Supreme Court Refuses to Review Refugee Pact

[August1991]

The Supreme Court of Canada has turned down a request by a coalition of human rights groups to review Ottawa's pact with the United States that has barred hundreds of would-be asylum seekers from filing claims in Canada.

The court's Thursday decision without comment, as is the norm, leaves the controversial "safe third country agreement" between the two countries in effect.

Under the 2004 agreement, refugees make their claims in the first of the two countries they enter. That means claimants trying to enter Canada through the United States would be turned back and told to make their claims in the U.S.

Critics have said the pact encourages more people to try to enter the country illegally and is unfair because the U.S. system is tougher than Canada's refugee process.

CBC

Sometimes the Supreme Court gets it right. They rejected outright even reviewing this law and international agreement.

The CBC of course can be counted on to give the news a leftwing twist.

-----

This change has had a significant effect in reducing the number of refugee claimants. Unfortunately, potential claimants arriving from the US now try to cross the border illegally and then make a claim at an immigration office.

Edited February 5, 2009 by August1991

[Riverwind]

Unfortunately, potential claimants arriving from the US now try to cross the border illegally and then make a claim at an immigration office.

In which case they should immediately be deported for breaking the law.

[guyser]

Sometimes the Supreme Court gets it right.

I would say they almost always get it right.

[Moonbox]

More often than not I'd say yeah...

From time to time I think decisions are made based more on the strict rule of law rather than what's 'right' but that's another matter altogether.

[bill_barilko]

In which case they should immediately be deported for breaking the law.

Deported to where?

A little known fact re:deportation is that Canada has to prove to wherever that the person in question is in fact a citizen of that country-not always easy in some third world hellhole where births are often not registered and ID papers suspect.

It's the job of Consular staff in whatever the country is to perform this task and I'm sure they have all kinds of things they'd rather be doing than combing through dusty records in airless warehouses for documents that might not exist.

So the wheels grind slow and that person either sits in jail-if they're judged to be a risk-or let free to wander the streets as per the Honduran drug dealers I see all the time on the DES here in Vancouver.

[Progressive Tory]

CBC

Sometimes the Supreme Court gets it right. They rejected outright even reviewing this law and international agreement.

It's a different world now and views I might have held ten years ago are different now. With the threat of global terrorism I think the 2004 decision was the right one, and the Supreme Court was right to uphold it.

One poster commented: "The Supreme Court actually did just the opposite. It decided to uphold a pact that allows the US to decide who can enter Canada." I had an immediate knee jerk reaction to that, but then realized that in most cases that is probably a good idea. We simply don't have the manpower to cover all our borders, so extra checks and balances are wise.

I would imagine that the Human Rights organizations involved can cite cases of abuse, and people being turned away unfairly. Maybe if I heard a few, I might change my mind.

[Progressive Tory]

Deported to where?

So the wheels grind slow and that person either sits in jail-if they're judged to be a risk-or let free to wander the streets as per the Honduran drug dealers I see all the time on the DES here in Vancouver.

There was a letter to the editor in our local paper a while back from a woman who used to work for Immigration. She resigned after a case where she requested deportation for a man who was wanted for murder in Jamaica. Her decision was overturned by the brass, and the wanted felon was put up in a hotel in Toronto at our expense. All meals, etc. paid for until an inquiry was made.

She said just talking to him she felt uneasy. No remorse only feigned indignation. I hope that's not the norm.

[Riverwind]

A little known fact re:deportation is that Canada has to prove to wherever that the person in question is in fact a citizen of that country-not always easy in some third world hellhole where births are often not registered and ID papers suspect.

Then they should rot in jail.

The refugee system is not for use by economic migrants. Any legimate refugee will be able to apply in the US if they get there first. If they feel the need to come illegally to Canada then that is evidence that they don't really have much of a case.

[Hydraboss]

Canada has become a haven for scumbags because they know we wouldn't dare insult them or hurt their feelings.

As for where to deport them...who cares? Send them back over the border from whence they came..US or by water...again, who cares? Set them afloat in a dinghy on the ocean. Not my problem. Not my kids' problem. Not the Canadian taxpayer's problem.

[jdobbin]

Sometimes the Supreme Court gets it right. They rejected outright even reviewing this law and international agreement.

Probably because it was a matter decided by government and the law followed acceptable conventions. In other words, it addressed the issue of people seeking countries with the most lax refugee standards.

The CBC of course can be counted on to give the news a leftwing twist.

What is the leftwing twist? Be specific.

This change has had a significant effect in reducing the number of refugee claimants. Unfortunately, potential claimants arriving from the US now try to cross the border illegally and then make a claim at an immigration office.

It is a lot harder task to cross the border than it seems. And people can still be turned back to the their point of origin even if it is a third party country.

Edited February 6, 2009 by jdobbin

[Wilber]

A little known fact re:deportation is that Canada has to prove to wherever that the person in question is in fact a citizen of that country-not always easy in some third world hellhole where births are often not registered and ID papers suspect.

Ah, the fact that they are neither a citizen or legal resident of this country is of course irrelevant. Makes you wonder what being a Canadian citizen or landed immigrant really means, if anything.

[bill_barilko]

Then they should rot in jail.

All kinds are today and we're all paying for their bed/board.

If they feel the need to come illegally to Canada then that is evidence that they don't really have much of a case.

More evidence you don't have a clue.

If a person gets a phone call in the middle of the night telling them 3 of their relatives have disappeared then they run for it-this happens all the time in some places.

How do they apply to come to Canada legally?

Answer-they don't they just run.

BTW-I worked with people from El Salvador back in the early 80's who had to do just that-their stories would curl your hair-if you had any left.

[bill_barilko]

Ah, the fact that they are neither a citizen or legal resident of this country is of course irrelevant. Makes you wonder what being a Canadian citizen or landed immigrant really means, if anything.

It means nothing in their country of origin-why would it?

Have you ever left the double wide?

[Wilber]

It means nothing in their country of origin-why would it?

Have you ever left the double wide?

My concern is my own country of origin. The US needs apologize to no one when it comes to accepting the downtrodden of the world, except of course to those morally superior Canadians.

They make some pretty nice double wides these days. You might want to consider moving out of your single.

[tango]

Then they should rot in jail.

Jail costs us about $50,000 per person per year.

Someone else suggested setting them adrift in dinghies.

It can only get better from there!

[Progressive Tory]

...setting them adrift in dinghies.

Does that have to be limited to refugees? I know a few people I'd like to set adrift in a dinghy.

[Guest icbones]

Canada has become a haven for scumbags because they know we wouldn't dare insult them or hurt their feelings.

As for where to deport them...who cares? Send them back over the border from whence they came..US or by water...again, who cares? Set them afloat in a dinghy on the ocean. Not my problem. Not my kids' problem. Not the Canadian taxpayer's problem.

I totally agree. If the failed claimant came by plane, then the airline should be forced to pick up all expenses associated with his/her return to the point of origin. If it was a commercial freighter, then seize the ship till the owner pays all costs connected with returning the stowaway home. It will only take a few $250,000.00+ fines for airlines, freight and cruise ship owners to realize that they will need to scrutinize who gets on their vessels more carefully.

[Argus]

BTW-I worked with people from El Salvador back in the early 80's who had to do just that-their stories would curl your hair-if you had any left.

And did you help them rehearse them? I understand a number of those who work with "refugees" provide them with a sort of boilerplate or template of what to say and claim in order to get in.

10% of Mexicans applying for political asylum get in, despite Mexico being a democracy.

[Wilber]

I have no problem with accepting refugees. My problem is not being able to get rid of the obvious scumbags among them who just make it more difficult for true refugees. We have a guy who does really good human interest items on Global TV. Lately he has done some items on people who are working to help in the east end including former addicts who have managed to climb back out of the gutter and actually try and help those who remain. These folks just impress the crap out of me and I wonder if I could show anywhere near the strength they did to get out of that situation.

Anyway, in one of the articles he made the comment about being down there among the drug dealers, all of whom seemed to be South American that day. The issue of our Honduran "refugee" scumbag drug dealers is legend around here. They are claiming refugee status because the fear for their lives if sent back. Why do they fear for their lives? Because they were scumbag drug dealers where they came from of course. It is our system's seeming total inability to deal with people like this which makes many Canadians so furious, not the fact there are genuine refugees out there who are worthy of our help.

[Riverwind]

All kinds are today and we're all paying for their bed/board.

The upfront costs are a necessary evil. But the problem is Canada has a rep for being too soft on refugee claims which simply encourages bogus claims. Real refugees won't be deterred by the prospect of time in a Canadian jail.

How do they apply to come to Canada legally?

Who said they needed to apply legally? The issue here is asylum shopping - i.e. people with dubious claims who don't apply in the US because the US system is tougher. Any refugee in Canada has to go through a Canadian border point which makes it clear where they are coming from. There is no excuse for avoiding these border points if one is a legimate refugee. Those that do refuse to report to border point and explain how they got to the country should be presumed to be bogus refugees.

BTW-I worked with people from El Salvador back in the early 80's who had to do just that-their stories would curl your hair-if you had any left.

There are 4 billion sob stories on the naked planet. As heart rending as they may be we don't have the capacity to make room for them all. So we create arbitrary criteria that is designed to give some justice while denying it to most.

[tango]

I have no problem with accepting refugees. My problem is not being able to get rid of the obvious scumbags among them who just make it more difficult for true refugees. We have a guy who does really good human interest items on Global TV. Lately he has done some items on people who are working to help in the east end including former addicts who have managed to climb back out of the gutter and actually try and help those who remain. These folks just impress the crap out of me and I wonder if I could show anywhere near the strength they did to get out of that situation.

Anyway, in one of the articles he made the comment about being down there among the drug dealers, all of whom seemed to be South American that day. The issue of our Honduran "refugee" scumbag drug dealers is legend around here. They are claiming refugee status because the fear for their lives if sent back. Why do they fear for their lives? Because they were scumbag drug dealers where they came from of course. It is our system's seeming total inability to deal with people like this which makes many Canadians so furious, not the fact there are genuine refugees out there who are worthy of our help.

That's an interesting perspective. It would be nice if refugees arrived all psychologically intact and able to function, but most of them have been through hells we can't even imagine. The fragile economy and infrastructure of Honduras was destroyed by hurricane Mitch in 1998. It runs on corruption, nepotism, and death squads to suppress dissension.

wiki is very helpful on these things, eh?

Ah yes ... where to start ...

During the 1980s, the United States established a very large military presence in Honduras with the purpose of supporting the anti-Sandinista Contras fighting the Nicaraguan government, and to support the El Salvador military fighting against the FMLN guerrillas. The U.S. built the airbase known as Palmerola, near Comayagua, with a 10,000-foot (3,000 m) runway so that C-5 Galaxy cargo planes could land there, rather than at the public airport in San Pedro Sula. The U.S. also built a training base near Trujillo which primarily trained Contras and the Salvadoran military, and in conjunction with this, developed Puerto Castilla into a modern port. The United States built many airstrips near the Nicaraguan border to help move supplies to the Contra forces fighting the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. Though spared the bloody civil wars wracking its neighbors, the Honduran army quietly waged a campaign against leftists which included extra judicial killings and forced disappearances of political opponents by government-backed death squads, most notably Battalion 316.[6]

In 1998, Hurricane Mitch caused such massive and widespread loss that former Honduran President Carlos Roberto Flores claimed that fifty years of progress in the country were reversed. Mitch obliterated about 70% of the crops and an estimated 70-80% of the transportation infrastructure, including nearly all bridges and secondary roads. Across the country, 33,000 houses were destroyed, an additional 50,000 damaged, some 5,000 people killed, 12,000 injured, and total loss estimated at $3 billion USD.[7]

In an interview with Rodolfo Pastor Fasquelle, Minister of Sports & Culture and one of three 'super ministers' responsible for coordinating the ministries related to public services (security & economic being the other 2), published in Honduras This Week on July 31, 2006, it was related that 94% of the department budget was spent on bureaucracy and only 6% went to support activities and organizations covered by the mandate. Wages within that ministry were identified as the largest budget consumer.

Since 1975, emigration from Honduras has accelerated as job-seekers and political refugees sought a better life elsewhere. Although many Hondurans have relatives in Nicaragua, Spain, Mexico, El Salvador and Canada, the majority of Hondurans living abroad are in the United States[citation needed].

The economy has continued to grow slowly but the distribution of wealth remains very polarized with average wages remaining low. Economic growth in the last few years has averaged 7% a year which has been one of the most successful growths in Latin America, but 50%, approximately 3.7 million, of the population still remain below the poverty line.[9] It is estimated that there are more than 1.2 million people who are unemployed, the rate of unemployment standing at 27.9%.

And a major transit point for cocaine from South America to the US.

However, their only drug crop is low grade marijuana.

Interesting ... but how do you tell the 'real' refugees from the drug dealers?

I don't think anyone can, when it looks pretty likely the books are cooked at that end.

[Progressive Tory]

Interesting ... but how do you tell the 'real' refugees from the drug dealers?

How do we tell the college students from the drug dealers?

Your point is excellent, and the liberal thinker in me wants to bring everyone here. I just feel a little more comfortable knowing that there are some safeguards in place. However, not even Terrorists need to find a way in. Look at Tim McVeigh.

[Riverwind]

Your point is excellent, and the liberal thinker in me wants to bring everyone here.

Everyone? As in the 4 billion people+ on this planet that happen to be living in countries with repressive regimes that regularily abuse their own citizens?

I am sorry but I don't think we could possibly absord "everyone" into our society.

Your poorly thought out sentiment is the reason why the refugee system is rife with abuse in this country.

We need to have clearly defined rules and enforce them. And we can't get too teary eyed about everyone with a good sob story because it is *impossible* to help everyone who can come up with one. This means the system will be arbitrary and unfair at times. But an arbitrary system based on clearly enforced rules is better than an arbitrary system based on who does a better job at breaking the rules.

i.e. refugees that show up at the border and follow our rules should be considered. Those that sneak into the country and break our rules should be given a one way ticket back to where they came from.

Edited February 10, 2009 by Riverwind

[Chris in KW]

It's a different world now and views I might have held ten years ago are different now. With the threat of global terrorism I think the 2004 decision was the right one, and the Supreme Court was right to uphold it.

Actually, I would argue strongly that it's not a different world now. Yes, the World Trade Centre bombings were shocking. But we have tended to adopt a blind response to that bombing. I refuse to call the World Trade Centre bombings "Nine eleven", because it seems that whenever someone uses that phrase, they turn their brains off.

Terrorism was going on before the WTC bombings, and will always continue to happen. The vast majority of it happens outside North America (even if you ignore Iraq and Afghanistan). I'm not saying that it won't kill Americans and Canadians in the future. I'm just saying that it shouldn't determine our policies.

Refugee policy has VERY little to do with our safety from terrorists. The vast majority of refugees are fleeing violence, religious intolerance, etc etc. I'm not saying we shouldn't scrutinize refugee applicants. It's likely that in future, some "terrorists" will get in "as refugees".

Start looking clearly at terrorism, and what it is. Be informed about the actual extent of terrorist activities around the world. Even if you factor in 2001, terrorism is not statistically a huge factor for the US.

Here's an example of US statistics from 2005 (just happens to be a year I could find some stats for). In that year, 85 US "private citizens" were kidnapped, killed, or injured by terrorist organizations around the world. Yes, that's too many. But it's not a huge number.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/65498.pdf

In 2005, over 43000 "private US citizens" were killed in traffic accidents. Where is the "war on traffic"?

We would do more for the safety of our society by imposing driver training on immigrants than we would by investing that money in futile guessing games about which refugees might be terrorists.

[Progressive Tory]

Everyone? As in the 4 billion people+ on this planet that happen to be living in countries with repressive regimes that regularily abuse their own citizens?

Naturally, I don't want to bring 4 billion people here. I said "I just feel a little more comfortable knowing that there are some safeguards in place." I can be compassionate but also realistic. Many of our ancestors came here not just for the opportunities, but to flee oppressive governments, poverty or religous discrimination.

I did an extensive study of my family history, and my two favourite stories are:

1. The first Irish emigrant of the family was a freedom fighter in 'Northern Ireland'. I have an old newspaper clipping dated 1833 that tells the story of him and two friends who destroyed an outhouse and fled to avoid imprisonment. I wondered why they became wanted men for knocking over a toilet, until I learned that the 'outhouse' was actually a munitions shack. One of his descendants became the first fisheries minister for New Brunswick, and one of his accomplices sat in Canada's first Parliament. He voted against confederation. By today's standards they would be considered terrrorists.

2. My 15th Great grandfather sought refuge in the 17th century, because he was a wanted man for 'stealing' firewood from a nobleman's estate. With him, was a parish priest, who was just as cold.

There are at least two sides to every story. We need to be cautious, but not inhumane.