Refugees and Immigrants

[betsy]

Apparently, Nato is trying to get Canada to accept some detainees being released from Guantanamo, saying these individuals may face tortures or deaths if brought back to their countries.

Although we do not wish any inhuman treatments of anyone....it can't be denied that other countries have their own laws, and methods in dealing with their own law-breakers.

That we do not believe in the death penalty does not give us any right to feel self-righteous about it...especially when we know that the criminal we are harboring is truly guilty indeed.

Canada is now known as a "softie"....that all one has to do is mention the word "torture" or death penalties...and surely you'll be granted passage. As one Liberal prided herself by saying we are a "sanctuary." So we attract them like magnet.

But how far are we prepared to go in ensuring everyone's well-being?

[Charles Anthony]

"who was found to have"

What is that supposed to mean???? Found by whom??? A bunch of bigots spewing out their omniscient knowledge on an internet forum??? or through due process in a court of law??? or through a media trial??

Come on. Legally, "found to" means nothing at best or complete confusion at the worst.

Also, refugees and immigrants have completely different citizenship status. Mind you, they do share one thing in common: they are both foreigners.

The results of this poll will only be a hodge-podge of misunderstanding.

[geoffrey]

I don't think these ones are guilty, these ones might have been a mistake. I say the US takes them though.

[betsy]

"who was found to have"

What is that supposed to mean???? Found by whom???

let's say, by intelligence or CSIS. Or through the normal process of screening applicants!

[betsy]

I don't think these ones are guilty, these ones might have been a mistake. I say the US takes them though.

Yes.

I guess my statement is misleading....I meant the poll as a general question (not only pertaining to the Guantanamo detainees).

Anyway, the question still stands: How far are we prepared to go with protecting known terrorists/criminals?

The issue on the Chinese smuggler (who is said to be #1 on China's wanted list) was also in mind.

[geoffrey]

I don't think these ones are guilty, these ones might have been a mistake. I say the US takes them though.

Yes.

I guess my statement is misleading....I meant the poll as a general question (not only pertaining to the Guantanamo detainees).

Anyway, the question still stands: How far are we prepared to go with protecting known terrorists/criminals?

The issue on the Chinese smuggler (who is said to be #1 on China's wanted list) was also in mind.

Oh, in that case, deport them. They knew the consequences when they committed the crime, there is no excuse. I've never quite understood that Canadian idealogy, of the Americans fleeing to Canada after a murder so they won't get the death penalty upon extradition. They knew they were going to get the needle after the crime, they should deal with that choice they willingly made under their own power.

We should stop protecting people from themsleves (like the left advocates with lower drinking/sex ages and decrim of pot) and let them all be killed/tortured because this is what they've chosen for themselves.

They want to die or get tortured, we should let them. Otherwise, they wouldn't have broken the law.

[Rue]

Sorry Canada has zero business taking in anyone the Americans sent to Guantanomo Bay. Absolutely not. They belong back in Iraq whence they came not in Canada if they are not to be left in Cuba.

Either that or someone should get off their ass and try them already.

[Argus]

Also, refugees and immigrants have completely different citizenship status. Mind you, they do share one thing in common: they are both foreigners.

Successful refugee applicants become citizens. Therefore, there is no real pupose in making a distinction between them and other immigrants except insofar as other immigrants are generally either sponsored or tested for some kind of skilll or ability to pay their own way in this country

[Enskat Kenraken Ronkwe]

someone should get off their ass and try them already

I agree with that statement. Lets get them into court to plead their cases. If they are personally responsible for committing crimes, perhaps they should be returned to their country of origin - but im leaning towards life imprisonment to take away any opportunity they may have to repeat the offences. And in the meatime, while the case is heard they should remain in custody. Which brings up the flip side - what if it cant be proven they personally committed any criminal act?

[betsy]

but im leaning towards life imprisonment to take away any opportunity they may have to repeat the offences. And in the meatime, while the case is heard they should remain in custody.

I understand the intent to imprison them is to prevent any more crimes being repeated.

But these are not Canadian citizens....and they did the crime elsewhere. Why should we burden ourselves with the expenses of incarcerating these individuals?

Wouldn't the most practical and easiest thing to do is to simply say, "sorry. bye."

[betsy]

Which brings up the flip side - what if it cant be proven they personally committed any criminal act?

The burden of proof lies on whose shoulders?

If CSIS....or an overseas intelligence bureau (country of origin) says this applicant was involved in such and such....it is up to the applicant to provide unquestionable proof they are wrong.

Then again, let's say as an example China demands the extradition of their most wanted criminal...or else they'll break off any diplomatic ties and business dealings with Canada...are we prepared to wrangle losing billions of dollars (affecting countless business ventures and revenues of Canadian companies, including countless jobs involved) over a crook? Who's not even a citizen of Canada?

[scribblet]

but im leaning towards life imprisonment to take away any opportunity they may have to repeat the offences. And in the meatime, while the case is heard they should remain in custody.

I understand the intent to imprison them is to prevent any more crimes being repeated.

But these are not Canadian citizens....and they did the crime elsewhere. Why should we burden ourselves with the expenses of incarcerating these individuals?

Wouldn't the most practical and easiest thing to do is to simply say, "sorry. bye."

Agreed, Canada should not take them in particularly since that recent arrest of 17 suspected terrorists - not good optics.

[Enskat Kenraken Ronkwe]

My concern is that returning them to the country where they comtinue to train and plot is a bad idea.

I dont want these guys to be sent home, regroup and return better prepared.

but im leaning towards life imprisonment to take away any opportunity they may have to repeat the offences. And in the meatime, while the case is heard they should remain in custody.

I understand the intent to imprison them is to prevent any more crimes being repeated.

But these are not Canadian citizens....and they did the crime elsewhere. Why should we burden ourselves with the expenses of incarcerating these individuals?

Wouldn't the most practical and easiest thing to do is to simply say, "sorry. bye."

Agreed, Canada should not take them in particularly since that recent arrest of 17 suspected terrorists - not good optics.

[Enskat Kenraken Ronkwe]

It is up to whatever agency that is making the allegations to provide proof that a crime has been commited

Innocent until proven guilty. Any other way is just the wrong way to go about it. We cant be persecuting people without proof. When a refugee puts forth an application any allegations of mistreatment are investigated. If the government made simular allegations that the refugees committed crimes - id say we are obligated to investigate both sides.

Which brings up the flip side - what if it cant be proven they personally committed any criminal act?

The burden of proof lies on whose shoulders?

If CSIS....or an overseas intelligence bureau (country of origin) says this applicant was involved in such and such....it is up to the applicant to provide unquestionable proof they are wrong.

Then again, let's say as an example China demands the extradition of their most wanted criminal...or else they'll break off any diplomatic ties and business dealings with Canada...are we prepared to wrangle losing billions of dollars (affecting countless business ventures and revenues of Canadian companies, including countless jobs involved) over a crook? Who's not even a citizen of Canada?

[August1991]

This thread is filled with misinformed. It starts with the phrase: "... apparently NATO is asking us... " with no supporting link to explain what or even if NATO is asking us and then the thread goes down hill from there.

Canada's immigration act states clearly:

34. (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on security grounds for

(a) engaging in an act of espionage or an act of subversion against a democratic government, institution or process as they are understood in Canada;

( engaging in or instigating the subversion by force of any government;

© engaging in terrorism;

(d) being a danger to the security of Canada;

(e) engaging in acts of violence that would or might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada; or

(f) being a member of an organization that there are reasonable grounds to believe engages, has engaged or will engage in acts referred to in paragraph (a), ( or ©

(2) The matters referred to in subsection (1) do not constitute inadmissibility in respect of a permanent resident or a foreign national who satisfies the Minister that their presence in Canada would not be detrimental to the national interest.

Immigration Act

We have this wonderful library next door - called the Internet - where information and facts can be verified. In case you don't know, Canada just went through the process of writing and passing a new Immigration Act.

[Michael Hardner]

Thanks for the clarity, Auguste.

Now, every here is aware that Nelson Mandela wouldn't have been allowed into Canada under the immigration act, right ?

He was jailed for an act of terrorism against South Africa. So if every terrorist is evil, then there are no freedom fighters.

[betsy]

Thanks for the clarity, Auguste.

Now, every here is aware that Nelson Mandela wouldn't have been allowed into Canada under the immigration act, right ?

He was jailed for an act of terrorism against South Africa. So if every terrorist is evil, then there are no freedom fighters.

I don't know much about Nelson Mandela...but wasn't his wife involved in corruption and some murder of opposition?

[Michael Hardner]

I don't know much about Nelson Mandela...but wasn't his wife involved in corruption and some murder of opposition?

He was jailed indefinitely for terrorism in S. Africa, when he was commander-in-chief of a group known as Umkhonto we Sizwe. While he was in prison, the group committed acts of violence and sabotage including the car-bombing of a bar called Magoo's in Durban, and an attack on a nuclear plant.

After he was released, he became president of the reconciled South Africa. His release is commonly associated with the end of Apartheid in SA, one of the most reviled and racist social programs in history.

Terrorist or Freedom Fighter ?

For those of you who want to put everything down in a government policy, now be aware that there's no way to codify morality. And if you appoint someone to make moral judgements on your behalf, be aware that you won't agree with them all the time.

[Leafless]

[i don't know much about Nelson Mandela...but wasn't his wife involved in corruption and some murder of opposition?]

Yup!

His wife 'Winnie' Mandela was involved 'neck deep' in corrupt activities.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/s...000/2863807.stm

[Chakote]

If these people are proven guilty and convicted of the alleged crimes, fine; torture and kill them. But they are suspects, and are innocent until they are given a trial. Those responsible for the unconditional detainment of these unconvicted suspects should be put on trial and convicted for violating these peoples' human rights. Punishment should be harsh. If this were a perfect world, one of the Guantanamo suspects would get a trial, be proven innocent, and sue millions out of the government for violation of human rights.. Seeing these idiots fess up to their immature finger pointing would make me a happier man.

[Melanie_]

Sorry Canada has zero business taking in anyone the Americans sent to Guantanomo Bay. Absolutely not. They belong back in Iraq whence they came not in Canada if they are not to be left in Cuba.

Either that or someone should get off their ass and try them already.

The problem with that is the danger the Americans have created for these men if they are returned to Iraq or Afghanistan. If they are perceived to have cooperated with the Americans while in custody, they are in greater danger when they return than when they left. And that is a direct result of the Americans holding them without trial for this long, never establishing if they actually were terrorists or simply young men caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[Argus]

Thanks for the clarity, Auguste.

Now, every here is aware that Nelson Mandela wouldn't have been allowed into Canada under the immigration act, right ?

He was jailed for an act of terrorism against South Africa. So if every terrorist is evil, then there are no freedom fighters.

When you plant land mines in the driveways of farms you are a terrorist. Full stop, case closed.

Nelson Mandela and his group were terrorists. So was Menachen Begin. A succesful terrorist does not cease to be a terrorist even if they do worthy things later in life.

[Oddman]

Thanks for the clarity, Auguste.

Now, every here is aware that Nelson Mandela wouldn't have been allowed into Canada under the immigration act, right ?

He was jailed for an act of terrorism against South Africa. So if every terrorist is evil, then there are no freedom fighters.

When you plant land mines in the driveways of farms you are a terrorist. Full stop, case closed.

Nelson Mandela and his group were terrorists. So was Menachen Begin. A succesful terrorist does not cease to be a terrorist even if they do worthy things later in life.

Would you be a terrorist if you planted mines in an Al Queda farm?

[Charles Anthony]

Would you be a terrorist if you planted mines in an Al Queda farm?

That all depends on who wins the war and who writes the history books!

[Argus]

Would you be a terrorist if you planted mines in an Al Queda farm?

Unless it was full of armed gunmen - yes.

But al Quaeda doesn't operate farms. It's not a nation. It's a terrorist organization.