Broken refugee system

[capricorn]

Canada with its out-of-date refugee laws from the 1950s (well intentioned laws for the time) will be the sucker in any scenario now or in the future.

The creation of the Immigration and Refugee Board in 1989 appears to have spawned many of today's problems with regard to handling refugee claims. The IRB came into existence after the adoption of the Charter in 1982. Therefore, the IRB legislation and regulations were developed in the context of the principles found in the Charter.

When the legislation creating the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) was drawn up in the late-1980s, the objective was to establish a quasi-judicial body that could review carefully and process thoroughly a fairly limited number of claims by people fleeing persecution, as defined by the United Nations 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 protocol.

On the basis of widely used international standards, nations that receive refugees for permanent resettlement have drawn up lists of humane countries from whose nationals they refuse to even consider a refugee claim. Other countries, for example, will not allow a U.K. citizen, a Canadian or a Swede to lodge a refugee claim. The reason is obvious: These are democratic jurisdictions with good human rights records and do not persecute their citizens. In refugee parlance, they are described as “safe countries of origin.”

When the legislation establishing the IRB came into effect, however, the refugee lobby was successful in pressuring the government into not declaring any other countries to be “safe.” The objective was to ensure that our door would be left as wide open as possible. As a result, our refugee-determination system has been constantly clogged, and at times overwhelmed, by thousands of claims from people whom no other country would permit to register an asylum application. In 2007, for example, Canada allowed into our system thousands of claimants from democratic countries such as Thailand, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Israel, St. Vincent, St. Lucia, Guyana and the United States.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/07/16/301765.aspx

Martin Collacott recommends a new list of "safe countries" be drawn up to unclog the system.

Many countries, even the most democratic, have social problems involving discrimination, and the refugee system was never intended to deal with these. If, for example, discrimination rather than persecution by the government were the criteria for claiming to be a refugee, many, if not most, Canadian natives should be able to claim refugee status in one country or another.

Canada has the most generous refugee system in the world. We resettle the largest number of refugees per capita, we have the highest acceptance rates and we have the most generous package of benefits. We have absolutely nothing to be ashamed of — and we must now move to protect our own country from bogus asylum seekers by putting in place a list of “safe countries of origin.”

Obviously, the entire system must be reviewed and overhauled. It seems that establishing a list of "safe countries of origin" has to be in the mix. Many other modifications have been proposed. Modernizing our refugee system can only happen if our politicians work toward that goal in a civil Parliamentary manner.

[PIK]

The creation of the Immigration and Refugee Board in 1989 appears to have spawned many of today's problems with regard to handling refugee claims. The IRB came into existence after the adoption of the Charter in 1982. Therefore, the IRB legislation and regulations were developed in the context of the principles found in the Charter.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/07/16/301765.aspx

Martin Collacott recommends a new list of "safe countries" be drawn up to unclog the system.

Obviously, the entire system must be reviewed and overhauled. It seems that establishing a list of "safe countries of origin" has to be in the mix. Many other modifications have been proposed. Modernizing our refugee system can only happen if our politicians work toward that goal in a civil Parliamentary manner.

The only party that would have the guts to try that would be the cons and if they tried that the left would run to the immigrant voters and tell them how evil and racist the cons are and you need to vote liberal, to keep it the way it is. Just like the lib MP from toronto who has a bill that will let immigrants collect SS after 3 years in the country, while the rest work our whole lives to get it.

[msdogfood]

The only party that would have the guts to try that would be the cons and if they tried that the left would run to the immigrant voters and tell them how evil and racist the cons are and you need to vote liberal, to keep it the way it is. Just like the lib MP from toronto who has a bill that will let immigrants collect SS after 3 years in the country, while the rest work our whole lives to get it.

Good news CPC?PMO numbers would crash!!!

also The supreme Court & the carter grants all in Canada most protection's

[msdogfood]

The creation of the Immigration and Refugee Board in 1989 appears to have spawned many of today's problems with regard to handling refugee claims. The IRB came into existence after the adoption of the Charter in 1982. Therefore, the IRB legislation and regulations were developed in the context of the principles found in the Charter.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/07/16/301765.aspx

Martin Collacott recommends a new list of "safe countries" be drawn up to unclog the system.

Obviously, the entire system must be reviewed and overhauled. It seems that establishing a list of "safe countries of origin" has to be in the mix. Many other modifications have been proposed. Modernizing our refugee system can only happen if our politicians work toward that goal in a civil Parliamentary manner.

Any safe list would be illegal! in Canadian law or international law!!!

[eyeball]

We resettle the largest number of refugees per capita, we have the highest acceptance rates and we have the most generous package of benefits. We have absolutely nothing to be ashamed of — and we must now move to protect our own country from bogus asylum seekers by putting in place a list of “safe countries of origin.

Well we do have a few rogue corporations running around the planet cutting deals with some pretty questionable regimes.

I think a better way to protect our country is to make other countries better places to stay in. I think the most effective way of doing this is to impose trade sanctions against countries that prop up the sorts of regimes that many refugees are fleeing.

Of course we'd have to put our money where our mouths are and stop doing that ourselves.

Edited August 15, 2010 by eyeball

[Sir Bandelot]

It might be too late already, because some of these ethnic groups are politically active and do not want the system to be reformed. And our political leaders know it. Some might use it for their own political advantage, as was alluded to earlier in this thread. The insidious nature of democracy.

[Smallc]

Martin Collacott recommends a new list of "safe countries" be drawn up to unclog the system.

Obviously, the entire system must be reviewed and overhauled. It seems that establishing a list of "safe countries of origin" has to be in the mix.

That's already been done, but the new system doesn't kick in for a couple of years. There was a big deal about it all over the news not that long ago.

[msdogfood]

That's already been done, but the new system doesn't kick in for a couple of years. There was a big deal about it all over the news not that long ago.

Any safe list would be illegal! in Canadian law or international law!!!

[Smallc]

Any safe list would be illegal! in Canadian law or international law!!!

We'll see.

[msdogfood]

We'll see.

what you dont beleve me??

look up supreme court of canada cases 1985

[DogOnPorch]

DOP: Canada with its out-of-date refugee laws from the 1950s (well intentioned laws for the time) will be the sucker in any scenario now or in the future.

--

capricorn: The creation of the Immigration and Refugee Board in 1989 appears to have spawned many of today's problems with regard to handling refugee claims. The IRB came into existence after the adoption of the Charter in 1982. Therefore, the IRB legislation and regulations were developed in the context of the principles found in the Charter.

----

I think if I was going to put a date onto WHEN Canada lost its 'original groove' would be about the time when we changed our flag from the Red Jack to the Maple Leaf. That would be around 1965. Things haven't been the same since. Trudeau followed with the whole bringing home the BNA.

[capricorn]

It might be too late already, because some of these ethnic groups are politically active and do not want the system to be reformed.

Tamils are self serving when it comes to reforming the refugee system. They want the system to stay just as it is. If you want insight into the Tamils, read the following link.

A further indication of the fact that a high percentage of those we accepted were not genuine refugees was that large numbers went back to visit Sri Lanka while their applications were still pending.

Although their claims for asylum were based on the argument that they fled persecution in that country in many cases out of fear for their lives in one year alone more than 8,600 applied to the Sri Lankan High Commission in Ottawa for travel documents so they could make visits to their homeland.

http://www.asiantribune.com/index.php?q=node/2035

When the Sun Sea Tamils requesting refugee status are interviewed, should they be told they cannot visit their homeland until such a time as it is deemed safe for them to do so? In fact, shouldn't this be asked of all prospective refugees?

[msdogfood]

We'll see.

See this!

Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177 Date:April 4, 1985

[Argus]

Tamils are self serving when it comes to reforming the refugee system. They want the system to stay just as it is. If you want insight into the Tamils, read the following link.

http://www.asiantribune.com/index.php?q=node/2035

When the Sun Sea Tamils requesting refugee status are interviewed, should they be told they cannot visit their homeland until such a time as it is deemed safe for them to do so? In fact, shouldn't this be asked of all prospective refugees?

Yes, this is the kind of thing which makes people so cynical about our so-called refugee system. Vast numbers of them - from all over the world - are so persecuted, so poor and downtrodden then return "home" frequently for visits, apparently under no particular fear of the government and with more than sufficient cash for plane fares Most countries in the world turn away 85% or so of applicants as not meeting the criteria. Canada accepts a far higher percentage than anyone else does because we turn away only the most obvious cases of fraud, and accept virtually everyone who can tell a halfway decent story (coached by their federally funded immigration lawyers).

[ToadBrother]

Yes, this is the kind of thing which makes people so cynical about our so-called refugee system. Vast numbers of them - from all over the world - are so persecuted, so poor and downtrodden then return "home" frequently for visits, apparently under no particular fear of the government and with more than sufficient cash for plane fares Most countries in the world turn away 85% or so of applicants as not meeting the criteria. Canada accepts a far higher percentage than anyone else does because we turn away only the most obvious cases of fraud, and accept virtually everyone who can tell a halfway decent story (coached by their federally funded immigration lawyers).

You wouldn't happen to have actual stats on refugees who return home for "visits", would you?

[capricorn]

You wouldn't happen to have actual stats on refugees who return home for "visits", would you?

I do, Toad. I'll retrieve it for you.

[capricorn]

Toad, the numbers for Tamil refugees are in my post #12 above. I don't have stats on the total number of visits by all refugees by all countries.

[msdogfood]

See this!

Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177 Date:April 4, 1985

Why the link may not work!

The servers and systems that normally host this Web site are currently being moved between two locations. The move will last through the week-end. We expect to be back online by the end of the day sunday. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.

Les serveurs et systèmes qui servent normalement à la diffusion de ce site Web sont présentement en cours de déménagement. Le déménagement durera toute la fin de semaine et nous nous attendons à être de retour en fin de journée dimanche. Nous nous excusons des inconvénients que cela puisse vous causer.

[g_bambino]

You wouldn't happen to have actual stats on refugees who return home for "visits", would you?

Well, there's this:

A secret government report, its contents outlined today by QMI Agency’s Brian Lilley, shows just how seriously we have been duped by Tamils already granted refugee status here - with a sample survey conducted by immigration bureaucrats showing some 71% of these claimants have already returned to Sri Lanka, despite their song-and-dance that they would be murdered and/or tortured the moment they set foot in their homeland.

We've been duped by the Tamils

[capricorn]

Yes, this is the kind of thing which makes people so cynical about our so-called refugee system. Vast numbers of them - from all over the world - are so persecuted, so poor and downtrodden then return "home" frequently for visits, apparently under no particular fear of the government and with more than sufficient cash for plane fares

There is something I had not thought of about those return visits until I read this comment by a refugee in one of Brian Lilley's articles.

I came to Canada as a refugee and since becoming a PR I had been to my hometown twice a year even though I feared at the hands of the LTTE. It was risky but like many I did. Now the situation have changed in Sri Lanka I have to fear that govt’s white van would kidnap me as I would be perceived as an affluent who come from the west. But I take the risk assuming that Canadian embassy in my home country would protect me if anything happens to me. This protection was not there when I originally left Sri Lanka.

http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/08/21/15098766.html#/news/canada/2010/08/21/pf-15098916.html

PR means permanent residency which is granted once refugee status has been approved.

So this person visits Sri Lanka twice a year and if that person gets into trouble with the authorities in Sri Lanka for whatever reason, the plan is to call on the Canadian authorities to come to the rescue. It's no wonder they have a sense of security and don't fear returning to Sri Lanka.

[g_bambino]

PR means permanent residency which is granted once refugee status has been approved.

Permanent residency isn't granted along with refugee status, it must be applied for separately.

If the IRB accepts your claim, you will receive the status of “protected person.” This means you can stay in Canada and you can apply to become a permanent resident of Canada.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada

[capricorn]

Permanent residency isn't granted along with refugee status, it must be applied for separately.

Yes, that's more accurate.