact, the UK, was so upset about all the non-while immigration it drove the to the BREXIT route. Now that they have done that, small business owners are saying they can't open their restaurants due to a lack of workers. They have screwed up their trade and their economy has tanked. Be careful with these conservative immigration and trade policies. They are not well thought out and rational.

Originally Posted by Loco101

The question says it best. Who is best to address climate change, not take action.

I remember the Harper government talking a lot and changing positions with announcements but never accomplishing much. They addressed the issue but that was about it. That's what a PP government would likely be like.

PP is best positioned to talk about climate change. Make grant predictions about the private sector and emerging technologies solving all of our climate problems while at the same time doing nothing.

[theman23]

Originally Posted by Loco101

The question says it best. Who is best to address climate change, not take action.

I remember the Harper government talking a lot and changing positions with announcements but never accomplishing much. They addressed the issue but that was about it. That's what a PP government would likely be like.

Originally Posted by casper

PP is best positioned to talk about climate change. Make grant predictions about the private sector and emerging technologies solving all of our climate problems while at the same time doing nothing.

Regardless of what you two personally think, PP having more credibility amongst Canadians on this portfolio than JT or JS is a pretty significant change.

[casper]

Originally Posted by theman23

Regardless of what you two personally think, PP having more credibility amongst Canadians on this portfolio than JT or JS is a pretty significant change.

Yes, a significant and concerning change.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by casper

Well. Australia has refuges that come by boat from neighboring (mostly non-white) countries. By plane, it is China, Malaysia, India, Pakistan and Vietnam.

Do you believe for one minute, that if most of the refuges were from Europe or North America that they would be treated this way?

While it is not racist in the sense they don't segregate based on race, it is pretty clear why they do what they do.

Wow, as I was reading this I could almost picture those words being spoken directly by Trudeau.

[savevp]

Originally Posted by casper

In fact, the UK, was so upset about all the non-while immigration it drove the to the BREXIT route.

Didn't think Poles were non-white...


That aside, Canada's runaway TFW numbers have moved anti-immigration (if not anti-immigrant) sentiment firmly into the Overton window. The race card really can't be used to dismiss it anymore.

[Dartguard]

Originally Posted by savevp

Didn't think Poles were non-white...


That aside, Canada's runaway TFW numbers have moved anti-immigration (if not anti-immigrant) sentiment firmly into the Overton window. The race card really can't be used to dismiss it anymore.

No it most certainly cannot. I just spent a week in Toronto for business. When both Cab drivers From and to Pearson say Canada has let in too many Immigrants there is a problem. Both Gentlemen came to Canada decades ago from India but all their Kids have left the GTA to start their lives.Both guys were quite bitter. That surprised me since they both immigrated during Liberal administrations. Not voting that way this time.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by theman23

Regardless of what you two personally think, PP having more credibility amongst Canadians on this portfolio than JT or JS is a pretty significant change.

Most of those who say they are voting CPC aren't going to say that they think JT or JS and their parties can do anything better no matter what the issue.

[casper]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Wow, as I was reading this I could almost picture those words being spoken directly by Trudeau.

Thank you for the compliant.

While I think it is time for JT to leave. Core values such as these are broadly shared among those in the center.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

That is likely to make Canadians very nervous. Australia’s approach banning anyone who enters illegally ever having PR would stop the crossing almost immediately. They’d get a protective visa until the situation stabilizes in their home country.

Denmark does the same thing. IMO, this is a good & balanced approach - it avoids refoulement (the deportation of someone to an unsafe country) while simultaneously creating a strong disincentive for would-be illegal immigrants to try and use the fake asylum claim route to enter the country.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

"US" would mean United States citizens. I'm struggling to think of a scenario where a US citizen would claim refugee status in Canada. I guess that's why there's only 89 of them.

Fleeing domestic violence could be a reason as well. There was a little-noticed news story in 2020 of a Canadian woman who successfully obtained refugee status in the US. She had been fleeing domestic violence and her ex-partner had been stalking her all over Canada for over a decade, and US immigration had determined that Canadian authorities were failing to protect her.

https://vancouversun.com/news/local-...ure-convention

In theory the same thing could happen with an American claiming refugee status in Canada.