Canadian government has little control of its borders

[bush_cheney2004]

The Arar issue troubles me. The man was innocent, yet handed over and tortured. In his case I would sue all the governments involved, period.

Point noted, but Mr. Arar was legally deported according to US immigration law. The RCMP didn't help his cause, and neither did Arar's own actions (e.g. skipping out on mandatory military service in native Syria).

There is no independent evidence that Mr. Arar was ever tortured.

Accordingly, Canada has resumed deportation actions when warranted.

[g_bambino]

Illegally. Don't forget that part. And they always have the option of simply going home.

Okay, fair enough. But, the question still stands: where is the line drawn between those who have rights and those who don't, and why? Even people suspected of illegal behaviour have rights.

[g_bambino]

Right. I assume Arar didn't think he would be tortured in Syria. You assume he did. See, that's also an assumption. A stupid one.

BC gets all trollish whenever he has to cover his own stupidity; these reactions are a sign that you've embarassed him by pointing out his error. Don't sweat it!

[ZenOps]

Middle easterners are finally figuring out what Europeans and Chinese have known since the 1800's gold rush.

Immigration can be just as easy as jumping onto a larger cargo boat and heading for a colder climate shore. Papers be damned.

Really though - with only 30 million people and a ridiculously large land border, there is little left over to protect the pacific and atlantic, along with a rapidly melting northwest passage.

And in truth - if the British had their way the population of Canada would probably be closer to half (15 million) if not for the somewhat more *questionable* immigration. Of which we would be in even more dire straits as there aren't really enough people as is right now. With a population density like that, the entire of Canada would probably be 20 years behind what Newfoundland looks like today.

It took every single penny and last man Alberta had to create the pipelines and oil rigs. Nothing else was developed, in many ways it was an "all in" bet on oil that has finally paid off. Without the manpower we would have definitely missed the first and second oilbooms.

[Oleg Bach]

The Tamils were a very compliant and loyal voting block for the liberals not to long ago. Then suddenly they are dumped like a potatoe to hot to eat or hold. Living briefly in the north east end of Toronto, I used to go to a Tamil barber shop..I would settle into a chair and leaf though their magazines that were full of pictures of guys holding AK 47s ...I did not see one single federal cop burst in wearing a black bullet proof vest to interupt my monthly grooming. The Tamil barber sure knew how to trim a beard. Plus as we have seen they know how to orgainize..just a few days ago crossing University Avenue I had to wade through a bunch of them..persistant little buggers. Puting that little rant aside...how can we have good boarders when our kids are taught by governments through their teachers that boarders are bad and we "are all one"?

[bush_cheney2004]

BC gets all trollish whenever he has to cover his own stupidity; these reactions are a sign that you've embarassed him by pointing out his error. Don't sweat it!

Nope...I never miss an opportunity to jerk the $10 million (CAD) Arar chain. Ding! Ding!

Talk abour border control.....LOL!

[Argus]

Okay, fair enough. But, the question still stands: where is the line drawn between those who have rights and those who don't, and why? Even people suspected of illegal behaviour have rights.

Our family have rights in our home. Invited guests have rights in our home. People who break in should have very few rights.

People who come to Canada illegaly should be permitted to make the case as to why we shouldn't boot them out, but this nonsense of years and years of legal appeals is something only lawyers could ever be content with - especially since we pay both sides of lawyers. And people who come here illegally who the government has reason to believe are violent should be detained until their cases are settled, at the discretion of the government. If they don't like that they can always decide to leave Canada.

Does that sound so very unreasonable?

[g_bambino]

People who come to Canada illegaly should be permitted to make the case as to why we shouldn't boot them out...

That is, though, as it is now. But, you're arguing that they shouldn't have the right of appeal, they shouldn't have the right of mobility. I also wonder whether or not you believe they should have the right to a fair trial, given that the proof for and against them lies in a foreign country, often many multiple thousands of kilometers away.

I'm not necessarily trying to argue against you. My brother was a Toronto cop with their Asian crime unit and later moved to doing anti-terrorism work that involved surveillance and arrests. He had many stories of apprehended individuals who'd entered the country illegally being let free by the court, either because of lack of substantial evidence for the charges laid against them or because the suspect was simply trusted to report back to court and instead disappeared. A punishment could, I suppose, be devised for people who are known to have entered the country illegally - is there not one already? - but the suspected criminals and sending known offenders off to pre-Medieval punishment are all-together different matters. As I said, when dealing with those, we're deciding where to draw the line between who has rights and who doesn't; detention without just cause and sentencing without proof are certainly acts I'm glad I'm protected against. Why should all others not be?