Machjo

The errors identified at the bond hearing are what compelled the judge to allow me to pay bond, so she is out of detention now. However, since it was an IRB hearing and not a regular criminal hearing, the presumption of innocence does not apply, but rather the balance of probabilities. In other words, even though three points in the official CBSA statement were proven to be false, the onus is not on the CBSA to prove the rest of the statement to be true, but on my fiancée to prove it to be false! Now we're going through the admissibility hearing, but through the IRB which bases its decision on the balance of probabilities, a much lower standard of proof than the presumption of innocence required in criminal court. In short, to circumvent the presumption of innocence, the government does not classify working in Canada without a visa to be a criminal offence, the hearing being merely an administrative matter and thus exempted from the presumption of innocence and other aspects of due process even if she can be arbitrarily detained. Weasel words as far as I'm concerned, but then again, I'm not a lawyer. It's ironic that had she been charged with human trafficking or some other criminal offence, she'd have more rights than for the minor offence for which she was charged since then the presumption of innocence and due process and protection from arbitrary detention would have applied and she would have had the right to a trial in a standard public court. Plus she could not have initially been detained due to the lack of evidence. Thinking back on it, maybe she should have confessed to human trafficking there and then to guarantee her Charter rights, but then they would likely have charged her with making a false statement or something of the sort. You just can't win. The bond hearing was weeks ago, thus leaving us in limbo and wasting our time going to the CBSA office twice a week for her to sign in. The first admissibility hearing was a few days ago with the CBSA hearings officer wasting time asking all kinds of irrelevant questions, resulting in it having to be extended to some other time maybe next week or later, thus still leaving us in limbo and having to go to the CBSA office twice a week. Yes we know we will win. We are not yet sure if we'll be able to sue. But as I said earlier, the process itself is the punishment. In other words, the CBSA can make whatever accusation it wants, and the IRB bases its decision on a balance of probabilities, essentially meaning assumption of guilt. The onus is therefore on her to prove her innocence, meaning having to hire a lawyer, collect my alibi statement, photos, etc. All of which cost time, money, and frustration, to prove her innocence. To sue would require the additional step of proving that her rights were violated, and even then sufficiently enough to warrant compensation. And since a foreign national does not have the right to due process except at a criminal hearing, it may be determined that by such standards, her rights were not sufficiently violated to warrant compensation, leaving the CBSA to do it to another victim if it wants to. Again, by the standards of a criminal charge, it would be a serious violation of her Charter rights to protection from arbitrary detention, the right to the presumption of innocence, the right to retain and instruct counsel and be informed of that right. But because it's not criminal, those don't apply. So yes she will win, but only after all of that hassle, money (thousands already because she wants to fight it on principle), and time, all because some police officer opined that she was guilty and did not even bother to check the evidence and a CBSA officer took the police officer's word as gospel likewise without checking for evidence.

Thanks, Reefer madness She's Chinese, which comes with its own bag of Canadian prejudices. I'd considered the media and haven't ruled it out yet, but she is so exhausted from this that she is still not sure whether she wants to go that route. The other option would be to sue the CBSA, but then we'll have to look at the pros and cons of that, and then I think there is a three month window. How convebient. Law and order, but not for the CBSA eh. How do they hire these incomoetents?!

If you were arrested for a crime, would you appreciate it if someone suggested eliminating due process so that you could be punished sooner without any proof of guilt?

I admit that just last year I could have typed exactly what you just typed. But now having witnessed first hand how a police officer can essentially record whatever the hell he wants according to his whims and fancies, has it ever crossed your mind that they might only be alleged killers, terrorists, and criminals? Certainly if the proof was solid, there should be no provlem, right?. Or are you saying that mere suspicion on the part of a grumpy officer who had an argument with his wife the night before should suffice? From my own observations, at least three statements recorded in my fiancée's record had been confirmed by the judge to have been false at her bond hearing. Not that the CBSA could not prove their veraxity, but rather that my fiancée had conclusively proven their falsehood before the judge. How did false statements slip into such a record? If CBSA agents can prove such negligence, do you really trust the CBSA without due process?

So you consider lack of due process as just being a little bureaucracy?

By the way, violent crime rates per capita are quite low in Hong Kong plus Hong Kong respects due process thanks to the British system.

I will, thanks.

You're typing from statistics. I'm typing from experience. My fiancée was arrested and detained for extradition this summer on false charges. One of the CBSA's claims as 'evidence' noted in its official statement were that she did not know my family name, that she did not know my address, and that she could not name a single local tourist attraction. She had proven all of those charges to have been false at the bond hearing. In fact, that was the main reason for which I was allowed to pay her bond. At her admissibility hearing recently, the CBSA hearings officer had contradicted the intercepting officer's original statement. This is just the tip of the iceberg. The entire official report has more holes in it than Swiss cheese and confirms itself that not only did the CBSA not even so much as offered to collect evidence, but did not do so even when my fiancée had requested that it be done! And though her lawyer has no doubt that we will win the case (she herself was shocked at the negligence of the CBSA in this case), let's not forget that the process itself is punishment ebiugh. We can't blame just some bad apples here. Given that the screw ups worked their way through the intercepting officer to the CBSA officer and on up the libe, clearly ww're talking of a structural problem within the organization itself. How does one explain such carelessness in arresting and detaining a person for extradition like a piece of meat with no regard for whether she might be innocent of the charges against her, with no offer to collect evidence, with no interest in collecting evidence when requested to do so (even the CBSA's own official notes identified my name and correct phone number which my fiancée had voluntarily given them and they never even bothered to call me to corroborate her story!) and, worse yet, writing false statements into the notes and never informing her of her right to counsel! I found her a lawyer. Even without proper education or training, basic human compassion should have compelled someone along the line to at least accept her request to collect some proof. For crying out loud! SHE was asking the CBSA to collect proof! They never even got a statement from a witness even though their own official notes stated that there were witbesses. Though the names of the witnesses are blanked out in our copy of their official notes, it clearly states that the police had identified those witnesses, at least some of these witnesses are probably still in Canada, and they still don't have one single witness statement. No video, nothing! Her lawyer asked that the intercepting officer and CBSA interrogator attend the hearing for questionning, but they were not required to do so. To add insult to injury, the CBSA hearings officer asked her at her hearing why the officer had written what he'd written. She blew up in anger saying she wanted to know the answer to that too and that that is why she'd asked that they apoear! She was so posse the judge had to remind her to calm down and rebuked the CBSA hearings officer for such a stupid question. If the CBSA had any sense of human compassion, it would have been very careful about making false statements! If the Canadian Government had any sense of comoassion, it would have introduced oversight to the CBSA to prevent such occurrences. Si yes, if Canada shows so little consideration for foreign nationals as to make false statements about them in official notes and not even try to corroborate them with evidence, then yes, Canada is xenophobic.

Hong Kong SAR.

I'm going through it right now. My fiancée (who is technically a tourist in Canada) and I are presently fighting her extradition on false charges (essentially for simply having been at the wrong place at the wrong time), and even her lawyer is convinced that she will eventually win, part of the reason being that the CBSA had detained her on no evidence and worse yet, official CBSA statements that have since been proven false among other reasons! The police arrested my fiancée for working in Canada without proper documentation yet not even so much as offered my fiancée to collect evidence at her request! The CBSA had accepted her transfer into its custody along with the police statements alone without any corroborating evidence, and based on that alone, detained her for extradition without so much as informing her of her right to retain and instruct counsel! I'd found her a lawyer. Her lawyer had arranged for a bond hearing and it was found that the CBSA officer's statements that my fiancée did not know my family name, that she did not know where I lived, and that she could not name a local tourist attraction were false! and so allowed me to pay bond (on condition that she sign in at the local CBSA office twice weekly). We eventually received the official police and CBSA statements in the mail. They had confirmed (albeit not in so many words) that the police had made no effort to collect evidence, and arrested my fiancée to transfer into CBSA custody and that the CBSA had authorized her detention for extradition for working in Canada without proper documentation. The transcript of the interrogation questions (recorded in English) revealed questions that were irrelevant to the charge against my fiancée and with so many major grammatical and spelling errors on the part of the interrogator as to make it difficult for me to understand the precise meaning of the text! As if that was not bad enough, the part I could understand had identified me as my fiancée's fiancé and my correct phone number, but no attempt on the part of the interrogator to contact me as a potential alibi. In addition to this, I myself could confirm at least three statements in the transcript that I myself knew for an absolute fact to be false (and which had been proven to be false at the bond heating!). We finally had an admissibility hearing at the IRB (for which we had to travel out of town) only to find that the CBSA hearings officer (essentially the equivalent of their lawyer) had not even had the courtesy to plan for the hearing! At the hearing, she'd asked my fiancée why she did not know my family name and where I lived and why she could not name any local tourist attraction, to which my fiancée reminded her that the judge had already accepted at the bond hearing that those statements had been proven incorrect! She'd asked my fiancée why the police officer who had intercepted her (and who could not attend the hearing for questionning at my fiancée's lawyer's request for some reason) had written what he'd written (but she had reworded it). My fiancée blew up in anger stating that first off, the CBSA was now contradicting its own original statement; and secondly, that my fiancée herself wants to know the answer to that question and requested again that the officer be present for questionning at the next hearing precisely so as to clarify that question! The judge had to remind my fiancée to control her anger as her temper rose against the CBSA hearings officer! The CBSA hearings officer asked my fiancée why the other foreign nationals she was with had a lot of money and expensive clothing, to which again my fiancée burst in anger asking how she was responsible for knowing what other people own, not to mention that it's normal for tourists to carry more money on them. Strangely enough, I don't remember any mention of expensive clothing before this! Did the CBSA hearings officer just decide to add that to the story for effect?! Plus my fiancée could clearly identify the source of her money! The CBSA hearings officer, presumably to try to trip my fiancée, then asked at one point why she said she had few friends in Canada but that her affidavit stated that she had many, to which the judge himself had to intervene to remind the CBSA hearings officer that the affidavit was referring to friends abroad, not Canada! The CBSA hearings officer kept asking such irrelevant and insensitive questions for hours until by the end of it my fiancée was enraged to the point of headache and exhaustion, and later depression by the end of the day. Was the CBSA's strategy just to harass her with irrelevant and irreverent questions just to waste her time figuring that if they can't extradite her, then maybe they could waste taxpayers' money to make the process itself a punishment in its own right? The CBSA hearings officer's performance was so disorganized that even the interpreter felt compelled to confide in us just how disorganized that officer's performance had been. We have at least one more hearing soon, but we are debating whether we should sue. Even if we decide that it is not worth suing for financial reasons, we still want to do something to ensure others don't go through this. After the latest hearing, my fiancée tearfully asked me how it was that in a country reputed for respecting human rights, that the police and CBSA appear to be able to state anything they want with no need for proof with their word being accepted as gospel, and that they can detain a person before their statements are verified to in fact be correct?! She again asked that the officer who made the claims appear to defend them, but that request was denied. Luckily, the statements are so disorganized and contradictory that even with the hearings structure stacked in favour of the CBSA, her lawyer is satisfied that she will win. I have no answer but am in shock at the seemingly total lack of checks and balances within the CBSA's evidence-collection and corroboration processes and the apparent lack of competence on the part of the local police and the CBSA on so many levels! If the CBSA is that disorganized and incompetent, how can anyone trust anything they say? How can the CBSA ensure the protection of the principle of the presumption of innocence and of due process and Canada's reputation as a defender of due process? Sure we'll win this case, but the process itself is a punishment given the cost in time, money, emotions, and uncertainty involved. What I recounted above is not even half of the story. Additionally, given how the errors, contradictions, and incompetence flowed through the police officer to the CBSA interrogator to the hearings officer, I cannot accept that the incompetence of some bad apples ate to blame but rather that it is a result of the CBSA's structure itself.

I'm lost. Where did I day they should get free health care? I'd explicitly specified just the right to be here and work here and pay their taxes. If even allowing them to work here is too much, then yes, Canada is xenophobic. Where did I say that they should be exempted from Canadian law? Yes, if a foreign national commits an offence, maybe he should be deported. What I was saying was to protect his right to the presumption of innocence and due process so that a CBSA agent who had an argument with his wife the night before can't just write whatever the hell he wants. In other words, make sure the person is guilty in a fair trial before extradition him. If due process is too generous a right in Canadians' opinion, then yes, Canada has become worryingly xenophobic. As for foreign nationals gaining citizenship, that's a luxory: just the right to due process would be nice, thanks. As for emigration, I was referring not to foreign nationals but Canadian nationals. Again, why would we want citizenship when we don't even have due process?

From my recent experiences with the CBSA, I was shocked to find that a CBSA officer can essentially charge a foreign national with any offense, write anything he wants in his statement, be assured that he his word will not require any corroborating proof, and that the accused, not having the right to the presumption of innocence but only the balance of provavilities, must then fight against a false statement to prove his innocence to avoid extradition. How can Canadians tolerate such a travesty of due process just because the accused is not a foreign national? Essentially a CBSA officer could have an argument with his wife and decide to take it out on an unsuspecting random foreign national at the stroke of a pen or the stoke of a keyboard.

Now only if Canadians learnt the word 'emigration.'

Why does Canada tray immigration policy and emigration policy ad separate matters? For example, I could think of a few ways to encourage Canadians with foreign spouses to emigrate if that is what we want. For example, why not have a law abrogating security travel restrictions on military or ex-military personnel with a foreign son or daughter in law? That way, reassured that he could visit them in their country, they'd be more likely to emigrate sooner rather than later? Another possibility would be to make all flight tickets that include a foreign airport as the final destination tax exempt. This would make living abroad and visiting Canada every year more attractive than living in Canada and traveling abroad every year. It could boost tourism too and in so doing maybe encourage more international marriages and consequently emigration. Raising taxes on tickets that end at a Canadian airport could compensate for the lost revenue and discourage Canadian tourism abroad so as to keep the money in Canada while also making immigration even less attractive. These would be just some ideas. To oppose immigration without developing an adequate emigration policy is futile.

Harper's attack on Ignatius was ludicrous. Harper supports free trade yet expects the goods to somehow trade themselves without people crossing borders sometimes? Seeking better opportunities abroad make one a traitor to the Canadian Reich?! Harpwr's attack on Mulcair having dual citizenship was equally stupid especially given that Mulcair obtained it after he'd been separated from his family in an emergency evacuation since he did not have French citizenship. So much for Harper's family values. You have to be sick in the head or have no heart to blame Mulcair for wanting French citizenship after that.

Come to think of it, given how anti-immigrant Canada has become, I'm surprised that Canada hasn't developed a more thorough emigration policy to make it easier for Canadians who marry a foreign nation to transition gradually to the idea of emigration. For example, abrogating security travel restrictions on Canadian military or ex-military personal with a foreign child-in-law would be one example of the kind of laws that such a policy might cover. If we're going to make it difficult for foreign nationals to obtain Canadian citizenship, then ket's at least make it easier for Canadians to emigrate.

With this kind of experience, do you really think we care about citizenship. Just improving the fundamental right to due process would bring Canada leap years ahead of where it now stands.

We were planning on emigrating next year but because my mother has difficulty accepting it emotionalky, we're thinking of living in Canada for a few years and have my parents visit my partner's home town a few times to reassure her before we eventually move. The other option would be sudden emigration on my part which would pain my mother and maybe my father too. Additionally, a CBSA officer had recently made a false accusation against my partner that had had led to her arbitrary detention for extradition and that we are now fighting through not a regular court system that would have protected the presumption of her innocence but the IRB that works on a balance of probavilities. Since the accusing officer is free to not have to defend his statements at the hearing, it essentially becomes a case of the presumption of gyilt. Lucky for us, the officers' statements having more holes than Swiss cheese will essentially guarantee that we win the case. We'be already had one hearing and even the interoreter had confided that she thought the CBSA lawyer ro be completely disorganized in her thoughts. Had I not found her a lawyer she would have been extradited on mere suspicion! Unfortunately winning the case is only half of it. The process itself is a punishment considering the time, money, and emotions we've invested in this all because maybe a CBSA agent had an argument with hhis wife the previous evening?

Immigration and emigration are not the same thing.

Given how xenophobic Canada has become over the years (as reflected in its immigration policies), one would think it could at least have the courtesy to develop a kinder emigration policy so as to make it easier for Canadians who marry a foreign national who has no interest in settling in Canada but who wants to stay in Canada initially only for the sake of her parents-in-law to give them a chance to adapt enotionally could do so more easily without anyone complaining about how expensive she is. Revising the CBSA and IRB to ensure that they have better oversight and respect the principles of fundamental justice, the presumption of innocence, due process, and protection from arbitrary detention would be a nice touch too, far more valuable and fundamental than citizenship. While the left is busy wanting to make it easier to immigrate to Canada, many Canadians are too cheap to adequately fund the CBSA for evidence gathering, statement corroboration,and offering counsel, and to fund the IRB adequately enough to provide foreign nationals with a fair trial before an independent tribunal! Yes I support easier immigration laws in principle, but my personal experiences in dealing with the Canadian immigration system and my awareness of how xenophobic Canada has become over the years has led me to believe that it might be time to prioritize fundamental justice over citizenship and at least making the emigration process easier for Canadians who decide to go that route. No Canadian in this situation will appreciate playing politics in the hopes of utopia when he will want a more immediate solution within the context if the political reality today. I'm presently dealing with the CBSA and it's not exactly reputed for due process if you know what I mean.

Hmmm... er... how would an emigration policy increase Canada's population in the long-term? To make it easier for someone to stay but not obtain citizenship and so pay taxes but not benefit from those taxes would be an insentive for the couple to leave as soon as possible, especially before their child starts school which the parents would then have to pay out of pocket. Additionally, to abrogate any security travel restriction on the Canadian military or ex-military father-in-law of a foreign national would accelerate his habituation to the idea of his Canadian married adult child's emigration from Canada with his spouse and so further increasing the likelihood that they would emigrate sooner rather than later) possibly even with his parents eventually accompanying him in their old age. Given too that a Candia who marries a foreign national (especially one who might not know Canada's official language) is more likely to know an unofficial language, making it easier for him to emigrate would help to strengthen the dominance of English and French in Canada by reducing the unifficial-language demographic. I just don't see how an emigration policy would increase Canada's population in the long term.

I have no problem with foreign temporary workers. Whoever is most qualified for the job I say. Heck, I'd even support a common labour market between Canada and other countries.

Given that Canada's emigration rate has increased somewhat over the years and that I would guess that international marriages play a role in this, it might be time to consider making it much easier to obtain permanent resident status (maybe in exchange for making it much more difficult to obtain citizenship?). Essentially along the lines of you can live here, work here, study here, and pay taxes here but can't vote or benefit from government services here. You do it all on your dime. This would make it easier for Canadians to live with their spouse in Canada until the Canadian's parents get used to the marriage before the Canadian emigrates, essentially to make the married adult child's emigration process emotionally easier on his parents. That way, he can start off living in Canada with his spouse and invite his parents to visit his spouse's home town a few times so as to alleviate any fears they might have before he finally emigrates. Essentially it would serve as part of Canada's emigration policy out of consideration for the parents of Canadians with foreign spouses. Additionally, given that some Canadian military and retired military personnel might not be allowed to visit their child's spouse's home country (P.R. China for example) within twenty years after the end of their security clearance, that a temporary citizenship process could exist whereby the spouse could benefit from all of the rights of citizenship until the date that the travel restriction on her father-in-law expires, or alternatively that the travel restrictions on her father-in-law are immediately revoked in consideration for the fact that he would then have a valid reason to travel to that country that would outweigh any national security concern.

Hard to say. But let's face it, the abuse of IRB's as a way to circumvent due process for foreign nationals certainly does not sit well with conservatives who v value restraint on the power of the government to detain and punish, even foreign nationals. I'm sure they see the hypocrisy in generous funding for official bilingualism and then saying they have no money for schools on reserves. It should make up its mind either way. Traditional conservatives accept that the government represents the people and honours its treaties and obligations through the generations, etc.

For example, should the CPC go back to traditional conservative values, respecting human rights (presumption of innocence, protection against arbitrary detention, and due process for foreign nationals for example), eliminating the double standard in funding official bilingualism while underfunding schools on reserve, exploit our resources more responsibly (though granted that is a provincial matter too), etc., it could win those conservative votes that it had lost probably since around Mulroney's time if not earlier.