The cost of Migrants

[Machjo]

We 'won' our case. All charges have been dismissed and she's now free to stay in Canada for the six months that she was originally allowed. The IRB judge ruled that the police and CBSA officers had made no effort to collect proof of her innocence that her counsel had been able to collect cheaply and with ease.

My conclusion: this lack of attempt on the part of the police and the CBSA cost the taxpayer and us out of pocket much money for nothing, and wasted much of our time.

We're still debating suing, but leaning against it because of all the time and money it would involve.

But requiring the CBSA to respect the right to protection from arbitrary detention and to the presumption of innocence would have saved the taxpayer much money. I guess this proves that cutting corners doesn't pay and costs the taxpayer even more in hearings.

[Rue]

Machjo I have no idea what case you are referring to. Further more the IRB has no judges. I doubt as well they ruled the police or CBSA had a duty to prove someone innocent, anyone. The IRB does not determine if someone is innocent, just whether they are entitled to refugee status. You appear to be inferring something from a decision an IRB adjudicator rendered but you seem to be misunderstanding basic legal terms and procedures.

As well your belief you can sue police or CBSA officers which you appear to be intimating is also probably based on further misunderstandings.

To sue any government, board or agency and its employees for fettering their discretion as its referred to is not likely. If you are claiming a tort, you would have to establish they had a standard of care they did not follow. This brings us back to your comment that police and CBSA have a duty to prove refugees innocent what ever that means because it makes no sense the way you posted it.

[Machjo]

Machjo I have no idea what case you are referring to. Further more the IRB has no judges. I doubt as well they ruled the police or CBSA had a duty to prove someone innocent, anyone. The IRB does not determine if someone is innocent, just whether they are entitled to refugee status. You appear to be inferring something from a decision an IRB adjudicator rendered but you seem to be misunderstanding basic legal terms and procedures.

As well your belief you can sue police or CBSA officers which you appear to be intimating is also probably based on further misunderstandings.

To sue any government, board or agency and its employees for fettering their discretion as its referred to is not likely. If you are claiming a tort, you would have to establish they had a standard of care they did not follow. This brings us back to your comment that police and CBSA have a duty to prove refugees innocent what ever that means because it makes no sense the way you posted it.

I'm referring to my fiancée's case. I don't know the official title (maybe adjudicator), but we always referred to him as the judge. Our case involved a charge of working in Canada without authorization and us fighting a deportation order. She was and is here as a tourist allowed in the country for six months at a time.

You are correct that deportation orders for foreign tourists charged with working or studying without a visa (as is the status of my fiancée at present) rarely make it to the IRB for the following reasons:

1. few will bother fighting it due to the lawyer fees involved just to stay in Canada for a few months,

2. the fact that they can reenter after one or two years without special permission and can easily obtain permission after marriage with a Canadian national,

3. the fact that they are arrested, detained and deported without being informed of their right to a lawyer or given the chance to contact one, and

4. due to 3 above, will not obtain a lawyer unless someone outside of detention obtain one for them,

thus making it pointless from the standpoint of any material benefit; but we decided to fight it on principle.

You are also correct that the IRB judges not on the basis of the presumption of innocence (requiring the CBSA to prove her guilt) but rather on the basis of a balance of probabilities (effectively requiring her to prove the probability of her innocence beyond the probability of her guilt), thus giving the CBSA a significant advantage over her at the hearing. Even with such a low burden of proof required, the CBSA still has to present something to show at least a probability of the accusation being true. They failed to meet even that low standard.

As for a public tort, you are correct that the negligence demonstrated by the police must be significant, which could be difficult to prove (another reason she is reconsidering suing at present).

However, had the police and CBSA made a small attempt to collect evidence at the scene, they would have saved the taxpayer a lot of money in fighting us at an IRB hearing only to lose their case. How exactly did all of this taxpayer money benefit the taxpayer?

[Hal 9000]

Well, if we vote in Trudeau or Mulcair, we'll kiss their asses while they run through the streets beating and murdering people like whats happening in France right now. Go check out what the lefties were saying 10 years ago in France and UK, and have a real good look at whats happening now. France is a time bomb.

I hate to say it....but!

BTW - This is not a gloat. I'm getting really f***** angry that people can't see the writing on the wall. I'm really pissed about what happened in Paris.

[edited for profanity by Michael Hardner]

Edited November 15, 2015 by Michael Hardner

[Michael Hardner]

Why do you think people can't read the writing on the wall.

[msj]

What is the writing on the wall?

The fact that ISIS doesn't want refugees going to the west and having those people realize that Islam, like so many other religions, is garbage and so they become secularized and normal human beings again?

Some of those people may return to the motherland and bring back bad ideas like: secular law, atheism, human rights etc etc.

I'd be fearful of that too if I were a Islamist.

[eyeball]

I hate to say it....but!

BTW - This is not a gloat. I'm getting really f***** angry that people can't see the writing on the wall. I'm really pissed about what happened in Paris.

[edited for profanity by Michael Hardner]

I felt this way 15 years or more ago, when it was painfully obvious how the future was bound to unfold as a result of wading ever deeper into the quagmire. I'm just sad about what happened.

[msj]

I felt this way 15 years or more ago, when it was painfully obvious how the future was bound to unfold as a result of wading ever deeper into the quagmire. I'm just sad about what happened.

Ah, sad, yes.

Also funny given that Bush/Cheney are practically founding members of ISIS.

[eyeball]

Why do you think people can't read the writing on the wall.

Because the writing is backwards. We insist on viewing attacks like this as a cause instead of an effect. Our fundamental view of things is grounded on a misperception of reality and so we are flailing around in abject ignorance. Another example of cause and effect.

Edited November 15, 2015 by eyeball

[eyeball]

What is the writing on the wall?

The fact that ISIS doesn't want refugees going to the west and having those people realize that Islam, like so many other religions, is garbage and so they become secularized and normal human beings again?

Some of those people may return to the motherland and bring back bad ideas like: secular law, atheism, human rights etc etc.

I'd be fearful of that too if I were a Islamist.

I suggested for years that we should have been bringing back as many plane loads of little girls and boys from Afghanistan for this very reason. So we could send them back to rescue the place.

Further to that we should have started rescuing the easier countries first so we could get better at it and figure out how to do it right and start building a truly international force with the mission of uplifting humanity from the dark ages.

Maybe one day even the super-powers would start to come around.

[Michael Hardner]

Because the writing is backwards. We insist on viewing attacks like this as a cause instead of an effect. Our fundamental view of things is grounded on a misperception of reality and so we are flailing around in abject ignorance. Another example of cause and effect.

The question wasn't for you, and in any case - you answered a new question out of your head.

The poster I was speaking to seemed to indicate that there was something people missed when considering voting for Trudeau.

You're speaking generally about how we see these issues, which is not at all what we were discussing.

[eyeball]

No, the answer I gave is spot on.

What you're discussing is predicated on and stems from a false perception of reality.

[Michael Hardner]

Since the other poster didn't answer - you are jumping forward to a conclusion.

[Michael Hardner]

I'm getting really f***** angry that people can't see the writing on the wall.

Hal - what did you mean by that please ?