Emigration policy?

[Canada_First]

Hong Kong SAR.

A dirty crowded crap hole. Enjoy yourself there. I like my wide open spaces too much to live in a city full if people. Crime and pollution.

[Machjo]

Sorry, what? We're xenophobic because we bring hundreds of thousands of foreigners here every year to live with us, almost all of them from completely different types of societies and cultures, with different languages and beliefs? How is this evidence we're xenophobic? Isn't it evidence we're NOT?

You're typing from statistics. I'm typing from experience.

My fiancée was arrested and detained for extradition this summer on false charges.

One of the CBSA's claims as 'evidence' noted in its official statement were that she did not know my family name, that she did not know my address, and that she could not name a single local tourist attraction. She had proven all of those charges to have been false at the bond hearing. In fact, that was the main reason for which I was allowed to pay her bond.

At her admissibility hearing recently, the CBSA hearings officer had contradicted the intercepting officer's original statement.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. The entire official report has more holes in it than Swiss cheese and confirms itself that not only did the CBSA not even so much as offered to collect evidence, but did not do so even when my fiancée had requested that it be done! And though her lawyer has no doubt that we will win the case (she herself was shocked at the negligence of the CBSA in this case), let's not forget that the process itself is punishment ebiugh.

We can't blame just some bad apples here. Given that the screw ups worked their way through the intercepting officer to the CBSA officer and on up the libe, clearly ww're talking of a structural problem within the organization itself.

How does one explain such carelessness in arresting and detaining a person for extradition like a piece of meat with no regard for whether she might be innocent of the charges against her, with no offer to collect evidence, with no interest in collecting evidence when requested to do so (even the CBSA's own official notes identified my name and correct phone number which my fiancée had voluntarily given them and they never even bothered to call me to corroborate her story!) and, worse yet, writing false statements into the notes and never informing her of her right to counsel! I found her a lawyer.

Even without proper education or training, basic human compassion should have compelled someone along the line to at least accept her request to collect some proof. For crying out loud! SHE was asking the CBSA to collect proof! They never even got a statement from a witness even though their own official notes stated that there were witbesses. Though the names of the witnesses are blanked out in our copy of their official notes, it clearly states that the police had identified those witnesses, at least some of these witnesses are probably still in Canada, and they still don't have one single witness statement. No video, nothing!

Her lawyer asked that the intercepting officer and CBSA interrogator attend the hearing for questionning, but they were not required to do so. To add insult to injury, the CBSA hearings officer asked her at her hearing why the officer had written what he'd written. She blew up in anger saying she wanted to know the answer to that too and that that is why she'd asked that they apoear! She was so posse the judge had to remind her to calm down and rebuked the CBSA hearings officer for such a stupid question.

If the CBSA had any sense of human compassion, it would have been very careful about making false statements! If the Canadian Government had any sense of comoassion, it would have introduced oversight to the CBSA to prevent such occurrences.

Si yes, if Canada shows so little consideration for foreign nationals as to make false statements about them in official notes and not even try to corroborate them with evidence, then yes, Canada is xenophobic.

[Argus]

You're typing from statistics. I'm typing from experience.

No, you're using an isolated incident involving one person and bureacry to show the whole country is xenophobic. I'm pointing out that in reality, if the country was xenophobic we wouldn't be allowing any immigration, much less immigration from countries so different from ours, much less so much of it.

[Machjo]

A dirty crowded crap hole. Enjoy yourself there. I like my wide open spaces too much to live in a city full if people. Crime and pollution.

I will, thanks.

[Machjo]

By the way, violent crime rates per capita are quite low in Hong Kong plus Hong Kong respects due process thanks to the British system.

[Machjo]

No, you're using an isolated incident involving one person and bureacry to show the whole country is xenophobic. I'm pointing out that in reality, if the country was xenophobic we wouldn't be allowing any immigration, much less immigration from countries so different from ours, much less so much of it.

So you consider lack of due process as just being a little bureaucracy?

[Argus]

So you consider lack of due process as just being a little bureaucracy?

Give me a break. We have so much due process it took us a decade to boot out a serial killer who came in illegally. We've been trying to expel some guys, terrorists and criminals both, for many years now without success.

[Machjo]

Give me a break. We have so much due process it took us a decade to boot out a serial killer who came in illegally. We've been trying to expel some guys, terrorists and criminals both, for many years now without success.

I admit that just last year I could have typed exactly what you just typed. But now having witnessed first hand how a police officer can essentially record whatever the hell he wants according to his whims and fancies, has it ever crossed your mind that they might only be alleged killers, terrorists, and criminals?

Certainly if the proof was solid, there should be no provlem, right?.

Or are you saying that mere suspicion on the part of a grumpy officer who had an argument with his wife the night before should suffice?

From my own observations, at least three statements recorded in my fiancée's record had been confirmed by the judge to have been false at her bond hearing. Not that the CBSA could not prove their veraxity, but rather that my fiancée had conclusively proven their falsehood before the judge. How did false statements slip into such a record?

If CBSA agents can prove such negligence, do you really trust the CBSA without due process?

[Machjo]

If you were arrested for a crime, would you appreciate it if someone suggested eliminating due process so that you could be punished sooner without any proof of guilt?

[drummindiver]

I admit that just last year I could have typed exactly what you just typed. But now having witnessed first hand how a police officer can essentially record whatever the hell he wants according to his whims and fancies, has it ever crossed your mind that they might only be alleged killers, terrorists, and criminals?

Certainly if the proof was solid, there should be no provlem, right?.

Or are you saying that mere suspicion on the part of a grumpy officer who had an argument with his wife the night before should suffice?

From my own observations, at least three statements recorded in my fiancée's record had been confirmed by the judge to have been false at her bond hearing. Not that the CBSA could not prove their veraxity, but rather that my fiancée had conclusively proven their falsehood before the judge. How did false statements slip into such a record?

If CBSA agents can prove such negligence, do you really trust the CBSA without due process?

If the judge agrees that your fiance is so innocent, what's the problem?

If the CBSA are proven liars, why is your fiance not free?

There's a lot about your story I don't understand.

[Machjo]

If the judge agrees that your fiance is so innocent, what's the problem?

If the CBSA are proven liars, why is your fiance not free?

There's a lot about your story I don't understand.

The errors identified at the bond hearing are what compelled the judge to allow me to pay bond, so she is out of detention now. However, since it was an IRB hearing and not a regular criminal hearing, the presumption of innocence does not apply, but rather the balance of probabilities. In other words, even though three points in the official CBSA statement were proven to be false, the onus is not on the CBSA to prove the rest of the statement to be true, but on my fiancée to prove it to be false!

Now we're going through the admissibility hearing, but through the IRB which bases its decision on the balance of probabilities, a much lower standard of proof than the presumption of innocence required in criminal court. In short, to circumvent the presumption of innocence, the government does not classify working in Canada without a visa to be a criminal offence, the hearing being merely an administrative matter and thus exempted from the presumption of innocence and other aspects of due process even if she can be arbitrarily detained.

Weasel words as far as I'm concerned, but then again, I'm not a lawyer. It's ironic that had she been charged with human trafficking or some other criminal offence, she'd have more rights than for the minor offence for which she was charged since then the presumption of innocence and due process and protection from arbitrary detention would have applied and she would have had the right to a trial in a standard public court. Plus she could not have initially been detained due to the lack of evidence. Thinking back on it, maybe she should have confessed to human trafficking there and then to guarantee her Charter rights, but then they would likely have charged her with making a false statement or something of the sort. You just can't win.

The bond hearing was weeks ago, thus leaving us in limbo and wasting our time going to the CBSA office twice a week for her to sign in. The first admissibility hearing was a few days ago with the CBSA hearings officer wasting time asking all kinds of irrelevant questions, resulting in it having to be extended to some other time maybe next week or later, thus still leaving us in limbo and having to go to the CBSA office twice a week.

Yes we know we will win. We are not yet sure if we'll be able to sue.

But as I said earlier, the process itself is the punishment. In other words, the CBSA can make whatever accusation it wants, and the IRB bases its decision on a balance of probabilities, essentially meaning assumption of guilt. The onus is therefore on her to prove her innocence, meaning having to hire a lawyer, collect my alibi statement, photos, etc. All of which cost time, money, and frustration, to prove her innocence. To sue would require the additional step of proving that her rights were violated, and even then sufficiently enough to warrant compensation. And since a foreign national does not have the right to due process except at a criminal hearing, it may be determined that by such standards, her rights were not sufficiently violated to warrant compensation, leaving the CBSA to do it to another victim if it wants to. Again, by the standards of a criminal charge, it would be a serious violation of her Charter rights to protection from arbitrary detention, the right to the presumption of innocence, the right to retain and instruct counsel and be informed of that right. But because it's not criminal, those don't apply.

So yes she will win, but only after all of that hassle, money (thousands already because she wants to fight it on principle), and time, all because some police officer opined that she was guilty and did not even bother to check the evidence and a CBSA officer took the police officer's word as gospel likewise without checking for evidence.

[Machjo]

What some people don't realize is that on Canada, while a criminal charge comes with the presumption of innocence, an admissibility hearing is based on the balance of probabilities. A foreign national could be acquitted of a crime in criminal court due to lack of evidence but still be ordered extradited or deported by the IRB due to a balance of probabilities.

Edited September 12, 2015 by Machjo

[Machjo]

And the biggest problem with a balance of probabilities is its subjectivity, to be eine and determined according to the judge's opinion essentially and not on hard evidence and witness statements.

[Smallc]

foreign national could be acquitted of a crime in criminal court due to lack of evidence but still be ordered extradited or deported by the IRB due to a balance of probabilities.

Good?

[Machjo]

Good?

Of course it's not good because balance of probabilities is far more subjective, not requiring concrete proof but rather the judge's opinion based on what is available.

As a result, whereas lack of evidence would force a criminal judge to dismiss the case out of hand, it requires the IRB judge to force a hearing for the accused to prove his innocence. Even if he can prove his innocence and has no doubt that he can, he still has to go through the costly process of doing so, the onus being on him to prove the charge to be false.

Worse yet, since he has no right to the presumption of innocence, suing for compensation is extremely difficult short of gross incompetence or negligence on the part of the CBSA. That's the part we're uncertain if. We can prove negligence on the part of the CBSA, but maybe not enough to sue as would have been the case for a criminal charge.

[Machjo]

As far as I'm concerned, the CBSA should not be allowed to detain anyone except on a criminal charge. If it warrants detention, then must logically warrant a criminal charge. If it does not warrant a criminal charge, then how can it warrant detention?

If working in Canada without a visa warrange detention for extradition, then it should be recognized as a criminal charge with all of the rights that go with it. To grant the CBSA the power to detain without laying a criminal charge allows the CBSA to abuse its power and weasel out of it. It can detain someone for extradition and say that it's just an administrative matter and therefore due process and the right to the presumption of innocence don't apply.

[Smallc]

Of course it's not good because balance of probabilities is far more subjective, not requiring concrete proof but rather the judge's opinion based on what is available.

And that's a good thing. We have to be very selective about who we let into Canada. Sending someone home is not the same as locking them away.

[Machjo]

And that's a good thing. We have to be very selective about who we let into Canada. Sending someone home is not the same as locking them away.

But there is a difference between sending someone home and detaining them with the intention of sending them home.

The detention process itself is expensive to taxpayers. Now the CBSA had cut off her access to the outside world during her detention and had never expected someone on the outside to find her a lawyer, though they should have. She had given them my name and phone number and they never bothered calling it. Their own official notes confirm that they had my correct phone number.

Since I'd found her a lawyer, they had to have a bond hearing, again expensive to taxpayers.

Since they had recorded false statements in their records that my fiancée had proven to be false, the judge had no choice but to grant bond, and I paid it.

Then there is the admissibility hearing, again expensive to taxpayers.

And because my fiancée has plenty of evidence to prove her innocence, we will win, forcing the judge to dismiss the case. All of that money spent because the CBSA decided to be negligent in its duties and she will still be here.

And here's the worst part. She was planning on leaving Canada in November at the latest anyway. So all of that taxpayer money spent to extradite her at taxpayers' expense in August only to fail to do so due to negligence when she was planning on leaving by the end of November at the latest anyway.

Worse yet, this policy designed to protect Canadians wasted taxpayer dollars for nothing and drained this Canadian of his finances, all money that could have been saved had the police and the CBSA collected evidence as requested. The evidence would have cleared her name within minutes of her interception. A few witness statements and a phone call to an alibi would have sufficed. Heck, even DNA and fingerprint collection would have been less expensive and faster! Or cheaper yet, a plain-clothed undercover officer with a hidden video camera. With that she she would not have bothered fighting her extradition had she been guilty and the police would never have detained her if innocent. How much would a simple video have cost, really?

Her case proves that neglecting to collect evidence to save money does not in fact save money but makes the process even more expensive.

We're planning on marrying in January, and she'll be legally allowed to work in Canada within three months after that.

So all of this hell accomplished nothing but impoverished government coffers, our coffers, and she can still come here. Add to that that her respect for Canadian human rights have gone down the tube as have mine. She has money and contacts in Hong Kong who already know her situation. How do you think word of this kind of thing will affect Canada's tourism industry? She used to operate a bag factory with her ex-husband and had written articles for Hong Kong papers in the past. Her brother owns a villa which he rents out for money and is surrounded by influential contacts in Hubei. Her father is a retired senior engineer with contacts of his own. Even if her experience costs Canada only a handful of tourists, that is a few tourists less. Now multiply that by the number of innocents who have likely been extradited all because a CBSA officer neglected to check a simple piece of evidence, in some cases maybe needing nothing more than a witness statement to prove a person's innocence.

She has no need to be in Canada. She came here only to be with me temporarily. We were initially planning on moving to Hong Kong and marrying there in January but she is now considering opening a business in Canada instead to give my mother time to adjust, so now planning on marrying in Canada in January.

So what did all this accomplish that could not have been accomplished at far less cost by a simple plain-clothed undercover police officer with a hidden video camera and without harassing the innocent?

Or was I traitor to the Reich for having gotten her a lawyer and not allowed her extradition on bogus charges to go as planned? You tell me.

[Machjo]

By the way, we could marry tomorrow to get this all over with, but because of the nature of the allegations against her (I'm telling only half he story which is horrible enough), she does not want to marry me with a gun to her head and wants to go through with this to clear her nane. She used to suffer depression and some symptoms of PTSD in the past. It has all come back because of this and she will see a therapist the moment she returns to Hong Kong, all because of CBSA incompetence.

[-1=e^ipi]

Wow, that sounds completely messed up.

Hopefully you find happiness in Hong Kong.

[Machjo]

Wow, that sounds completely messed up.

Hopefully you find happiness in Hong Kong.

Thanks.

She'll be heading there by the end of November, and I in December. We'll be returning in January to marry in Canada. Another reason to fight this is to ensure she's not turned away at the airport by some snotty officer because he feels like it.

Edited September 13, 2015 by Machjo