Refugee status accepted on Chinese birth restrictions!

[Guest Peeves]

Yes of course there are many people there who want to move here.

My wife is Chinese,and believe me,not as many people there want to move overseas as say 10 yrs ago.

I feel that this woman's claim is legit and seeing how tight immigration is,many here are worrying over nothing.

WWWTT

Tight? I do understand that Canada immigration/refugee numbers exceed pretty much every other country in the world for our population.

[Signals.Cpl]

Yes of course there are many people there who want to move here.

My wife is Chinese,and believe me,not as many people there want to move overseas as say 10 yrs ago.

I feel that this woman's claim is legit and seeing how tight immigration is,many here are worrying over nothing.

WWWTT

It is once again relative, "not as many" could still mean tens of millions of people. "Not as many Canadians want to move to the US as they wanted 10 years ago" might not be quite the same as "Not as many Americans want to move to Canada as they wanted 10 years ago". Only .5% of the Chinese population wanting to move will drastically change our demographics and political landscape.

And people are not worrying about one specific nationality but the possibility of everybody using this as a means to jump the line for the legitimate immigrants, as Argus pointed out it could be used for anyone and everyone with or without a legitimate claim to refugee status so we end up getting people who have no real basis for being Refugees and forgo the ability to choose who comes to Canada.

[Guest Peeves]

Anyone who replied or posted save for Squid.

Not every woman in China will want to come here and claim refugee status for one.

Whole swaths of woman who may want to come will not be able to afford it for two

Any woman over the age of 40 would likely be refused for three

The overwhelming vast majority of all woman in China will not leave their home country and will suck it up and live with China rules for four.

The CDN govt expanded the refugee programme because they believe in it for five.

We take in approx 22,000 refugees/persecuted persons each year so no real biggie for six.

Six good reasons, should be enough.

Supporting the squid in this instance simply displays your colors. Squid didn't really 'post', what he did was to try to insult another member without cause, and with unsubstantiated criticism.

It's reign, not rein.

No it isn't rein is correct in this usage. Don't fault me for your lack of comprehension.

I'll explain as I would for any with similar inability to have understood my post.

You're welcome

rein (rn)

n.

1. A long narrow leather strap attached to each end of the bit of a bridle and used by a rider or driver to control a horse or other animal. Often used in the plural.

2. A means of restraint, check, or guidance.

3. A means or an instrument by which power is exercised. Often used in the plural: the reins of government.

v. reined, rein·ing, reins

v.tr.

1._{To check or hold back by or as if by the use of reins. Often with in, back, or up.}

2. To restrain or control.

v.intr.

Perhaps you might read it again, this time with an open mind.

And I also suggest your response was purely a personal attack that had nothing in its content that was on point.

I will remember that for future, amicable one might hope posting.

I posted,"Please rein in this incompetent bureaucracy"

I want the immigration bureaucrats REINED in.

Not reigning over a bureaucracy.

Sad when one's bubble bursts ain't it.

.

Edited June 23, 2013 by Peeves

[Guest Peeves]

Any think our current immigration policy( with the Changes made by Kenney) over the last couple of years aren't improved from what they were.

The ones I see screaming the most are advocates, paid advocates and reps, for what has often turned out to be phony set up marriages,refugee fakes and fake identities for immigrants.

That's how the death camp guards and war criminals got in over the years. We definitely needed to follow other countries lead lie Australia so we don't end up with million $ cases to get an illegal out of the country.

Do the do diligence up front, not for the next 20 years of litigation!!!! (as in a recently resolved case you may recall.)

Edited June 23, 2013 by Peeves

[AlienB]

What do Canada's untapped resources have to do with refugee status?

It is fairly obvious if looking to countries like Jordan and Turkey that the importance of

untapped resources is vital to taking on refugees.

The Refugee system was not intended to provide safe haven for anyone and everyone in the world who disagrees with the policies of their nation, it was intended to provide safe haven for those who were persecuted and under threat of death, serious injury, torture or other similar punishments.

I've looked at the convention I think forced sterilization and other forced reproductive controls fits the gamut of refugee basis. Now bear in mind there are those in Canada who would like to sterilize sexual predators, and I think with consent it may be a good way to go. But forced sterilization of alleged sex offenders think Milgard for example is problematic. None the less, it is a gender targetting activity. None the less the ruling makes it fairly clear" http://www.hrcr.org/safrica/freedom_security/chan_canada.html I think the idea of for instance yourself being forced to have a visectomy because the government didn't want you to have children. I would consider that persecution if I wanted to have children. This is worse imo than forced circumcision. Which can be found here http://utflr.law.utoronto.ca/utfl_file/count/media/UTLFR/utflr51/17_51UTorontoFacLRev277(1993).pdf

For every person who is granted unnecessary refugee status someone who is actually in need is denied and potentially sent to their death. We as a nation can help only so many people, lets make sure that we help the right once rather than protect those who require no protection and turn away those who desperately need our protection.

That is babies being sent to their death. But no right there you are wrong because there isn't the basis of take the Chinese woman who wants to have kids return the Syrian who rebelled against their government, of perhaps not even rebelled just feared for their life due to total chaos in their origin. There is no threshold there. Its either valid or not. But the government needs to be prepared. It can't just sit by and see countries be torn appart or even bomb or fund attacks in foreign countries then not to expect there to be fallout in terms of refugees by the chaos they create.

...CIA demographics..

Not everyone has a monogomous relationship or child from a monogamus relationship. Not every parent is from a normative family context, and not every man is straight, nor is every woman.

You are over generalizing.

responsibility to immigrants

Refugees arn't immigrants, no the government has human rights to uphold it owes nothing to immigrants they are guests until citizens then they have equal rights more or less with other Canadians. Refugees are a somewhat protected class by international law first and Canadian law second as a means to meet its international responsibilities.

People are unemployed

This would get too complex to discuss if economics were involved, basically no. Population increase does not create unemployment.

Sorry don't get this, are you suggesting we open our borders to only those who can afford it?

Yes I think refugees with resources should be accommodated first because they will likely bring something to the nation and be prepared to be self supporting in Canada.

refugees will bring criminal enterprises

Well that just means there is bad policing and not enough monitoring of refugees, which there should be more of, espcially if they are suppose to be protected. None the less, they are innocent until proven guilty. People will not resort to crime if they have legal means of livelyhood.

The bottom line imo, yes the policy of needing to pay to avoid having your reproductive capacity removed is pretty much a clear violation of human rights in Canada. Now sure there are issues because China has so many people and Canadians may feel issued that taking on all Chinese people who fear being sterilized due to the numbers of Chinese people facing that. None the less it is justified for Canada to do so.

Personally I don't think China would sterilize Chinese people in Canada if Canada was part of China. Its a resource issue over there. Quebec PAYS people to have children. Likewise the baby bonus has been a long form of paying people for having children in Canada. In China they pay to not be sterilized. That is very much a class bias. None the less, it would be very strange if a one child policy were enacted in Canada, I think there would be outrage by many.

What this all amounts to is that yes if foreign governments take on certain policies which violate human rights and create persecution Canada should be prepared to hand out get into Canada free cards, BUT the whole system would need to be changed on how refugees are processed into Canada, that being refugee camps would need to be established like seen in the third and second worlds. Countries facing influx of persons is not non existent, even France has set up camps for Roma.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/geography/population/managing_population_rev3.shtml

Edited June 23, 2013 by AlienB

[AlienB]

Supporting the squid in this instance simply displays your colors. Squid didn't really 'post', what he did was to try to insult another member without cause, and with unsubstantiated criticism.

No it isn't rein is correct in this usage. Don't fault me for your lack of comprehension.

I'll explain as I would for any with similar inability to have understood my post.

You're welcome

rein (rn)

n.

1. A long narrow leather strap attached to each end of the bit of a bridle and used by a rider or driver to control a horse or other animal. Often used in the plural.

2. A means of restraint, check, or guidance.

3. A means or an instrument by which power is exercised. Often used in the plural: the reins of government.

v. reined, rein·ing, reins

v.tr.

1._{To check or hold back by or as if by the use of reins. Often with in, back, or up.}

2. To restrain or control.

v.intr.

Perhaps you might read it again, this time with an open mind.

And I also suggest your response was purely a personal attack that had nothing in its content that was on point.

I will remember that for future, amicable one might hope posting.

I posted,"Please rein in this incompetent bureaucracy"

I want the immigration bureaucrats REINED in.

Not reigning over a bureaucracy.

Sad when one's bubble bursts ain't it.

.

The Queen likes horses.

[The_Squid]

D'oh. I'm dumb.

Spelling was fine. Next time use more exclamation points though.

[Guest Peeves]

Some seem to be ignoring the ramifications, the 'slippery slope this portents for our countries policies on refugees.

For example it leads to subjective acceptance on a myriad number of policies that conflict with our traditional (now) Western civilizational values and mores taken for granted in other countries. We certainly may judge them, but, we cannot change them willy nilly at our discretion. It's simply an impossible and nonviable alternative to reasonable policies that are in keeping with Canadians that foot the bill.

See for example link below

So should Muslims from Burma all be considered (should they apply) for refugee status, AND ACCEPTED?

I would not even accept the application in such a case.

YANGON, Burma — Opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi and Islamic leaders expressed dismay over decisions by authorities in western Burma to restore a two-child limit on a Muslim minority group, a policy that does not apply to Buddhists and follows accusations of “ethnic cleansing.”
The order makes Burma perhaps the only country in the world to level such a restriction against a particular religious group, and is likely to bring further criticism that Muslims are being discriminated against in the Buddhist-majority country. Some Buddhists, however, welcomed the plan for addressing their fear of a population explosion among the Muslim minority known as Rohingya. - See more at: http://www.bullfax.com/?q=node-two-child-limit-imposed-burma%E2%80%99s-muslim-minority-critici#.dpuf

[Signals.Cpl]

It is fairly obvious if looking to countries like Jordan and Turkey that the importance of

untapped resources is vital to taking on refugees.

I've looked at the convention I think forced sterilization and other forced reproductive controls fits the gamut of refugee basis. Now bear in mind there are those in Canada who would like to sterilize sexual predators, and I think with consent it may be a good way to go. But forced sterilization of alleged sex offenders think Milgard for example is problematic. None the less, it is a gender targetting activity. None the less the ruling makes it fairly clear" http://www.hrcr.org/safrica/freedom_security/chan_canada.html I think the idea of for instance yourself being forced to have a visectomy because the government didn't want you to have children. I would consider that persecution if I wanted to have children. This is worse imo than forced circumcision. Which can be found here http://utflr.law.utoronto.ca/utfl_file/count/media/UTLFR/utflr51/17_51UTorontoFacLRev277(1993).pdf

That is babies being sent to their death. But no right there you are wrong because there isn't the basis of take the Chinese woman who wants to have kids return the Syrian who rebelled against their government, of perhaps not even rebelled just feared for their life due to total chaos in their origin. There is no threshold there. Its either valid or not. But the government needs to be prepared. It can't just sit by and see countries be torn appart or even bomb or fund attacks in foreign countries then not to expect there to be fallout in terms of refugees by the chaos they create.

Not everyone has a monogomous relationship or child from a monogamus relationship. Not every parent is from a normative family context, and not every man is straight, nor is every woman.

You are over generalizing.

Refugees arn't immigrants, no the government has human rights to uphold it owes nothing to immigrants they are guests until citizens then they have equal rights more or less with other Canadians. Refugees are a somewhat protected class by international law first and Canadian law second as a means to meet its international responsibilities.

This would get too complex to discuss if economics were involved, basically no. Population increase does not create unemployment.

Yes I think refugees with resources should be accommodated first because they will likely bring something to the nation and be prepared to be self supporting in Canada.

Well that just means there is bad policing and not enough monitoring of refugees, which there should be more of, espcially if they are suppose to be protected. None the less, they are innocent until proven guilty. People will not resort to crime if they have legal means of livelyhood.

The bottom line imo, yes the policy of needing to pay to avoid having your reproductive capacity removed is pretty much a clear violation of human rights in Canada. Now sure there are issues because China has so many people and Canadians may feel issued that taking on all Chinese people who fear being sterilized due to the numbers of Chinese people facing that. None the less it is justified for Canada to do so.

Personally I don't think China would sterilize Chinese people in Canada if Canada was part of China. Its a resource issue over there. Quebec PAYS people to have children. Likewise the baby bonus has been a long form of paying people for having children in Canada. In China they pay to not be sterilized. That is very much a class bias. None the less, it would be very strange if a one child policy were enacted in Canada, I think there would be outrage by many.

What this all amounts to is that yes if foreign governments take on certain policies which violate human rights and create persecution Canada should be prepared to hand out get into Canada free cards, BUT the whole system would need to be changed on how refugees are processed into Canada, that being refugee camps would need to be established like seen in the third and second worlds. Countries facing influx of persons is not non existent, even France has set up camps for Roma.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/geography/population/managing_population_rev3.shtml

I dont know what you are talking about, the reality is the resources mean nothing unless they are being utilized which means a lot of time and money spend to build up the infrastructure to be able to utilize the resources.

As for the rest I think you need to review what a refugee actually is and try to stay on topic, this is a topic that does not necessarily deal with sex offenders and their sexual organs. You sound suspiciously like shortived/login...

[Michael Hardner]

So should Muslims from Burma all be considered (should they apply) for refugee status, AND ACCEPTED?

I would not even accept the application in such a case.

I don't even know why you would mention their religion, unless your wish is to bar them from application because of their religion. Suppression of reproductive rights seems to me a human rights issue, and since we have a low birthrate in Canada this seems like a win win scenario to me.

[Guest Peeves]

I don't even know why you would mention their religion, unless your wish is to bar them from application because of their religion.

^{(Interjection! Obviously my Islamophobia surfacing again, yeh right,} )

Suppression of reproductive rights seems to me a human rights issue, and since we have a low birthrate in Canada this seems like a win win scenario to me.

The religion is the issue in the Burmese reference, that's where and why it was a to be considered, not by me, by the Burmese. If a case could be made in the Chinese case it might well be made in a case for a claimant of refugee status because of the Burmese restriction on another religions birth rate. Do you go looking for red herrings or just fall over them.

[Guest Peeves]

D'oh. I'm dumb.

Spelling was fine. Next time use more exclamation points though.

well I consider Mr. Kenny to be a very busy man so any communication to him is as brief and succinct as possible though I admit that passion might influence my missive(s). I appreciate that there are those as you who have time for more leisurely consideration and would find a simple message and concern boring and worthy of criticism. Thank you for the opportunity to reconsider how I may have phrased and offered the point for someone of that inclination.

I'm sure you and many children might find it more edifying, clear and apparent and surely it would get the attention of my political addressees.

Hope the revised missive meets with your approval and again my thanks.

Minister Jason Kenney. Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism.

Mr. J. Kenney

A decision to accept a Chinese refugee claimant because of China's one child policy is ridiculous on it's own, but to do so for someone with no children is preposterous.

I'm infuriated!

What's next, allowing a refugee claim from Indonesia because you may get arrested for spitting in the street!

Please rein in this incompetent bureaucracy.

I cannot believe the extent to which our Immigration has broadened qualifications.

She's currently childless for god's sake.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited June 24, 2013 by Peeves

[The_Squid]

Why do you assume the bureaucracy is incompetent and not simply following government policy?

Has anyone from government responded to this issue? I looked online and couldn't find anything in the media. Maybe Kenney thinks this is a good idea...

Edited June 24, 2013 by The_Squid

[Guest Peeves]

Why do you assume the bureaucracy is incompetent and not simply following government policy?

Has anyone from government responded to this issue? I looked online and couldn't find anything in the media. Maybe Kenney thinks this is a good idea...

Policy is subjective and bureaucrats tend to push the envelope since it's self serving to maintain their positions and numbers. There is not to my knowledge any previous ruling that would support their ruling.

It will likely be

A) over turned on appeal

become a benchmark or criterion for thousands of other applicants.

I doubt Kenny would find this decision acceptable.

Edited June 24, 2013 by Peeves

[guyser]

You are missing the point. If this holds up then basically any young woman in China is eligible for Canadian citizenship. All she has to do is come here and demand her passport.

Pretty sure I didnt since I topuched on your point exactly.

Any young woman, I suppose, could show up, but the door has been open fro qwuite some time and very very few have walked through it.

Why is that? Becuase of the reasons (at least in small part) listed

Now perhaps you're one of those open door people who thinks we should let anyone in who wants to come, but if so you surely know you're in the distinct minority. These sorts of cases are the ones which turn Canadians against the refugee system and make them demand crackdowns which will inevitably stop real refugees from coming here.

Whether I am in the minority or the majority , it is Ottawa who welds the power , and our current govt has seen fit to expand the numbers of people who come here, far more than the Libs did in the past.

CDN's who demand crackdowns will be heard....and ignored.

I also suspect if....and it s a big if.....we start getting the floodgates opened to woman from China (highly dubious for many reasons) then some action will have to be taken. But intil that time, we have what we have.

[guyser]

That tells me what I need to know ....

The six reasons posted are a good start, I agree.

[guyser]

Supporting the squid in this instance simply displays your colors. Squid didn't really 'post', what he did was to try to insult another member without cause, and with unsubstantiated criticism.

I probably shouldnt have used squid in this manner , so apologies for that.I didnt see any poor english either.

But the point remains.....the gates have been open for some time now, decades even, and no flood has come thru.

So , why get bent out of shape for something that likely will not ever happen considering it hasnt happened yet?

[The_Squid]

FYI

Minister Kenney will never even see your letter.... it will be answered by his out-of-control bureaucracy with his name stamped on it...

Policy is subjective and bureaucrats tend to push the envelope since it's self serving to maintain their positions and numbers. There is not to my knowledge any previous ruling that would support their ruling.

It will likely be

A) over turned on appeal

become a benchmark or criterion for thousands of other applicants.

I doubt Kenny would find this decision acceptable.

You are speculating that this is not gov't policy and that bureaucrats are running amok..

Edited June 24, 2013 by The_Squid

[dre]

I probably shouldnt have used squid in this manner , so apologies for that.I didnt see any poor english either.

But the point remains.....the gates have been open for some time now, decades even, and no flood has come thru.

So , why get bent out of shape for something that likely will not ever happen considering it hasnt happened yet?

Thats the thing... even based on a conservative reading of our immigration policy there are BILLIONS of potential refugees out there. Now theres an extra few hundred million I guess, but the reality is we wont allow more immigration than we need to maintain a growth economy.

[guyser]

Thats the thing... even based on a conservative reading of our immigration policy there are BILLIONS of potential refugees out there. Now theres an extra few hundred million I guess, but the reality is we wont allow more immigration than we need to maintain a growth economy.

Some want to focus on the billions while I prefer the actual numbers who make the effort and show up.

IOW...nothing to worry about.

[Guest Peeves]

Some want to focus on the billions while I prefer the actual numbers who make the effort and show up.

IOW...nothing to worry about.

There have been numerous refugee claimants from Hungary that have been processed and either denied or never showed up, or that simply went home. Any idea of the thousands of costs to deal with phony refugees like those? That cost is born by you and me,the tax payer.

So indeed it is something to worry about.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/12/14/pol-immigration-safe-third-countries-dco-kenney.html

Excerpt;

Kenney said that EU countries have been the number 1 source of asylum claims in the past three years, more from Hungary than from Iran, China or North Korea combined.

Kenney said that 98 per cent of Hungarian refugee claimants around the world choose to make their claims in Canada though they have unrestricted, visa-free access to dozens of countries around the world.

"Virtually none of them turn out to be well-founded," he said.

Kenney said that the majority of Hungarian refugee are rejected by the Immigration and Refugee Board, or withdraw or abandon their claims, or do not show up for hearings.

[guyser]

Any idea of the thousands of costs to deal with phony refugees like those?

No, got any figures to look at?

That cost is born by you and me,the tax payer.

So indeed it is something to worry about.

True, but still not something for me to worry about.

[AlienB]

I dont know what you are talking about, the reality is the resources mean nothing unless they are being utilized which means a lot of time and money spend to build up the infrastructure to be able to utilize the resources.

As for the rest I think you need to review what a refugee actually is and try to stay on topic, this is a topic that does not necessarily deal with sex offenders and their sexual organs. You sound suspiciously like shortived/login...

I think we do not see development and resource utilization the same way. You seem to can this in with expenses and poorly managed programs. That is the framework of bad government, and it is unfortunate that is the box you are looking at. It is not the right box, nor is it creative, inventive, nor beneficial to the public to think that way.

Oh I think you need to review what a refugee actually is and try to stay on topic, because you are the one missing the boat.

I've already directed you to the international and Canadian rulings, if there is some document I am missing or havn't provided by all means provide it.

Since it seems you have ingored my links I'll post another to dumb this down for you.

http://www.unhcr.org/3d58e13b4.html

Edited June 24, 2013 by AlienB

[Guest Peeves]

FYI

Minister Kenney will never even see your letter.... it will be answered by his out-of-control bureaucracy with his name stamped on it...

You are speculating that this is not gov't policy and that bureaucrats are running amok..

No, I'm suggesting this case, this specific case is too imho, frivolous and all too encompassing to have been granted. I referred specifically to this case. You on the other hand are attributing unfounded accusations that suggest I condemned all bureaucrats. I condemned this specific decision.

Now if you continue to exaggerate, obfuscate and accuse without supportive facts I shall challenge you to a duel. Probably with logomachy., so be careful.

I was not speculating. Show me where. I am suggesting the term of refugee has been extrapolated beyond rational or reasonable tests for acceptance.

Restriction to reproduction has not been a criterion so far as I know till now.

See below.

Safe Third Country Agreement

Canada has an agreement with the United States where people who want to make a refugee claim must do so in the first safe country they arrive in. This means that if you enter Canada at a land border from the United States, you cannot make a refugee claim in Canada. In some cases this rule does not apply (for example, if you have family in Canada).

Definitions

You may find the following definitions useful as you learn more about refugee claims in Canada.

Convention refugee

Convention refugees are people who are outside their home country or the country where they normally live, and who are unwilling to return because of a well-founded fear of persecution based on:

• race;
• religion;
• political opinion;
• nationality; or
• membership in a particular social group, such as women or people of a particular sexual orientation.

Person in need of protection

A person in need of protection is a person in Canada whose removal to their home country or country where they normally live would subject them personally to:

• a danger of torture;
• a risk to their life; or
• a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

[Michael Hardner]

The religion is the issue in the Burmese reference, that's where and why it was a to be considered, not by me, by the Burmese. If a case could be made in the Chinese case it might well be made in a case for a claimant of refugee status because of the Burmese restriction on another religions birth rate. Do you go looking for red herrings or just fall over them.

No. I'm just wondering why we have to explicitly state the religion. There are enough false arguments made against that religion on these boards to justify my suspicion, I think.