Asylum System "not sustainable" - Immigration Minister

[Centerpiece]

Definition of "crisis":

1) A time of intense difficulty, trouble or danger 

2) A time when a difficult or important decision must be made

If the illegal border crossings are not a crisis, what is? It's not about compassion, it's not about racism - it's not even about money. It's about competently managing our borders and reserving capacity - or increasing it - for those devastated souls who truly seek asylum and want to come to Canada. We need to do our share but the days of the Federal Government dumping refugees on Provinces after one year must end. There needs to be a coordinated, longer term program to help integrate true refugee families. And there needs to be an accelerated screening/evaluation process that leads to speedy acceptance or removal. It's called a strategy - followed by a plan - followed by operational competence. 

Times have changed - we need our government to change with them.

Quote

 

Sergio Karas, an immigration lawyer and analyst, called Hussen’s letter “an admission of failure … by the Liberal government,” and said the existing system wasn’t designed to accommodate the current volume of asylum claims.

“I honestly do not understand how it is that the federal government can look the people of Canada in the eye and say that the system works,” he said. “Because the system has collapsed.”

 

Link: https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/canadas-backlogged-asylum-system-is-not-sustainable-immigration-minister-says-in-leaked-letter

[scribblet]

It's never been about 'racism', that's the narrative the Liberals put forward to deflect from their own incompetence and ineptitude.  

[Michael Hardner]

49 minutes ago, Centerpiece said:

  There needs to be a coordinated, longer term program to help integrate true refugee families. And there needs to be an accelerated screening/evaluation process that leads to speedy acceptance or removal. It's called a strategy - followed by a plan - followed by operational competence. 

Times have changed - we need our government to change with them.

Well said. I would agree that it's more of a crisis in national dialogue and collective problem-solving than the immigration problem.  In the past - for good and bad - we had media consensus on what was important and relied on that to feed our discussion.  There is now, objectively, a growing gulf in what mainstream sources prioritize.  

I am striving to describe this problem in objective terms here and that's how I want to discuss the problem of coverage.  I wrote this elsewhere:

Quote

We are now down to 4 ways to talk about immigration:

- How will it play in the election ?
- Anybody who brings up immigration is racist 
- Anybody who brings up talking about immigration being racist is anti-free speech 
- The Muslims/Chinese/Jews/Blacks are destroying white society

I think anybody who wants to talk about THE problem needs to be separated from those who want to talk about election strategy, or moralizing on either side, or actual racists.

[Argus]

The problem of the asylum system is the problem of the legal system. Since the Supreme Court gave asylum claimants full Charter rights they have complete paid access to our legal system. And our legal system is a damned mess. That's why asylum claims can drag on for years through the courts, through one appeal after another. All of them paid for by us, while we pay for the asylum seeker's food, health care and shelter.

I cannot see how to solve this without either 1) passing new legislation governing asylum seekers and using the notwithstanding clause to exempt it from the constitution, or 2) completely reforming the legal system.

[Michael Hardner]

4 minutes ago, Argus said:

The problem of the asylum system is the problem of the legal system. Since the Supreme Court gave asylum claimants full Charter rights they have complete paid access to our legal system. And our legal system is a damned mess.  

I agree.  People have lots of theories why we don't talk about immigration but what about the legal system ?

[scribblet]

I seem to remember Immigration Minister Hussen saying that calling Canada's border-crossing issue a crisis was racist?- well – I guess  he's a racist saying our system is unsustainable.     

MP Michelle Rempel  has been putting out the facts but the Liberals  only chose to spin and smear, a tactic which is ethically unsound and shows how they don’t want us to know the truth.

 Could this be a prelude to an amnesty cos Trudeau’s strategy of calling people racist isn’t going to work anymore. 

[Centerpiece]

58 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well said. I would agree that it's more of a crisis in national dialogue and collective problem-solving than the immigration problem.  In the past - for good and bad - we had media consensus on what was important and relied on that to feed our discussion.  There is now, objectively, a growing gulf in what mainstream sources prioritize.  

I am striving to describe this problem in objective terms here and that's how I want to discuss the problem of coverage.  I wrote this elsewhere:

I think anybody who wants to talk about THE problem needs to be separated from those who want to talk about election strategy, or moralizing on either side, or actual racists.

You're doing OK - but it's critical that we define the problem as an Asylum problem. Immigration - people who want and plan to come to Canada and follow the process for acceptance - is fairly well controlled with a points system that accepts those that have a fighting chance for making a contribution to Canada. There's room for argument on some of the components - like elderly family re-unification but all in all, it has worked reasonably well.

It's vital that the "national dialogue" focus and remain on Asylum seekers at our borders - that's the problem that Canadians see - as it is in Europe and even the US. Liberals want the conversation to encompass immigration so they can paint any opposition as the bad guys - racists. They need that manufactured conflict to divert attention from their incompetence. We needed to get out in front of it and so far, we've failed miserably.

Edited August 25, 2018 by Centerpiece

[Argus]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I agree.  People have lots of theories why we don't talk about immigration but what about the legal system ?

The only people who have the first idea about how to do a major reform of the legal system are lawyers, who largely have a financial interest in keeping it the way it is; complex and time consuming. When you charge by the hour you have little incentive to speed things along.

If false asylum claims were denied within a week or two, and people shipped out of Canada, far fewer would show up to take advantage of an unwieldy system which promises years in Canada on government allowance before any decision can be made.

That's why I think the only thing to do is pass new legislation under the Notwithstanding clause, put new claimants into a nice camp, give them hearings within a week or two, and then deport those that fail to meet stringent standards.

Edited August 25, 2018 by Argus

[-TSS-]

Has there been a lot of Venezuelans arriving in Canada lately as refugees? After all, Venezuela is the Zimbabwe of South-America. The reason for the dismal state of both countries is the same: lunatic version of socialism.

[Centerpiece]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

The only people who have the first idea about how to do a major reform of the legal system are lawyers, who largely have a financial interest in keeping it the way it is; complex and time consuming. When you charge by the hour you have little incentive to speed things along.

 

Here's an interesting breakdown of professions within Party affiliation. Liberals by far have the most lawyers....... have a bit of fun with it......

Link: https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/election/election-analysis-most-common-occupations-for-candidates-in-each-party-1.2602533

[taxme]

7 hours ago, scribblet said:

I seem to remember Immigration Minister Hussen saying that calling Canada's border-crossing issue a crisis was racist?- well – I guess  he's a racist saying our system is unsustainable.     

MP Michelle Rempel  has been putting out the facts but the Liberals  only chose to spin and smear, a tactic which is ethically unsound and shows how they don’t want us to know the truth.

 Could this be a prelude to an amnesty cos Trudeau’s strategy of calling people racist isn’t going to work anymore. 

Oh shit, I don't think that you should have said that word "amnesty" here. If that prime mistake of yours sees and reads this it may well be what he will try to do next and allow everyone who enters Canada illegally could or would get amnesty for all. You need to take that post back now before that fool sees it. Just saying. 

Edited August 25, 2018 by taxme

[scribblet]

I'll bet they are thinking about it.   The Conservatives passed a resolution at the convention:

 Resolution that Conservative Policy as government will be to renegotiate the Safe Third Country Agreement with the U.S. to close the gaps relating to illegal entries in Canada PASSES. CPC18

[Michael Hardner]

10 hours ago, Centerpiece said:

1) There's room for argument on some of the components - like elderly family re-unification but all in all, it has worked reasonably well.

2) It's vital that the "national dialogue" focus and remain on Asylum seekers at our borders - that's the problem that Canadians see - as it is in Europe and even the US. 

1) If it's about fairness I can understand that.

2) The scale of the problem, though, is a question for me.

[Michael Hardner]

6 hours ago, Argus said:

1) The only people who have the first idea about how to do a major reform of the legal system are lawyers, who largely have a financial interest in keeping it the way it is; complex and time consuming. When you charge by the hour you have little incentive to speed things along.

2) If false asylum claims were denied within a week or two, and people shipped out of Canada, far fewer would show up to take advantage of an unwieldy system which promises years in Canada on government allowance before any decision can be made.

3) That's why I think the only thing to do is pass new legislation under the Notwithstanding clause, put new claimants into a nice camp, give them hearings within a week or two, and then deport those that fail to meet stringent standards.

1) That's too cynical a view of the system.  It would have always been broken if that's the case.  No system can be regulated to the Nth degree - every system relies on some level of altruism and trust.

2) If my aunt had balls she would be my uncle as the saying goes.  But ok...

3) Your solution is pretty simplistic but ok...

[Centerpiece]

10 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) If it's about fairness I can understand that.

2) The scale of the problem, though, is a question for me.

2) My point is that it's the Asylum/Border system that is the problem. It was not designed to account for illegal crossers and there was never an issue at legal border crossings because of the safe third country agreement.  This government will not even admit that there is a serious issue on several levels.. 

As for the "scale", again - that is limited to the Asylum process. The scale of formal immigration is a political decision. Too much, too little or just right - The Three Bears........but it is unrelated to the Asylum process even though the Liberals would like to muddy the waters to tar their opponents. 

[Michael Hardner]

9 minutes ago, Centerpiece said:

 As for the "scale", again - that is limited to the Asylum process. The scale of formal immigration is a political decision. Too much, too little or just right - The Three Bears........but it is unrelated to the Asylum process even though the Liberals would like to muddy the waters to tar their opponents. 

I am asking about the scale of the border crossing problem.  Is it subsiding ?

[scribblet]

According to this, it is increasing and what's to say there won't be another wave from Venezuela.  There re allready some in Manitoba.  Mind you, they are fleeing real problems.   https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/venezuela-family-altona-refugee-status-manitoba-1.4258148

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-illegal-border-crossings-from-us-increase-by-nearly-23-per-cent-from/

 

[Centerpiece]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

I am asking about the scale of the border crossing problem.  Is it subsiding ?

Doesn't seem like it - looks like we might have a new normal.Trudeau made his infamous Tweet in January, 2017. Prior to 2017, there are no similar figures for "RCMP interventions", indicating the issue was not a major one. Note that these statistics provide separate numbers for port-of-entry claims.

2017: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/refugees/asylum-claims-2017.html

2018: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/refugees/asylum-claims.html

[turningrite]

23 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I agree.  People have lots of theories why we don't talk about immigration but what about the legal system ?

Unlike the immigration system, the legal system isn't run by government. It's run by a system of largely autonomous self-regulating bodies called "law societies" that are concerned primarily with the interests of their own members rather than with the broader public interest.

[Argus]

14 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) That's too cynical a view of the system.  It would have always been broken if that's the case. 

Who is going to break it?

14 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2) If my aunt had balls she would be my uncle as the saying goes.  But ok...

Specious nonsense. The point I'm making is that a lot of these asylum seekers are drawn to the perceived disorganized and lax screening, being told by those here that they are guaranteed years, at a minimum, in Canada, on government assistance. Why would they not come if the alternative is living in a shithole? In the same manner, if the Europeans had immediately shipped back the first ships full of asylum seekers there'd have been no further ships of asylum seekers.  

14 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

3) Your solution is pretty simplistic but ok...

It is the only solution I can see other than a complete reforming of the legal system. The current Tory mantra of renegotiating the safe third country agreement with the US seems doomed to failure. What benefit do you imagine a Trump administration would see in preventing third world asylum claimants from leaving?

[Argus]

On 8/25/2018 at 11:38 AM, Centerpiece said:

You're doing OK - but it's critical that we define the problem as an Asylum problem. Immigration - people who want and plan to come to Canada and follow the process for acceptance - is fairly well controlled with a points system that accepts those that have a fighting chance for making a contribution to Canada. There's room for argument on some of the components - like elderly family re-unification but all in all, it has worked reasonably well.

If 49% of Canadians feel immigration is too high I wouldn't presume that they're all referencing border crossers. Besides, you actually have no idea how well immigration has served Canada because you have no basis for comparison. What would Canada be like today if we had not opened up immigration to the third world in the 1970s and then tripled and quadrupled and quintupled immigration since then? Less people, certainly. Less crowded. But would it be a worse place to live or not? And on what criteria would you make such a decision? Fewer shawarma restaurants?

The fact is we've had no independent analyses of the benefits of immigration in the last fifty years. The program itself has no guidelines to measure success and no goals. So on what basis can you say it has 'worked reasonably well'?

Edited August 26, 2018 by Argus

[taxme]

15 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) That's too cynical a view of the system.  It would have always been broken if that's the case.  No system can be regulated to the Nth degree - every system relies on some level of altruism and trust.

2) If my aunt had balls she would be my uncle as the saying goes.  But ok...

3) Your solution is pretty simplistic but ok...

1. The system"IS" broken. Hello. Lawyers and politicians are the problem. They both try and complicate the system just to keep we the people at bay and confused with all of their fine dozens of pages long print of rules and regulations and agreements and contracts which the average guy/gal has a real problem trying to read and understand it all. Sadly, the system is not set up for you and me or thee to understand.

2. What a stupid reply to the question. He is right. Let's stop playing this silly immigration game that these criminal so called refugees are taking advantage of. How long is our dear leaders going to sit back and let this fool of a prime mistake of yours make fools of Canadians. Every politician appears to be in favor of all this illegality going on with these criminal illegals. If I had my way there would be no hearing. They would be out on the next plane for all of them. Now that shows "balls" something I believe that you are missing. But hey. Shucks, I will even be nice about it and buy them all a McDonald's meal combo before they board the plane at taxpayer's expense of course.   

3. You must be a lawyer in your own mind? You appear to support life being complicated where I prefer to make life sweet and simple. This is why Canadians are being forced to waste hundreds of millions of their tax dollars on these criminals that enter Canada illegally. Thanks to special interest immigration groups, immigration lawyers and our stunned politicians they are all making a mockery of our immigration system and they seem to enjoy wasting their and our time with our tax dollars on all of this illegal bull shit going on. We need to see more balls action from our dear leaders.

[Michael Hardner]

5 hours ago, turningrite said:

Unlike the immigration system, the legal system isn't run by government. It's run by a system of largely autonomous self-regulating bodies called "law societies" that are concerned primarily with the interests of their own members rather than with the broader public interest.

I'm confused.  I thought we had a justice ministry and a legal system ?

[Centerpiece]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

If 49% of Canadians feel we're immigration is too high I wouldn't presume that they're all referencing border crossers. Besides, you actually have no idea how well immigration has served Canada because you have no basis for comparison. What would Canada be like today if we had not opened up immigration to the third world in the 1970s and then tripled and quadrupled and quintupled immigration since then? Less people, certainly. Less crowded. But would it be a worse place to live or not? And on what criteria would you make such a decision? Fewer shawarma restaurants?

The fact is we've had no independent analyses of the benefits of immigration in the last fifty years. The program itself has no guidelines to measure success and no goals. So on what basis can you say it has 'worked reasonably well'?

I have nothing to support it's effectiveness - or lack thereof. My point is that from an operational/control point of view - basic immigration works reasonably well. Any perceived problems (or benefits) with immigration are as a result of political choices. The border Asylum process is a different kettle of fish and is just a disaster.

 

 

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

1) Who is going to break it?

2) The point I'm making is that a lot of these asylum seekers are drawn to the perceived disorganized and lax screening, being told by those here that they are guaranteed years, at a minimum, in Canada, on government assistance.   

3) It is the only solution I can see other than a complete reforming of the legal system.  

1) You seem to be saying that those who run the system are only capable of acting in self-interest.  So why did the system ever work ?

2) The point is reasonable, but your answer is too reactionary and simple.

3) There might not be an answer, then.  If/When the Conservative party wins, I will be sure not to foist easy answers on them where there are complex problems.  For example, I am glad to say I never "blamed" the Bush White House for the 9/11 attacks.  Some things are actually difficult to prevent, and very easy to criticize after the fact.