Canada has approved entry for more than 17,600 people with a criminal record in last decade

[CdnFox]

Canada criminal record: 1000s approved for entry in last decade

From 2014 to 2024, more than 25,350 foreigners submitted an application to have their criminal record forgiven so they can enter Canada, whether on a work or study visa, to apply for permanent residency, or for a short-term visit.

Of those, nearly 70 per cent were approved, nearly 20 per cent were refused, and about 10 per cent of applications were withdrawn.

 

 

Meanwhile crime in Canada has skyrocketed under the libs.  Pure coincidence i'm sure. 

I wonder if they even track how many of these people reoffend once they're in Canada

[Aristides]

As the article says, it depends on the severity of the crime. A DUI 20 years ago can get you disqualified because it is a criminal offence in Canada.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Aristides said:

As the article says, it depends on the severity of the crime. A DUI 20 years ago can get you disqualified because it is a criminal offence in Canada.

If that were a legitimate report then they would keep track of how many of the people they were letting in were DUIs.

I have no doubt a certain percentage of them are crimes that we would not consider to be overly serious but I'm equally certain that a percentage of them will be crimes that we do consider to be serious.

So why let criminals in at all? And if you are going to let them in why not track them or at least produce statistics as to the number of type of crimes that they have committed that you forgave? We're already bringing in too many people, we have more applicants than we have room, why be forgiving at all and not just take only people that aren't criminals?

Can you offer a good reason why we should have criminals, even minor ones, led into the country and how that benefits us?

[Aristides]

36 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

If that were a legitimate report then they would keep track of how many of the people they were letting in were DUIs.

I have no doubt a certain percentage of them are crimes that we would not consider to be overly serious but I'm equally certain that a percentage of them will be crimes that we do consider to be serious.

So why let criminals in at all? And if you are going to let them in why not track them or at least produce statistics as to the number of type of crimes that they have committed that you forgave? We're already bringing in too many people, we have more applicants than we have room, why be forgiving at all and not just take only people that aren't criminals?

Can you offer a good reason why we should have criminals, even minor ones, led into the country and how that benefits us?

The link you posted was quite clear about how it is being applied. You just want to believe serious criminals are being admitted with nothing to back it up. If a person has a minor crime on their record years ago and nothing since, why not let them in if they have skills that are in demand. 

[User]

9 minutes ago, Aristides said:

The link you posted was quite clear about how it is being applied. You just want to believe serious criminals are being admitted with nothing to back it up. If a person has a minor crime on their record years ago and nothing since, why not let them in if they have skills that are in demand. 

Why do you want them to have skills that are in demand?

You are down in the America side of the forum constantly arguing against deportation efforts. I say America should just ship all of our illegal immigrants up to Canada, where you will gladly take them all in. 

I am sure in a country like yours with a population of 40 million, adding in another 20 million will be just fine. 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Aristides said:

The link you posted was quite clear about how it is being applied. 

Really! So what were the most serious crimes that they were let in for?

Gotcha.

 

And you failed to answer the big question, why let them in it all regardless? Why not just accept people that have absolutely no criminal record? We have tons of qualified applicants, we were actually bringing in far too many people. So it should be no problem to find people that are perfectly clean records and still have the skills that we need. 

So why are we admitting criminals?

Edited July 5, 2025 by CdnFox

[Aristides]

14 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Really! So what were the most serious crimes that they were let in for?

Gotcha.

 

And you failed to answer the big question, why let them in it all regardless? Why not just accept people that have absolutely no criminal record? We have tons of qualified applicants, we were actually bringing in far too many people. So it should be no problem to find people that are perfectly clean records and still have the skills that we need. 

So why are we admitting criminals?

So what were the most serious crimes they were let in for? You don’t know.

I told you why? If you had a highly skilled person who committed an indiscretion in their youth and nothing since, why wouldn’t you let then in. The article says it has to be a minimum of 5 years since completing a sentence for them to even apply. You see a number and use it to make up whatever you want. 

[herbie]

And Donald Trump was one of them.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

So what were the most serious crimes they were let in for? You don’t know.

 

 

Exactly, now answer the question. You suggested that there was nothing to worry about in that none of the crimes were of any concern. So what are the most serious crimes. You must know for you to offer that sort of an opinion. What were they then?

Quote

I told you why? If you had a highly skilled person who committed an indiscretion in their youth and nothing since, why wouldn’t you let then in. 

No that's offering a question. The obvious answer being because we have plenty of skilled individuals who don't have criminal records. So again given that fact which was the original premise why do we need to let in criminals?

You're doing a wonderful job of judging around and not answering the questions. Kind of feels like you know I'm right and you're just desperately trying to avoid admitting it

[Aristides]

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

 

Exactly, now answer the question. You suggested that there was nothing to worry about in that none of the crimes were of any concern. So what are the most serious crimes. You must know for you to offer that sort of an opinion. What were they then?

No that's offering a question. The obvious answer being because we have plenty of skilled individuals who don't have criminal records. So again given that fact which was the original premise why do we need to let in criminals?

You're doing a wonderful job of judging around and not answering the questions. Kind of feels like you know I'm right and you're just desperately trying to avoid admitting it

You are the one saying dangerous criminals are be brought in. Back it up. How many? It’s not up to me to provide evidence of your accusations.

[Army Guy]

10 hours ago, Aristides said:

The link you posted was quite clear about how it is being applied. You just want to believe serious criminals are being admitted with nothing to back it up. If a person has a minor crime on their record years ago and nothing since, why not let them in if they have skills that are in demand. 

you would have a point if there was a shortage of immigrants and refugees....but there is not...so why not take in those without a criminal record only, or maybe it is out of laziness, or immigration is not funding properly or broken like everything else in this country..

What is a serious criminal does that include terrorist, war criminals, murders, rapists....your wanting to believe our immigration system is perfect ....and yet the media has been telling Canadians for decades these type of people get through...

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

You are the one saying dangerous criminals are be brought in. 

By claim is that all criminals are dangerous and we don't need them. You're the one who's making the claim that the crimes were frivolous and of nothing to be concerned about. So the burden of proof is on you 100% kiddo. 

So I take it at this point you admit you don't know what you're talking about and some of these very well have been extremely dangerous criminals what we do know is certainty is that they're all criminals. And I don't see any need to bring criminals into the country when we have a ton of people who are qualified that are not criminals at all. And considering some of these could be very dangerous criminals and they don't disclose that or whether or not that's the case it makes me even more nervous about the program.

Nice try though   

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

you would have a point if there was a shortage of immigrants and refugees....but there is not...so why not take in those without a criminal record only, or maybe it is out of laziness, or immigration is not funding properly or broken like everything else in this country..

What is a serious criminal does that include terrorist, war criminals, murders, rapists....your wanting to believe our immigration system is perfect ....and yet the media has been telling Canadians for decades these type of people get through...

I don't believe our system is perfect, far from it but do we reject people from countries known to have corrupt judicial systems just because they have what might be a trumped up record? We have all done stupid things in our lifetime that could have got us a record if we had been caught or were lucky enough to have it overlooked by someone who didn't insist on going by the book. We would be fools not to look at each case individually.

[CdnFox]

50 minutes ago, Aristides said:

I don't believe our system is perfect, far from it but do we reject people from countries known to have corrupt judicial systems just because they have what might be a trumped up record? We have all done stupid things in our lifetime that could have got us a record if we had been caught or were lucky enough to have it overlooked by someone who didn't insist on going by the book. We would be fools not to look at each case individually.

Again, why accept them if there are people that have never made a mistake with the law from countries that aren't corrupt insufficient numbers to meet our needs? You're just not making that case