E mail from Immigration Minister Jason Kenney

[Guest Peeves]

Another move in the right direction on criminals/fraudsters drawn out legal delays on Canada's tab.

I'm sure you all agree.

EXCERPT;

Mr. Kenney cited the “notorious” case of Clinton Gayle, a Jamaican man who was convicted of multiple drug offences and sentenced to two years less a day in jail.

“Between 1990 and 1996, the government tried to deport Mr. Gayle on multiple occasions. This process was made difficult because of the relatively short criminal sentences that he received,” he said. “In 1996, while that process was still ongoing, Clinton Gayle shot and killed Toronto police officer Todd Baylis.”

Currently, anyone who is not a Canadian citizen and is sentenced to less than two years in prison can appeal the automatic deportation order that comes along with a jail term.

Under the new rules, foreign citizens involved in organized crime or security, human or international rights violations, will no longer be permitted to attempt to put off their removal using the humanitarian and compassionate consideration normally available to some foreigners in Canada.

I will of course pass his message on.

Friends,

This month we introduced the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act (Bill C-43). Convicted foreign criminals and fraudsters should not be able to rely on endless appeals as a loophole in order to delay their deportation from Canada. That only endangers ordinary Canadian families.

Below is a link to a media report about the proposed legislation:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/06/20/kenney-launches-crackdown-on-foreign-criminals-who-abuse-appeals-process-to-delay-deportation/

Critics for both the Liberal and NDP parties have strongly criticized this law, choosing instead to defend the flawed appeal process that keeps foreign criminals on our streets.

If you disagree with them and want us to go ahead with this new law, please sign the petition at

http://www.jasonkenney.ca/criminals/

It is important that you let me know if you think we are on the right track.

Best regards,

Jason

PS: As always, please forward this e-mail to your friends. Ask them to sign the petition if they support this legislation.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/06/20/kenney-launches-crackdown-on-foreign-criminals-who-abuse-appeals-process-to-delay-deportation/

[Shakeyhands]

What's up with this? Emphasis mine.

“But under the current system, they still have access to the immigration appeal division as long as their sentence is less than two years, and many courts have sentenced foreign criminals to two years less a day explicitly in order for allow them to have access to these multiple appeals and effectively to delay their deportation from Canada.”

Can someone, anyone point to such a case? I'm inclined to accuse Mr Kenney of a bald face untruth!

[Guest Peeves]

What's up with this? Emphasis mine.

Can someone, anyone point to such a case? I'm inclined to accuse Mr Kenney of a bald face untruth!

Well Kenny referenced one himself. You dispute that case?

Here's another.

"Although high profile, the Gayle case is not isolated. Career criminal Walford Uriah Steer, a Jamaican who was one of those put on the Canada Border Services Agency deportation list last year, was convicted of more than 70 criminal acts by the time he was arrested and charged with multiple prostitution offenses involving a 16-year-old girl. Earlier this month, the CBSA added five new names to its deportation list. To date, the CBSA has removed 19 people who were on its most wanted list for deportation and located five others who were living abroad."

Now since you seemed inclined to call Mr. Kenny a liar I suspect there is no proof you would accept. I'm inclined on the other hand given years of abuse of our immigration practices, to believe the claim unless of course you can disprove it.

http://www.canada.com/opinion/editorials/Editorial+Kenney+right+tough+with+foreign+criminals/6844428/story.html

[guyser]

If what we are reading is correct, Kenney uses a case that would not apply. Damn these guys are stupid for this.

I do support the intent of this .

But help me out here.....

Mr. Kenney cited the “notorious” case of Clinton Gayle, a Jamaican man who was convicted of multiple drug offences and sentenced to two years less a day in jail.

Under the new rules, foreign citizens involved in organized crime or security, human or international rights violations, will no longer be permitted to attempt to put off their removal using the humanitarian and compassionate consideration normally available to some foreigners in Canada.

Was Gayle inbvolved w organized crime,int'l rights violations or security?

[Wilber]

If what we are reading is correct, Kenney uses a case that would not apply. Damn these guys are stupid for this.

I do support the intent of this .

But help me out here.....

Was Gayle inbvolved w organized crime,int'l rights violations or security?

Depends what his "multiple drug offences" were.

Edited June 27, 2012 by Wilber

[Shakeyhands]

Well Kenny referenced one himself. You dispute that case?

Here's another.

"Although high profile, the Gayle case is not isolated. Career criminal Walford Uriah Steer, a Jamaican who was one of those put on the Canada Border Services Agency deportation list last year, was convicted of more than 70 criminal acts by the time he was arrested and charged with multiple prostitution offenses involving a 16-year-old girl. Earlier this month, the CBSA added five new names to its deportation list. To date, the CBSA has removed 19 people who were on its most wanted list for deportation and located five others who were living abroad."

Now since you seemed inclined to call Mr. Kenny a liar I suspect there is no proof you would accept. I'm inclined on the other hand given years of abuse of our immigration practices, to believe the claim unless of course you can disprove it.

http://www.canada.com/opinion/editorials/Editorial+Kenney+right+tough+with+foreign+criminals/6844428/story.html

Where does it say that they were sentenced to two years less a day (read up on your law here Peeves) EXPLICITLY "in order for allow them to have access to these multiple appeals and effectively to delay their deportation from Canada.” ???

[bleeding heart]

Where does it say that they were sentenced to two years less a day (read up on your law here Peeves) EXPLICITLY "in order for allow them to have access to these multiple appeals and effectively to delay their deportation from Canada.” ???

Yep...that is the claim, so the question is more than fair.

[Wilber]

Here Ya Go

According to this it would seem Kenney is correct about the two years less a day. Whether judges intensionally hand out such sentences so an appeal is possible is another question.

For permanent residents there is no appeal of an inadmissibility finding if they have been found to fall under section 64(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act by having been convicted for serious criminality. This means they have been punished in Canada by term of prison of at least 2 years. A person who is sentenced for two years loses their right to appeal the deportation order and would be automatically removed from Canada. A sentence of two years less a day allows an Appeal to the Immigration Refugee Board Appeal Division based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds and that the individual does not pose a risk to Canada. These immigration considerations have to be kept in mind when criminal lawyers are reviewing matters and discussing plea bargains. These immigration considerations do not normally apply to citizens unless a misrepresentation was made in obtaining Canadian Citizenship.

[Shakeyhands]

Here Ya Go

According to this it would seem Kenney is correct about the two years less a day. Whether judges intensionally hand out such sentences so an appeal is possible is another question.

Thanks for looking that up. No one said that there weren't implications as an accused. The charge was that Judges explicitly avoid sentences of 2 years or more.

A sentence of "less than 2 years" or "2 Years less a day" is common for a lot offences for a lot of reasons, including what type of detention facility the person is assigned to. I can assure you that it isn't done to explicitly prevent deportation appeals.

[Wilber]

Thanks for looking that up. No one said that there weren't implications as an accused. The charge was that Judges explicitly avoid sentences of 2 years or more.

A sentence of "less than 2 years" or "2 Years less a day" is common for a lot offences for a lot of reasons, including what type of detention facility the person is assigned to. I can assure you that it isn't done to explicitly prevent deportation appeals.

Never said it was but maybe it should be in some cases.

[wyly]

Thanks for looking that up. No one said that there weren't implications as an accused. The charge was that Judges explicitly avoid sentences of 2 years or more.

A sentence of "less than 2 years" or "2 Years less a day" is common for a lot offences for a lot of reasons, including what type of detention facility the person is assigned to. I can assure you that it isn't done to explicitly prevent deportation appeals.

ya I think 2yrs less a day gets the convicted sent to a low security provincial jail, over two years and it's maximum security in the big house with the really bad types...if there's any hope for rehabilitation you don't want to send anyone to the big house...

[bleeding heart]

According to this it would seem Kenney is correct about the two years less a day. Whether judges intensionally hand out such sentences so an appeal is possible is another question.

Oh yes, I didn't doubt the objective claim, at all. I took Kenney at his word.

I was questioning the (highly suspect) implication that judges are all in the pockets of the Big Criminal Immigrant fat-cats, and were intentionally handing down such sentences for the express purpose of aiding immigration claims.

[Guest Peeves]

Oh yes, I didn't doubt the objective claim, at all. I took Kenney at his word.

I was questioning the (highly suspect) implication that judges are all in the pockets of the Big Criminal Immigrant fat-cats, and were intentionally handing down such sentences for the express purpose of aiding immigration claims.

I don't fault the judges except perhaps their possible sincere consideration of the impact of the sentence out of compassion. Sometimes the criminal has fathered kids here and in any pre sentence report I believe that would be noted. Were I a judge that knew an infraction of the law might well result in deportation in such case I might be just a bit lenient in the sentencing.

I assume that anyone with a multitude of sentences must have been given less than 2 years. Reasonably that is the case in the one cited as another example.

Anyone with a political agenda that wishes to simply be argumentative however,will usually look for grist for their personal mill.

Meantime kudos to Kenny and our government for acting on faults in our system.

[Shakeyhands]

Anyone with a political agenda that wishes to simply be argumentative however,will usually look for grist for their personal mill.

Yeah, or you know, point out when someone who is definitely partisan is lying to advance their agenda. Whichever.

[bleeding heart]

I don't fault the judges except perhaps their possible sincere consideration of the impact of the sentence out of compassion. Sometimes the criminal has fathered kids here and in any pre sentence report I believe that would be noted. Were I a judge that knew an infraction of the law might well result in deportation in such case I might be just a bit lenient in the sentencing.

Yes, but Kenney is not providing this analysis; you are. That you view the possibility (which is not a given, despite Kenney's protestation) through a humane filter doesn't mean that Kenney is.

Put another way: we don't know that what is here suggested--the determination of judges' motivations--is in fact the case.

Not even if we view it more sympathetically, as you are doing.

[Guest Peeves]

Yeah, or you know, point out when someone who is definitely partisan is lying to advance their agenda. Whichever.

Just point out the lie and stop with the verbal diarrhea.

[Shakeyhands]

Just point out the lie and stop with the verbal diarrhea.

I have, a bunch of times, explicitly in fact.

[Wilber]

Here are the complete Notes

If this part is true, maybe the courts are.

Another particularly notable example is that of Joselito Rabaya Arganda, who came to Canada from the Philippines in 1995.

Arganda was sentenced to two years prison in 2007 for a wide variety of crimes, among them forgery, credit card fraud, possession of counterfeit money and possession of goods obtained by crime.

When he got out of prison, he fell right back into a life of crime.

He was sentenced anew in 2009 for possession of property obtained by crime and for failing to comply with court orders. The following year, he was sentenced for possession of a weapon.

On May 10, 2010, the Immigration and Refugee Board issued a removal order. Under the existing rules, Arganda had no right to appeal, because he had previously been sentenced to two years.

But he managed to find a unique way to get around this: He got the Manitoba Court of Appeal to grant him permission to appeal the previous two-year criminal sentence he received – a sentence he had already served.

To relay what happened next, let me quote from a Winnipeg Sun column of August 13, 2011. These are the words of Sun columnist Tom Brodbeck:

“If he could get (his sentence) reduced to two-years-less-a-day retroactively, he would have the right to appeal his deportation. But what court would do that? … That’s exactly what … the Manitoba Court of Appeal did… They reduced the guy’s sentence by one day so he could appeal his deportation, even though he had already finished serving his sentence. Madness.”

That appeal is still pending, and he remains in Canada.

Found this little gem on another law office site.

A trend has emerged in which some offenders expressly ask for sentences of two years instead of two years less a day. The reason is because provincial parole boards in recent years have generally required reformatory inmates to complete the full two thirds of their sentences. Under the federal system, prisoners often get full parole after serving only a third of their sentences, and sometimes day parole after only a sixth. In many cases then, a two-year sentence requires serving less time than a reformatory sentence up to half that length.

With such anomalies (to put it very politely) surrounding our sentencing system, is it such a stretch to suspect that at least some judges might intentionally give sentences of less than two years just to throw it back into Immigration's lap and avoid any involvement themselves?

I don't think there is any question that our system has been twisted to the point where some changes are needed.

[Guest Peeves]

I have, a bunch of times, explicitly in fact.

No you haven't.

[Shakeyhands]

No you haven't.

Having to post the quote again is just a waste of bandwidth at this point (apologies Greg..)

“But under the current system, they still have access to the immigration appeal division as long as their sentence is less than two years, and many courts have sentenced foreign criminals to two years less a day explicitly in order for allow them to have access to these multiple appeals and effectively to delay their deportation from Canada.”

[Guest Peeves]

Having to post the quote again is just a waste of bandwidth at this point (apologies Greg..)

So what's your point. This proposal will stop that.

[Guest Peeves]

Here are the complete Notes

If this part is true, maybe the courts are.

Found this little gem on another law office site.

With such anomalies (to put it very politely) surrounding our sentencing system, is it such a stretch to suspect that at least some judges might intentionally give sentences of less than two years just to throw it back into Immigration's lap and avoid any involvement themselves?

I don't think there is any question that our system has been twisted to the point where some changes are needed.

Good stuff. There is an obvious need to reel in those ( even be they judges),that attempt to circumvent the system and then file appeals for umpteen years.