Ship of Sri Lankan Tamils Arrives in Canada

[August1991]

As it grapples with screening nearly 500 illegal migrants intercepted off the B.C. coast, the Canadian government is operating on the assumption that two more shiploads of potential asylum seekers are preparing to sail here from Southeast Asia.

Public Safety Minister Vic Toews said Friday he considers the MV Sun Sea a “test boat” to probe Canada’s receptiveness to ship-borne refugee claims – part of a wider human smuggling operation with designs on sending more illegals here.

“This particular situation is being observed by others who may have similar intentions and I think it's very important that Canada deals with the situation in a clear and decisive way,” Mr. Toews told reporters in Victoria, where the migrant ship is docked.

“I don’t view this as an isolated, independent act.”

G&M

Driving back to Canada from New Hampshire, waiting in the long line at the border, I listened to the CBC radio news report of this recent arrival. I thought that I was listening to a fairy tale: it noted that in 1986, Mulroney accepted similar immigrants. (Once upon a time, in CBC World, there were compassionate, progressive conservatives like Brian Mulroney who welcomed with open arms immigrants on ships.)

Over 20 years after the fact, the CBC says something good about Mulroney. And it does so only to criticize Harper.

My conclusion? I think the PMO is perfectly justified in ignoring the CBC.

Flash back to 1986 when 155 Tamils were apprehended in lifeboats off Newfoundland’s shore. Then-prime minister Brian Mulroney decreed Canada would show humane compassion for their wretched plight and help them resettle.

A year later, 174 Sikhs waded ashore in Nova Scotia and the scandal-rocked government went ballistic — slapping them in detention, dispatching subs to prowl the Atlantic for ghost ships allegedly on the way to our shores and introducing crackdown legislation during an unscheduled summer recall of Parliament.

Don Martin

I don't agree with Martin that this is just another "red-meat issue" for the "Reformatory base" but at least he makes plain that newsworthiness or randomness drives our immigration policy.

----

IMHO, we should put these 500 people on two 747s and fly them back to Sri Lanka immediately. We should not select immigrants/refugees by their ability to survive several months in an ocean freighter hold. To do so, we will just encourage more hardship, pain and suffering as more desperate people attempt this feat.

If the Conservative government lets these people stay in Canada, it will create an incentive of great suffering and hardship in the future. It may seem humanitarian to accept these people now but in fact, it's an inducement to far worse inhumanity. Survival on the seas for three months is no way to select immigrants.

----

In 2010, we have the Internet and cell phones. Anyone in the world, even in poorest Africa and Asia, has access to someone with a cell phone. In 2010, we Canadians have a network of embassies, consulates and State offices and representatives abroad where any legitimate refugee can make their case before a Canadian. In 2010, there is no need for legitimate refugees to travel by boat to Canada. We are not in 1886 or even 1936.

Nowadays, a legitimate foreign refugee has many ways to explain their situation abroad and appeal to a Canadian government official abroad for protection. We should not determine in Canada whether someone is a refugee.

This is 2010, not 1910. These Sri Lankan Tamils should be sent home immediately.

Edited August 15, 2010 by August1991

[Visionseeker]

A bit simplistic in your analysis but yes, the sure fire way to eventually stop the boats is to return their occupants on a 747. Hell, lets just turn away all who claim protection at all ports of entry and send them back. Problem solved except...

What if a hundred of the 500 are legitimate refugee claimants? Or even 10? They need to be screened by the Immigration and Refugee Board like any other claimant.

But the boat should be seized and the company of record that was the penultimate owner fined $1,000,000 for selling the boat to smugglers. Kill the profit margine at the source.

Edited August 20, 2010 by Charles Anthony
deleted re-copied Opening Post

[August1991]

What if a hundred of the 500 are legitimate refugee claimants? Or even 10? They need to be screened by the Immigration and Refugee Board like any other claimant.

Legitimate, genuine, refugee claimants have ample opportunity - in this 21st century world - to speak to a Canadian official abroad.

No one should get in a boat and travel for months to seek refugee status, not in 2010. There's no need for this, and we should not encourage it. Canada has an office in Sri Lanka where people can explain their case. Sri Lankan refugees can contact them through the Internet, or by cellphone.

----

There are six billion people in the world. If the Canadian government accepts these "Tamil boat refugees", it will just enourage more people to take the risk to travel by boat to Canada.

Some 500 may stay in Canada now but how many more thousand in the future will die in the Pacific Ocean trying to get to Canada?

Edited August 15, 2010 by August1991

[Visionseeker]

Legitimate, genuine, refugee claimants have ample opportunity - in this 21st century world - to speak to a Canadian official abroad.

No one should get in a boat and travel for months to seek refugee status, not in 2010. There's no need for this, and we should not encourage it. Canada has an office in Sri Lanka where people can explain their case. Sri Lankan refugees can contact them through the Internet, or by cellphone.

Ah, but can they safely make their way to Columbo to make that case? As for contacting them via cell phone or Internet... I'm going to guess that you've never been to Sri Lanka.

There are six billion people in the world. If the Canadian government accepts these "Tamil boat refugees", it will just enourage more people to take the risk to travel by boat to Canada.

I fear this too. How many lives will be lost on derilict ships? The solution to me is to go after ship owners.

[August1991]

Ah, but can they safely make their way to Columbo to make that case? As for contacting them via cell phone or Internet... I'm going to guess that you've never been to Sri Lanka.

I lived in Colombo 3, Colpetty, for about two years - ages ago. I improved my English there, and learned about cricket.

As to cellphones, here's a cnet report of 5 billion in the world.

Edited August 15, 2010 by August1991

[Argus]

Ah, but can they safely make their way to Columbo to make that case?

Is Canada right next door to Sri Lanka? How many safe countries did this ship bypass to get here? And why?

Because A. we are known as a soft touch, and they will all be allowed to stay, and B. this is a rich country, and for the most part, these people are looking to improve their lives, not flee persecution.

It's a moot point. The Supreme Court will not allow anyone to be sent back without a full hearing, with legal representation and at least eighty seven appeals. Even if the government summoned up the intestinal fortitude to defy the howling protests from the media, church groups, immigration lawyers, the Left, etc., someone would, without question, take them to court and the courts would order them to stop. The Canadian courts have made it clear they are in charge in this country, and there is nothing the government does or does not do that cannot be overrule.

[eyeball]

There are six billion people in the world. If the Canadian government accepts these "Tamil boat refugees", it will just enourage more people to take the risk to travel by boat to Canada.

Some 500 may stay in Canada now but how many more thousand in the future will die in the Pacific Ocean trying to get to Canada?

When the water-hole really starts shrinking? Many many thousands maybe even millions. The time and chance to have done anything about this inevitability is behind us in the past. It's too late now. Eventually we'll get mean enough to do what will need to be done but we're not quite at the point yet where we have to push people away for fear of tipping over our lifeboat, there's still room for a few more.

In the meantime I'm all for aggregating as many people who crave freedom into Canada as we possibly can. We're desperately short of these as it is and when the real crunch comes we're going to need freedom loving people like we've never needed them before to survive.

[eyeball]

...these people are looking to improve their lives...

You should be arguing this the way I am, that Canada is desperately short of exactly these sort of people, go-getters who through their desire to get ahead will enrich all of us and make Canada a better place.

I saw a story on the news the other night about a Tamil that arrived off Newfoundland 20 years ago who is now a successful businessman with a big house in the burbs of TO.

The more I hear from those who say ship em' back the more I suspect they're really just worried about more little brown people running around the place.

[capricorn]

The more I hear from those who say ship em' back the more I suspect they're really just worried about more little brown people running around the place.

The more I read your posts the more I think you have tunnel vision.

In Canada, Tigers and Tiger supporters in the Tamil community have extorted hundreds of millions of dollars from Tamil Canadians by threatening their businesses here or their families back home unless they paid upwards of $2,500 a month to Tiger front groups.

Indeed, the MV Sun Sea, which steamed into Victoria under RCMP and navy escort this week is thought to be the former Tiger gun-running ship, still owned by the terror group. And the Tigers are thought to be behind the current human-smuggling voyage, charging those on board as much as $45,000 each to get them to Canada.

The cash will help the Tigers rekindle their war with Sri Lanka and the refugees themselves may be being used as cover to conceal Tiger commanders who are thought to be eager to set up a government-in-waiting here until such time as they can take up the fight in their homeland again.

At the end of the day, then, it will be too hard to tell the good guys from the bad on the Sun Sea. And the risk of guessing wrong is too great for Canada.

So we have no choice but to send them back, quickly.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Only+dilemma/3401020/story.html

[Sir Bandelot]

I am not sure what the solution is but I am against accepting people under these circumstances. I know it's hard to escape a war-torn country however.

My major concern is that anyone brought into Canada, especially groups in large numbers, might continue their civil war or terrorism on our soil, if gangsters and criminal organizations form from people who are in these groups.

Legitimate refugees, yes, but not the ones who have a criminal agenda.

And also, there needs to be some way to integrate people into Canadian society when they come from countries that are very different than ours, where people don't have the same rights and level of tolerance, eg. womens rights. There should be a training program to help legitimate refugees understand what Canada is about, and what their rights are.

My opinion on this form of hijacking the refugee system, is to put them all in a detention centre until this is sorted out. That's the way the US handled the Cuban refugee crisis, and we should look at what happened in those circumstances and learn from it, pros and cons.

There should also be a strong message that other boats will not be allowed to land in the future, so don't bother getting onboard them and paying for your ride here.

[bush_cheney2004]

....My opinion on this form of hijacking the refugee system, is to put them all in a detention centre until this is sorted out. That's the way the US handled the Cuban refugee crisis, and we should look at what happened in those circumstances and learn from it, pros and cons.

The Mariel Boat Lift was far better organized and officially sanctioned by goverment(s), including the complicity of the Peruvian embassy. Canada has no equivalent to the USS Saipan or processing facilities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariel_boatlift

[Argus]

I saw a story on the news the other night about a Tamil that arrived off Newfoundland 20 years ago who is now a successful businessman with a big house in the burbs of TO.

Did you see a story on the news the other about a Tamil that arrived off Newfoundland 20 years ago and has been in and out of prisons for various acts of violence since then? How about the Tamil that arrived off Newfoundland 20 years ago and has been on welfare ever since? Seen that one? No, of course not. They don't put those sorts of things up on TV because that might lead you to be intolerant.

[dre]

Is Canada right next door to Sri Lanka? How many safe countries did this ship bypass to get here? And why?

Because A. we are known as a soft touch, and they will all be allowed to stay, and B. this is a rich country, and for the most part, these people are looking to improve their lives, not flee persecution.

It's a moot point. The Supreme Court will not allow anyone to be sent back without a full hearing, with legal representation and at least eighty seven appeals. Even if the government summoned up the intestinal fortitude to defy the howling protests from the media, church groups, immigration lawyers, the Left, etc., someone would, without question, take them to court and the courts would order them to stop. The Canadian courts have made it clear they are in charge in this country, and there is nothing the government does or does not do that cannot be overrule.

The Canadian courts have made it clear they are in charge in this country, and there is nothing the government does or does not do that cannot be overrule.

Sounds like hyperbole to me. The courts didnt write immigration law.

[Ratio]

this stinks of racism...

Don,t you care at all about the plight of these people? Canada owes its country to immigrants... legal or illegal? those are just names... it important, what is important is that we let these people in and give them access to healthcare and jobs... thats our job as canadians...

Edited August 20, 2010 by Charles Anthony
deleted re-copied Opening Post

[eyeball]

So beyond Argus' unreported criminals (where have I heard that one before?) and the much feared criminals/terrorists/whatever the Conservatives are crapping their pants over, has anyone actually seen/found/charged/never-mind-convicted one yet?

[msdogfood]

Sounds like hyperbole to me. The courts didnt write immigration law.

True but thay will make shore it comply with the charter!!!!!!!!!!!!.

[msdogfood]

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

[msdogfood]

G&M

Driving back to Canada from New Hampshire, waiting in the long line at the border, I listened to the CBC radio news report of this recent arrival. I thought that I was listening to a fairy tale: it noted that in 1986, Mulroney accepted similar immigrants. (Once upon a time, in CBC World, there were compassionate, progressive conservatives like Brian Mulroney who welcomed with open arms immigrants on ships.)

Over 20 years after the fact, the CBC says something good about Mulroney. And it does so only to criticize Harper.

My conclusion? I think the PMO is perfectly justified in ignoring the CBC.

Don Martin

I don't agree with Martin that this is just another "red-meat issue" for the "Reformatory base" but at least he makes plain that newsworthiness or randomness drives our immigration policy.

----

IMHO, we should put these 500 people on two 747s and fly them back to Sri Lanka immediately. We should not select immigrants/refugees by their ability to survive several months in an ocean freighter hold. To do so, we will just encourage more hardship, pain and suffering as more desperate people attempt this feat.

If the Conservative government lets these people stay in Canada, it will create an incentive of great suffering and hardship in the future. It may seem humanitarian to accept these people now but in fact, it's an inducement to far worse inhumanity. Survival on the seas for three months is no way to select immigrants.

----

In 2010, we have the Internet and cell phones. Anyone in the world, even in poorest Africa and Asia, has access to someone with a cell phone. In 2010, we Canadians have a network of embassies, consulates and State offices and representatives abroad where any legitimate refugee can make their case before a Canadian. In 2010, there is no need for legitimate refugees to travel by boat to Canada. We are not in 1886 or even 1936.

Nowadays, a legitimate foreign refugee has many ways to explain their situation abroad and appeal to a Canadian government official abroad for protection. We should not determine in Canada whether someone is a refugee.

This is 2010, not 1910. These Sri Lankan Tamils should be sent home immediately.

Thay have to get to an embassy not to esey if a government starts doing everything it can to stop you!!

[Bonam]

this stinks of racism...

Don,t you care at all about the plight of these people? Canada owes its country to immigrants... legal or illegal? those are just names... it important, what is important is that we let these people in and give them access to healthcare and jobs... thats our job as canadians...

Can't tell if this is sarcasm or if someone actually thinks like this...

[Argus]

Sounds like hyperbole to me. The courts didnt write immigration law.

Actually, they did. It is a series of court findings, primarily the Bertha Wilson finding, that said anyone who lands in Canada has the full protection of the constitution, which means we have to supply lawyers and that it takes years and years of appeals to get rid of anyone. Likewise it was the courts which stated that the government cannot deport anyone to a country which will not respect their human rights. If you are a child rapist, for example, who got off the plane last week, there is no fear we will send you back to say, Iran.

[Argus]

this stinks of racism...

Don,t you care at all about the plight of these people? Canada owes its country to immigrants... legal or illegal? those are just names... it important, what is important is that we let these people in and give them access to healthcare and jobs... thats our job as canadians...

There are at least a billion people in the world who have it as bad as or worse than the Tamils. Should we allow a billion unwashed, uneducated, illiterate third world goat herders to come to Canada? Then this country will be as bad as theirs is.

[Smallc]

Argus, it's quite clear that you don't understand the functions or working of the courts in Canada. Those are not examples of them making law, but rather enforcing laws and the constitution.

[Shwa]

There are at least a billion people in the world who have it as bad as or worse than the Tamils. Should we allow a billion unwashed, uneducated, illiterate third world goat herders to come to Canada? Then this country will be as bad as theirs is.

Come on Argus, really? A billion people to come to Canada? Let me correct it for you:

There are at least a billion straw people in the world who have it as bad as or worse than the Tamils. Should we allow a billion unwashed, uneducated, illiterate third world straw people to come to Canada? Then this country will be as bad as theirs is. But the horses will be well fed.

[Argus]

So beyond Argus' unreported criminals (where have I heard that one before?) and the much feared criminals/terrorists/whatever the Conservatives are crapping their pants over, has anyone actually seen/found/charged/never-mind-convicted one yet?

The fear is that many of them are Tamil Tigers, but how can you charge or convict someone for that? For that matter, what proof could you offer up to a Canadian court which they would accept under our rules of evidence as sufficient to prove they were Tamil Tigers? Further, even if you prove they're Tigers that doesn't mean the courts will agree they're dangerous, or, if dangerous, that we can send them back. What is known is that the Tigers are very organized in the Tamil community and that a very large percentage of that community supports them, incl with money.

[Argus]

Argus, it's quite clear that you don't understand the functions or working of the courts in Canada. Those are not examples of them making law, but rather enforcing laws and the constitution.

When they write things into the law that were never there then they are making new law. You can call it "enforcing" the Constitution if you like, but on many occasions they have written in things the Constitution clearly did not call for, and which the writers of the constitution did not want.

When you get to be the interpreter of a complex legal document you get to make it read whatever you say it reads. That is why slavery was perfect legal under the US Constitution, until one day the courts decided it wasn't any longer. Same constitution, just a different interpretation. That is also why the born again types in the US keep trying to stack the courts with certain types of right wing judges in hopes it will reverse the roe v wade decision. And if they can,then it will. The Constitution won't have changed, but the SC will have changed its interpretation.