What should we have done with the Tamil ship?

[Moonlight Graham]

Forget about Canadian laws for a second: What should Canada have done with the Tamil ship?

Edited August 24, 2010 by Moonlight Graham

[Bonam]

The give them water/supplies and send em back is what I think would have been the reasonable and correct choice.

[Sir Bandelot]

The give them water/supplies and send em back is what I think would have been the reasonable and correct choice.

You mean, like what Canada did to the Jews in 1939?

Read the sad tale of the S.S. St. Louis, a ship carrying real jewish refugees during the war, people who we know were being put into concentration camps throughout Europe. We turned them back, all 900 on board including women and children.

Voyage of the Damned

Here's a case where we did nothing to help, people who really needed it. But today...

[Jack Weber]

You mean, like what Canada did to the Jews in 1939?

Read the sad tale of the S.S. St. Louis, a ship carrying real jewish refugees during the war, people who we know were being put into concentration camps throughout Europe. We turned them back, all 900 on board including women and children.

Voyage of the Damned

Here's a case where we did nothing to help, people who really needed it. But today...

I'm certain it's fair to make the specious link of Jews trying to get away from their own extermination and Tamils leaving Sri Lanka,who might also be members of a terrorist organization...

I realize that the Sinhilese government are no angels,but neither are the Tamil Tigers...

[Visionseeker]

Forget about Canadian laws for a second: What should Canada have done with the Tamil ship?

You can't forget about the law. You can argue that it is wrong and needs to change. But any opinion that stands oblivious to the law denies the basic principles upon which the law was founded - the intellectual/philosophical starting point. Without this starting point, there is no common ground from which opposing view-points may debate in earnest.

[Bonam]

You mean, like what Canada did to the Jews in 1939?

Read the sad tale of the S.S. St. Louis, a ship carrying real jewish refugees during the war, people who we know were being put into concentration camps throughout Europe. We turned them back, all 900 on board including women and children.

Voyage of the Damned

Here's a case where we did nothing to help, people who really needed it. But today...

Already? Referring to WWII, the Nazis, the Holocaust, the Jewish refugees so soon? That's usually the last ditch attempt in an argument, not the opening salvo. Completely different situations.

Edited August 24, 2010 by Bonam

[Sir Bandelot]

Already? Referring to WWII, the Nazis, the Holocaust, the Jewish refugees so soon? That's usually the last ditch attempt in an argument, not the opening salvo. Completely different situations.

Ship, refugees, Canada.

Lots of people don't know this story. I like to tell about it, once in a while.

Got to get my digs in, on the overly sanctimonious who think that our country is so good, all the time.

[Jack Weber]

Ship, refugees, Canada.

Lots of people don't know this story. I like to tell about it, once in a while.

Got to get my digs in, on the overly sanctimonious who think that our country is so good, all the time.

On the larger issue of the Allies,and their collective indirect complicity with the Holocaust,you have a point...

As it relates to this specific issue,it's a little off base...

[Sir Bandelot]

On the larger issue of the Allies,and their collective indirect complicity with the Holocaust,you have a point...

As it relates to this specific issue,it's a little off base...

Ok. I did it anyway

[Moonlight Graham]

You can't forget about the law. You can argue that it is wrong and needs to change. But any opinion that stands oblivious to the law denies the basic principles upon which the law was founded - the intellectual/philosophical starting point. Without this starting point, there is no common ground from which opposing view-points may debate in earnest.

What i'm essentially asking people with this poll is to make up their own law, or what they think the law/protocol should be in this situation.

[Moonlight Graham]

I'm certain it's fair to make the specious link of Jews trying to get away from their own extermination and Tamils leaving Sri Lanka,who might also be members of a terrorist organization...

I realize that the Sinhilese government are no angels,but neither are the Tamil Tigers...

Obviously not all Tamils are members of the Tamil Tigers.

Maybe some of those Jews were Nazi spies in disguise!

[Jack Weber]

Obviously not all Tamils are members of the Tamil Tigers.

Maybe some of those Jews were Nazi spies in disguise!

I realize that all Tamils are not terrorists.The salient question is how do we discern from the legitimate refugee claims and the ones who are simply trying to get into this country to use it as a funding/recruiting base for the Tamil Tigers?

Jews were NAZI spies????

Kinda like the Black Confederates????

[Bonam]

I realize that all Tamils are not terrorists.The salient question is how do we discern from the legitimate refugee claims and the ones who are simply trying to get into this country to use it as a funding/recruiting base for the Tamil Tigers?

You forgot the third category. Besides "legitimate refugees" and terrorists, there are also people who are neither, but just want to come to Canada because it is better here than where they came from. Now, there is nothing wrong with them wanting that, but we have a system for that, and people need to apply and go through the appropriate procedure, and qualify to be selected for immigration to Canada.

I suspect many of these Tamils fall into that last category. Likely, not many of them are terrorists. Also likely, not many of them are escapees from an extermination camp. They just would rather live in Canada than Sri Lanka, and so they came here. However, Canada already accepts hundreds of thousands of legal immigrants every year, a rate that some might argue is already at the breaking point of how quickly they can be integrated into Canadian society; we don't need boatloads more on top of that.

Edited August 24, 2010 by Bonam

[dre]

Already? Referring to WWII, the Nazis, the Holocaust, the Jewish refugees so soon? That's usually the last ditch attempt in an argument, not the opening salvo. Completely different situations.

Situations seem pretty similar to me.

In both cases we should investigate their claims before we turn them away or let them in.

I say we escort that ship in, anchor it a mile off shore, and put a couple of coast guard vessels out there to secure it, and bring lots of food and water out there... then start processing claims... one by one until we are done.

[Smallc]

I say we escort that ship in, anchor it a mile off shore, and put a couple of coast guard vessels out there to secure it,

You'd have to have RCMP officers aboard...or use RCMP catamarans or navy ships. The Canadian Coast Guard is not a law enforcement agency.

[dre]

You'd have to have RCMP officers aboard...or use RCMP catamarans or navy ships. The Canadian Coast Guard is not a law enforcement agency.

Okey RCMP then.

[Keepitsimple]

I'd like to see the definition of a refugee tightened up to where it applies to something like:

Fleeing from an active area of conflict (war/insurrection) when it is not feasible to move to another area of the country - or to a neighbouring friendly country - and as a consequence, life and liberty are largely at risk. Upon acceptance, Canada would be a temporary safe haven for a period of time until "hostilities" ceased. Canada would periodically review the situation and when appropriate, provide airfare to repatriate the refugee where, if desired, they could apply for immigration in the normal manner. The key point is that Canada should be a TEMPORARY safe haven. If a conflict dragged on for 4 years or more, the refugee could apply for further status in Canada. Refugees would still be protected by the Charter of Rights with the exception of Canada's sole determining right to repatriate the refugee at its discretion.

We've all heard the stories of how refugees have children here and raise family and it's heartless to send them back. That's mostly because it takes so darn long to process them and because our rules are not clear. Refugees are offered a temporary safe haven...immigrants follow a well-planned and committed process.

[eyeball]

However, Canada already accepts hundreds of thousands of legal immigrants every year, a rate that some might argue is already at the breaking point of how quickly they can be integrated into Canadian society; we don't need boatloads more on top of that.

This is where the smell of shit surrounding this issue really emanates from. Some, namely the Conservative party and it's wing-nut base, are hoping this will galvanize and fuel public rage and support for cracking down and getting tough on the entry of more refugees/immigrants in general, especially brown one's.

Story

Public rage against Tamil refugees has a nasty, xenophobic odour. Why this mean-spirited furore over a few Tamils? Perhaps it's because they aren't white.

Edited August 24, 2010 by eyeball

[scribblet]

Perhaps it's because people are fed up of being taken advantage of, especially in such a clear cut case as this one. Not only that, we are enabling human traffickers. Never mind, play the race card and all dissent stops.

[BubberMiley]

Never mind, play the race card and all dissent stops.

Then how come you're still dissenting? Damn race card must be broken.

[capricorn]

Damn race card must be broken.

You're absolutely right Bubber. Playing the race card has not halted the debate that is presently taking place among Canadians. Perhaps the reason for this is that we have a Conservative government that is not afraid of meeting the challenge head on.

We are lucky, for the moment, to have a party in power that owes nothing to the Tamil Tigers. For the Liberals, the sham of "compassion" extended to fundraising events with their goons, and the settled party understanding that any large, fairly desperate, and culturally exotic pool of welfare-propending immigrants will make reliable Liberal voting fodder. Hence side-splitting expostulations of compassion.

Hence, a Canadian immigration system that is actually designed to be dysfunctional, and advertises opportunities for abuse. It is no accident that it takes very little time to become a fully-voting Canadian citizen, but a lot of time to deport even the most flagrantly illegal visitor to this country, once he has "opted" to stay. It is no accident that an immense vested interest has been assembled in the form of immigration lawyers, who will scream pink bluster when their own gravy train is impeded.

The Liberals built and own Canada's immigration system, together with the justifying public policy of "multiculturalism," that the Trudeau government summoned while pointing a demographic hose at major English-speaking urban areas, back in the 1970s. We take it for granted that no Tory today can hope to win a seat in Toronto or Vancouver, or any other dense urban environment. This result did not come about naturally.

We must accept the consequences of past immigration policy, and the political difficulties in persuading past beneficiaries that they will not benefit from its continuation. For there is such a thing as a tipping point, past which an entire country becomes dysfunctional -- because the cultural virtues on which it depended have been squandered.

In this respect, the public ideal of "multiculturalism" does far more harm than open immigration, though the one policy depends on the other, and both are aggravated by the venal attractions of a welfare state.

A society in which all social, economic, and cultural values are optional, and in which, moreover, all traditional and received values are placed under formal suspicion, is a society that is disintegrating. It is a society in which the self-serving rule, the dutiful are in their way, and hypocrisy is consistently rewarded.

---

And while we are now compelled to review each refugee claimant under our existing laws, we'd be fools not to change those laws to prevent further cynical manipulation.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Head+over+heart/3429425/story.html

The Liberals are indebted to millions of refugees and new Canadians that have consistently voted for them and kept them in power for decades. The Conservatives are not burdened by such an obligation and know for a fact that the majority of them will not vote for them in the future. What the Conservatives do have going for them is that a majority of Canadians want the refugee and immigration programs corrected. However, it remains to be seen if the Conservatives convert the noises they're making into action. Hopefully, this will not turn into a missed opportunity.

[M.Dancer]

You mean, like what Canada did to the Jews in 1939?

Are you suggesting the jews were fake refugees?

[Remiel]

Before anyone asks themselves, " Good God! Who voted for letting them all stay? " , I will admit to having done it myself. This was my thinking: That neither of the first two options seem particularly good, but the third option, to send some of them back, is something of a red herring. Presumably, we do not really want people to making these sort of boat trips from anywhere. But they do. And I think that the main reason to go technical with who can stay and who has to go back is to act as a deterrant for others, that they may be rejected. However, I do not think this is an effective deterrent. Everyone thinks that their suffering meets the bill for being a refugee, otherwise they would probably not be risking death in order to get out of wherever they come from. So, given that I do not think turning people away is a deterrent, letting everyone is the best (of a bad lot) course of action.

[capricorn]

They are taking a two-prong approach. As you suggested, they are processing the claims as we are required to do.....but at the same time, they are sending a message for external consumption (outside Canada) that we do not plan to be the suckers they think we are. It's an important message to send but unfortunately, the opposition will try to distort it.

You mean like this?

At a town hall meeting on the North Shore, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff accused Prime Minister Stephen Harper of trying to foment fear.

"This is how this man governs: let's find something to be frightened of," Ignatieff told an audience of several hundred people today (August 22) at the West Vancouver Community Centre.

The federal Opposition leader cited the example of Tamil refugee claimants, who travelled in a rickety boat across the Pacific Ocean and arrived in B.C. earlier this month.

Ignatieff claimed that federal Conservative politicians tried to make people "afraid of people you don't even know".

He added that officials with the Immigration and Refugee Board should have been left to do the proper screening without interference.

"Politicians should shut up and let these people do their job," Ignatieff declared to loud applause.

http://www.straight.com/article-339750/vancouver/west-vancouver-liberal-leader-michael-ignatieff-says-stephen-harper-promotes-fear

I have not read anywhere that the Conservatives are interfering with the CBSA investigation of the migrants and the IRB's work. What I did read is that the IRB is satisfied with how the process is playing out.

[g_bambino]

Maybe some of those Jews were Nazi spies in disguise!

Maybe some were members of Irgun.