Czech ambassador to Canada recalled

capricorn · July 15, 2009

Perhaps Canadians who like to travel to Mexico will point the fingers at the Tory government for this impediment rather than Mexico.

Speaking of pointing fingers, is Ignatieff still vacationing abroad? Too bad. This would have been an opportunity for Ignatieff to tell us how he would fix the problem.

Wilber · July 15, 2009

With the global recession, isn't tourism down anyway? Is it not better to make changes now before the next peak tourism season kicks in once economies recover?

You are obviously not in the tourism industry already facing a possible bankruptcy. Like telling a struggling company they will be better off if some of their suppliers won't ship to them for a few months. This is not a tourism issue, it's a bureaucratic and legal issue. The tourist industry is just collateral damage.

jdobbin · July 15, 2009

No kidding. If 10,000 were illegitimate, that translates to $290 million in a little over a year. Is it any wonder that we have to take steps now - right away - pronto???!!!

Foreign travellers spend $4 billion a quarter in Canada. Mexico represents the sixth largest number of tourists and growing. That is $233 million a year and rising.

Fix the problem within the department. Don't hurt Canadian businesses in the one bright spot in the market.

jdobbin · July 15, 2009

Mexico has nothing to gain by this and thus they won't do it. More Canadian dollars are spent down there than the other way around by a LONG shot.

Well, that is exactly what they are talking about in Mexico now.

As far as the EU retaliating, just like I said before: Watch and see. The EU won't be forcing France or GB to make Canadians require Visas anytime soon.

Once again, the EU is talking tough.

Are you so certain they won't do it?

I would also suggest that Canadians probably spend more money in Europe than Europeans spend here. I don't have any numbers but I would be surprised if it was the other way around.

I was speaking in terms of damage to trade both ways in a recession. Not exactly a good thing.

jdobbin · July 16, 2009

Speaking of pointing fingers, is Ignatieff still vacationing abroad? Too bad. This would have been an opportunity for Ignatieff to tell us how he would fix the problem.

Perhaps Harper will pick up the phone and ask him rather than hurting our relationships around the world.

jdobbin · July 16, 2009

With the global recession, isn't tourism down anyway? Is it not better to make changes now before the next peak tourism season kicks in once economies recover?

What changes are being made? This is the change.

Edited July 16, 2009 by jdobbin

Argus · July 16, 2009

Blame the Liberals if you want.
The solution your party has taken hurts Canadian companies and trade.

There is no evidence anyone has been hurt. And in any event, I don't care.

The present Conservatives are courting the immigrant vote. They'd rather hurt Canadian business in a recession than go against refugees.

While it's true that the Conservatives are courting the immigrant vote, this move shows that, unlike the Liberals, they are still willing to do what is right, even though elements of the immigrant community don't like it.

Liberals have NEVER been willing to put what is best for Canada ahead of their own narrow political interests.

Argus · July 16, 2009

Regardless of the need to take action this has been very clumsily done. There are people coming here on vacation and to visit relatives today and in the immediate future, who have made vacation arrangements long in advance and shelled out thousands in airfares who are now SOL. So are the tour companies and hotels who were counting on their business. On the other hand we have governments expending large amounts of money trying to promote tourism from Mexico. Ridiculous.

So what would you have done? Announced it in time for entire planeloads of phony refugees to fly over and dump their loads into our already overstretched social services offices?+

Argus · July 16, 2009

I keep hearing that it won't. Have enough people processing the work will help. Illegitimate refugees should be expedited but when their hearings are months and months away, this is a problem.

And here we see Jdobbin already repeating the line, word for word, from the immigration industry. There's really nothing wrong with the rules. It's just that we need lots more people processing all the phony refugees so there won't be too big a backlog.

When clearly, the problem is our absurdly complex and costly rules which allow even obviously phony refugees years of appeals.

The Liberals will not be allowed to vote in favour of any changes, however. They are too beholden to the immigration industry and the ethnic lobbyists. And with the NDP seeing itself as the champion of minorities - exclusively - there is no real way for the Tories to get decent legislation passed on the issue.

Argus · July 16, 2009

They might have more of an issue.
Perhaps Canadians who like to travel to Mexico will point the fingers at the Tory government for this impediment rather than Mexico.

Unlikely. the only reason to travel to Mexico, despite how dangerous it is there, is money. If it becomes more expensive, Canadians will simply go elsewhere. No big deal. Well, except to the Mexicans.

Argus · July 16, 2009

Nonsense, why is it that there can be no reasonable discussion of immigration, refugees etc. without someone playing a race card.. Getting a handle on bogus refugees and keeping our expenses down, is not racist,

For years, the Liberals played the divide and rule game. They created all sorts of little ethnic groups by funding them (with government money, of course) and recognition of their legitimacy. In turn, these groups suppoted the Liberal Party during elections, and attacked the Conservatives. Of course, this meant that in order to sustain that Liberal Good/Tory bad national image for the ethnics/immigrants, the Liberals have always been very, very soft on immigration, refugees and enforcement. The Tories, of course, have always been the party calling for the rules to be made tougher, for less phony refugees to be allowed in, for requirements for immigrants to be strenghtened, and criminal immigrants to be removed faster. The Liberals, of course, have resisted all of this.

They used to hint subtly - when it was the PCs complaining, that the Tories were motivated by antipathy towards immigrants, especially visible minority immigrants. They let their "ethnic representatives" in the groups they had funded make that case more blantantly, of course. When the Reformers came on the scene, the Liberal strategy was to portray them as backwoods hillbillies, and so they did their very best to insinuate, if not openly suggest they were racists on any issue where race played a part. They've been doing that now for twenty years, and have thus helped politicise immigration - especially in the minds of the weak and easily manipulated. Now, if you're opposed to any facet of immigration, you must be racist. If you want to crack down on illegal immigrants, on phony refugees, on criminal immigrants - it must be because you're racist.

But don't fear! The noble Liberal Party is here to protect the poor, downtrodden ethnic from the evil Conservatives!

That is how immigration discussions have been frustrated in Canada for the last quarter century. Immigration, and all the rules surrounding it, has been set up to serve the interests of the Liberal Party of Canada - not Canada. And where their interests clash, the interests of the Liberal party come a very, very strong first.

Argus · July 16, 2009

Perhaps Harper will pick up the phone and ask him rather than hurting our relationships around the world.

Bob Rae has already given the Liberal Party line. He got it from the immigration lobbyists just this morning.

It is - there is nothing at all wrong with the law. There are no phony refugees and never has been. It's all the Tories' fault, and they simply need to hire more people to process more refugees, then there will be no problem.

jdobbin · July 16, 2009

Bob Rae has already given the Liberal Party line. He got it from the immigration lobbyists just this morning.
It is - there is nothing at all wrong with the law. There are no phony refugees and never has been. It's all the Tories' fault, and they simply need to hire more people to process more refugees, then there will be no problem.

Really? What is the link? I'd love to read that.

jdobbin · July 16, 2009

Unlikely. the only reason to travel to Mexico, despite how dangerous it is there, is money. If it becomes more expensive, Canadians will simply go elsewhere. No big deal. Well, except to the Mexicans.

It is the cavalier attitude about the visas that seems rather stunning. The Tories are of the opinion that no one in Canada gets hurt by this but businesses are already indicating trouble.

jdobbin · July 16, 2009

And here we see Jdobbin already repeating the line, word for word, from the immigration industry. There's really nothing wrong with the rules. It's just that we need lots more people processing all the phony refugees so there won't be too big a backlog.

Well, isn't that what the Tories are saying now? They just need to get through the backlog? However, the way they have done it is to hurt Canadian business along the way.

When clearly, the problem is our absurdly complex and costly rules which allow even obviously phony refugees years of appeals.

If the Tories are not prepared to do anything about except put visas in place, they have only themselves to blame.

The Liberals will not be allowed to vote in favour of any changes, however. They are too beholden to the immigration industry and the ethnic lobbyists. And with the NDP seeing itself as the champion of minorities - exclusively - there is no real way for the Tories to get decent legislation passed on the issue.

Funny. Even with a massive majority, the Tories don't make changes to the rules.

jdobbin · July 16, 2009

There is no evidence anyone has been hurt. And in any event, I don't care.

Which many businesses clearly are getting.

While it's true that the Conservatives are courting the immigrant vote, this move shows that, unlike the Liberals, they are still willing to do what is right, even though elements of the immigrant community don't like it.
Liberals have NEVER been willing to put what is best for Canada ahead of their own narrow political interests.

The Tories are trying to act like the Liberals you hate so intensely. And all you can do is blame the Liberals for Tories acting like Liberals.

Edited July 17, 2009 by jdobbin

Dave_ON · July 17, 2009

It's also interesting to note that the Tories are actually reinstating the Visa requirement that they removed back in 2007.

Also the following article outlines Mexico's token retaliation. They are requiring Canadian diplomats obtain visa's only, visitors are not required to do so.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/07/16/c...sa-visa016.html

The Czech Republic ranks second with nearly 3,000 refugee claims filed since the visa requirement for visitors from that country was lifted in October 2007. That compares with fewer than five claims in 2006, the department said.

Argus · July 17, 2009

Which many businesses clearly are getting/
The Tories are trying to act like the Liberals you hate so intensely. And all you can do is blame the Liberals for Tories acting like Liberals.

They are in many ways aping the Liberals. This case is not one of them, however. The Liberals would not do anything which the immigrant industry lobby dissaproved of. And I believe that if the Liberals weren't stand in the way, we would see legislation severely curtailing all the appeals and speeding up hearings for refugees.

jdobbin · July 17, 2009

They are in many ways aping the Liberals. This case is not one of them, however. The Liberals would not do anything which the immigrant industry lobby dissaproved of. And I believe that if the Liberals weren't stand in the way, we would see legislation severely curtailing all the appeals and speeding up hearings for refugees.

Since the Tories haven't introduced any legislation, I suppose you could say anything.

My personal view of the refugee situation is that Canada should not accept refugees from the EU or Mexico except under a narrow set of circumstances which would be: fleeing from violent conflict.

The EU doesn't accept refugees from other EU countries except under those circumstances.

I believe under the present law, we have the right to assess if a person is coming to Canada via a country recognized as safe. Under our law, the EU and the U.S. among others are recognized as safe.

In the case of Roma, they should be put back on the planes they came on because all of Europe doesn't recognize them as refugees and because they have options under EU law for their protection.

As for Mexico, many of the refugees that have come to Canada have done so through the U.S. Our present law doesn't allow for that. They should be sent back the same day.

This was a problem that the Tories have let fester since 2007 and did not require any major changes in the law to deal with.

Argus · July 17, 2009

Since the Tories haven't introduced any legislation, I suppose you could say anything.
My personal view of the refugee situation is that Canada should not accept refugees from the EU or Mexico except under a narrow set of circumstances which would be: fleeing from violent conflict.

The EU doesn't accept refugees from other EU countries except under those circumstances.

I believe under the present law, we have the right to assess if a person is coming to Canada via a country recognized as safe. Under our law, the EU and the U.S. among others are recognized as safe.

In the case of Roma, they should be put back on the planes they came on because all of Europe doesn't recognize them as refugees and because they have options under EU law for their protection.

As for Mexico, many of the refugees that have come to Canada have done so through the U.S. Our present law doesn't allow for that. They should be sent back the same day.

This was a problem that the Tories have let fester since 2007 and did not require any major changes in the law to deal with.

The safe third country rule is a good one, but it only works at the border. When they come in claiming they're coming for a vacation and then claim refugee status from within our borders, the Sing decision (thanks again Bertha, you fat cow), says we have to give them the full array of rights under the constition, including multiple avenues of appeal through multiple layers of courts, all at our expense. Furthermore, as most of the refugee hearing people were themselves refugees and immigrants, they have a natural tendency to accept almost anyone who can tell a halfway convincing lie.

Edited July 17, 2009 by Argus

jdobbin · July 17, 2009

The safe third country rule is a good one, but it only works at the border. When they come in claiming they're coming for a vacation and then claim refugee status from within our borders, the Sing decision (thanks again Bertha, you fat cow), says we have to give them the full array of rights under the constition, including multiple avenues of appeal through multiple layers of courts, all at our expense. Furthermore, as most of the refugee hearing people were themselves refugees and immigrants, they have a natural tendency to accept almost anyone who can tell a halfway convincing lie.

The Third Country rule can still be in effect and expedited even with the Singh decision. I think if it is made clear that Canada won't accept refugees from countries deemed safe, we can stop this problem.

Alta4ever · July 17, 2009

The Third Country rule can still be in effect and expedited even with the Singh decision. I think if it is made clear that Canada won't accept refugees from countries deemed safe, we can stop this problem.

So if the liberals are so wise and smart why in the 13 years of unbroken government did they not fix any of the refugee problems that have been festering since they took office in 93?

jdobbin · July 17, 2009

So if the liberals are so wise and smart why in the 13 years of unbroken government did they not fix any of the refugee problems that have been festering since they took office in 93?

Canada didn't have a problem with Mexico and the Czechs when the Liberals were in power. They had placed visas on the Czechs and Mexicans. The Tories lifted those restrictions without making it clear that Canada would not accept refugees from countries deemed safe.

Argus · July 17, 2009

Canada didn't have a problem with Mexico and the Czechs when the Liberals were in power. They had placed visas on the Czechs and Mexicans. The Tories lifted those restrictions without making it clear that Canada would not accept refugees from countries deemed safe.

Canada had the same problems with all sorts of other countries. It had to impose Visas on the Czechs for this very reason. The Conservatives took the visa requirement off after pressure from the European Union, who insisted there would not, again, be floods of refugees, and threatened to impose visa requirements on Canadians.

Edited July 17, 2009 by Argus

jdobbin · July 17, 2009

Canada had the same problems with all sorts of other countries. It had to impose Visas on the Czechs for this very reason. The Conservatives took the visa requirement off after pressure from the European Union, who insisted there would not, again, be floods of refugees, and threatened to impose visa requirements on Canadians.

As I said, the Tories should have made it clear they would not accept refugees from EU countries before lifting the visas.