jenny Posted March 15, 2007 Report Posted March 15, 2007 Funny how so many people on this forum find it OK for Harper to spend a hundreds of millions of dollars to build roads and schools in Afhanistan when we need those same things here in Canada but yet those same people would like to see this little boy rot in a gw bush prison Quote
Figleaf Posted March 15, 2007 Report Posted March 15, 2007 Are you sure it's a US crime to carry mock non-US documents which you don't intend to present to US authorities? It sounds like a stretch to me. So you agree that if they had entered Canada using forged documents it would have been a crime because that was their intent and you maintain we should give refugee status to those who enter the country using falsified documents. No, that does not follow from my comment. In fact, if they are like other refugee claimants, they would discard or destroy their false document specifically to avoid tendering false information to Canadian immigration authorities. The only 'fraud' perpetrated by refugees in carrying false passports is to fool their local exit authorities and placate the airport transit and checkin processes. These things could in some jurisdictions be made criminal, but it's not a sure thing that the have been. Furthermore, if a refugee is legitimately fleeing political persecution, presumably they would have the defence of necessity anyway (if charged in any common law jurisdition at least). Quote
Wilber Posted March 15, 2007 Report Posted March 15, 2007 No, that does not follow from my comment. In fact, if they are like other refugee claimants, they would discard or destroy their false document specifically to avoid tendering false information to Canadian immigration authorities. The only 'fraud' perpetrated by refugees in carrying false passports is to fool their local exit authorities and placate the airport transit and checkin processes. These things could in some jurisdictions be made criminal, but it's not a sure thing that the have been. Furthermore, if a refugee is legitimately fleeing political persecution, presumably they would have the defence of necessity anyway (if charged in any common law jurisdition at least). To start with you have to prove these people destroyed their documents. These ones were caught red handed. That is one of the hypocritical things about our process. If a person arrives in Canada without documents, the airline is held responsible yet those documents are checked before they get on the aircraft. In Hong Kong and other places you have to show your passport as you walk on to the aircraft. There is no way anyone got on that aircraft without a passport and they should not be given any status if they arrive here claiming they don't have one. You seem to think that using forged documents is an OK way to enter the country as long as you don't get caught with them. Forging a document and lying to gain access to a country is hardly legitimate, particularly when you are asking that country to take you in. I'm pretty sure that they would also have tried to use those documents to enter Canada. When I was still flying, immigration used to routinely check documents right outside the aircraft door on some foreign flights because if they don't get to the customs hall, they aren't officially in the country and can't claim anything. I'm as critical as anyone about our system's inability to give refugee claimants due process in a timely manner but I don't have sympathy for those who flout our laws and then ask for our generosity. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Figleaf Posted March 16, 2007 Report Posted March 16, 2007 No, that does not follow from my comment. In fact, if they are like other refugee claimants, they would discard or destroy their false document specifically to avoid tendering false information to Canadian immigration authorities. The only 'fraud' perpetrated by refugees in carrying false passports is to fool their local exit authorities and placate the airport transit and checkin processes. These things could in some jurisdictions be made criminal, but it's not a sure thing that the have been. Furthermore, if a refugee is legitimately fleeing political persecution, presumably they would have the defence of necessity anyway (if charged in any common law jurisdition at least). To start with you have to prove these people destroyed their documents. These ones were caught red handed. I am telling you that the standard practice is to destroy or discard false passports immediately as you arrive in the destination country. These particular people were part of an emergency landing in US territory and would not otherwise have had their passports checked. You seem to think that using forged documents is an OK way to enter the country as long as you don't get caught with them. Define 'OK'? I'm just noting that it is open to question whether it is a criminal act. I'm pretty sure that they would also have tried to use those documents to enter Canada. No, they would likely not. Using a false document would mean that you could be removed from Canada at any time in the future. It is much better to discard the false document and make a refugee claim without any passport. Quote
Wilber Posted March 16, 2007 Report Posted March 16, 2007 I am telling you that the standard practice is to destroy or discard false passports immediately as you arrive in the destination country. These particular people were part of an emergency landing in US territory and would not otherwise have had their passports checked. I'm telling you that if our people find other people with false documents it is appropriate to put them in the slammer and back on the first aircraft back to where they came from. I don't care whether they intended to be in the US or not. Poor babies, they weren't able to destroy their false documents before they safely arrived at their destination under false pretences. Define 'OK'? I'm just noting that it is open to question whether it is a criminal act. You must be kidding. May I alter your passport and use it the next time I travel? No, they would likely not. Using a false document would mean that you could be removed from Canada at any time in the future. It is much better to discard the false document and make a refugee claim without any passport. So what. Are you saying that if you can beat the system that makes it OK regardless of the method used? These people where allowed every avenue of appeal before they were deported the first time. You seem to be saying that if they had been successful re entering the country by the use of fraudulent documents, that they should be entitled to the same process again. Did they ever apply for immigrant status like 99% of the people who come to this country? Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Argus Posted March 16, 2007 Report Posted March 16, 2007 Funny how so many people on this forum find it OK for Harper to spend a hundreds of millions of dollars to build roads and schools in Afhanistan when we need those same things here in Canada but yet those same people would like to see this little boy rot in a gw bush prison For my own part, I don't see the need to build anything in Afghanistan other than a stronger Afghan army. Ignore this democracy crap, put in place a powerful general, give him the weapons to crush all opponents, and then forget about it. These kind of people do not understand democracy and aren't ready for it. Which is why I don't want more of them coming to Canada. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted March 16, 2007 Report Posted March 16, 2007 Furthermore, if a refugee is legitimately fleeing political persecution, presumably they would have the defence of necessity anyway (if charged in any common law jurisdition at least). If a refugee from some third world shithole like Iran is legitimately fleeing political persecution they could go to some other country, and use the tens of thousands they paid to get to Canada to invest there. Why don't we see these people fleeing to, oh, Jordan, say, or Egypt? That would be a LOT cheaper. But no, they want to come here. Why? Because we're world reknowned for our kindness? Hardly. They want to come here because life is richer and better here. They are economic refugees. They don't flee to Jordan because they want to live life in the rich west. Even though they despise us as weak and Godless, and think our women are whores. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Figleaf Posted March 16, 2007 Report Posted March 16, 2007 I am telling you that the standard practice is to destroy or discard false passports immediately as you arrive in the destination country. These particular people were part of an emergency landing in US territory and would not otherwise have had their passports checked.I'm telling you that if our people find other people with false documents it is appropriate to put them in the slammer and back on the first aircraft back to where they came from. You're certainly entitled to your opinion. I personally am not commenting on whether it SHOULD be a crime, but rather on whether it IS a crime. I don't care whether they intended to be in the US or not. Poor babies, they weren't able to destroy their false documents before they safely arrived at their destination under false pretences. You do realize that they are fleeing a regime that doesn't want them to escape, don't you? And that the false documents are needed to carry out that purpose? If you already realize that, OK, but it seems relevant when you look at the overall situation and I want to understand how you are taking it into account in your point of view. Define 'OK'? I'm just noting that it is open to question whether it is a criminal act. You must be kidding. May I alter your passport and use it the next time I travel? I'm beginning to think you don't really understand this conversation. No, they would likely not. Using a false document would mean that you could be removed from Canada at any time in the future. It is much better to discard the false document and make a refugee claim without any passport. So what. Are you saying that if you can beat the system that makes it OK regardless of the method used? ???What are you on about??? No, I am responding specifically to your contention that they would have used the passport to get into Canada. They almost certainly would not have. These people where allowed every avenue of appeal before they were deported the first time. You seem to be saying that if they had been successful re entering the country by the use of fraudulent documents, that they should be entitled to the same process again. You don't seem to be paying any attention at all. Don't get all worked up about what you assume I believe in or stand for, just listen please: They were planning to make a fresh refugee application based on new persecution in Iran. They would not have used the fraudulent documents to re-enter Canada because you don't need a passport to make a refugee claim and using a false one can get you deported. Quote
Wilber Posted March 16, 2007 Report Posted March 16, 2007 They were planning to make a fresh refugee application based on new persecution in Iran. They would not have used the fraudulent documents to re-enter Canada because you don't need a passport to make a refugee claim and using a false one can get you deported. And how many fresh refugee claims do you think they should be allowed as long as they can obtain false documents that they can destroy enroute in order to get here? Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Figleaf Posted March 16, 2007 Report Posted March 16, 2007 They were planning to make a fresh refugee application based on new persecution in Iran. They would not have used the fraudulent documents to re-enter Canada because you don't need a passport to make a refugee claim and using a false one can get you deported. And how many fresh refugee claims do you think they should be allowed as long as they can obtain false documents that they can destroy enroute in order to get here? Okay, let's try to unravel this a bit. Refugees are people who fear persecution in their home country. Other countries have legal processes that those people can follow to escape and live outside their country of persecution. Using those legal processes is ... legal. That is, it is totally legal to show up at a border and say "Hi, I'm a refugee, please apply your refugee process to my case." Their process will then determine if legally you qualify for protection. Some applicants do qualify, some applicant's don't. Those who don't qualify must leave the destination country, but they have not committed a crime by having a failed application. Okay so far? Good. Next point... In many cases, the only way a person in fear of persecution can physically escape from their country is to use a false passport. That is, the only way they can access the legal refugee process of their destination is to use a false document. Alright? Now ... Whether you use a false passport enroute or not has no relevance to the question of whether you are a genuine refugee or not. A person who really fears persecution might use a false passport to get to the counrty to make their application. A person who is faking a fear of persecution might not have used a false passport. The passport is not logically relevant to the refugee qualification criteria. SO, for those reasons there is no further response needed to the false passport element of this story. As for the number of fresh refugee applications someone should be allowed, consider how this case went: The guy gets to Canada and claims he feared persecution because of political connections and harrassment. (He's coming from IRAN, so how hard is that to believe, right?) He begins to build a life in Canada. Still, eventually the board thinks he doesn't qualify. They get shipped back to Iran. Lo and behold, the harassment turns into arrest without trial, and abuse in prison. They manage to slip out of Iran again and seek to return to Canada to make a refugee claim based on the NEW, MUCH WORSE persecution. Now it seems to me that certainly, yes, someone could abuse unlimited fresh applications. But on the other hand, I can't see anything wrong with this guy making a new application now. Quote
guyser Posted March 16, 2007 Report Posted March 16, 2007 If a refugee from some third world shithole like Iran is legitimately fleeing political persecution they could go to some other country, The Iran I know is certainly not a shithole , third world or otherwise. Quote
Wilber Posted March 16, 2007 Report Posted March 16, 2007 Refugees are people who fear persecution in their home country. Other countries have legal processes that those people can follow to escape and live outside their country of persecution. Using those legal processes is ... legal. That is, it is totally legal to show up at a border and say "Hi, I'm a refugee, please apply your refugee process to my case." Their process will then determine if legally you qualify for protection. Some applicants do qualify, some applicant's don't. Those who don't qualify must leave the destination country, but they have not committed a crime by having a failed application. They didn't just show up, they were detained in another country for travelling with false documents. You are proposing that we go and get them. Do we do the same for anyone detained for traveling with false documents anywhere in the world if they happen to have a plane ticket to Canada and want to claim refugee status? Whether you use a false passport enroute or not has no relevance to the question of whether you are a genuine refugee or not. A person who really fears persecution might use a false passport to get to the counrty to make their application. A person who is faking a fear of persecution might not have used a false passport. The passport is not logically relevant to the refugee qualification criteria. These people already tried to enter as refugees and were refused after ten years of process. How many times should they be entitled to go through the process. Remember, you will be paying their living expenses as well as their and the state's legal expenses as long as their claim is active. I wouldn't mind some kind of link on this case. I must have missed the news stories and haven't found anything on it. How did they leave Iran? Were they allowed to leave or did they sneak out? Did they leave the country using Iranian passports or Greek passports? One reason people destroy their documents is because it is difficult to claim you are fleeing persecution when a country gives you travel documents and allows you to leave the country. What do they have to back up their claim? Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Argus Posted March 16, 2007 Report Posted March 16, 2007 If a refugee from some third world shithole like Iran is legitimately fleeing political persecution they could go to some other country, The Iran I know is certainly not a shithole , third world or otherwise. They hang teenage girls from cranes for being raped. They have men with clubs who roam the streets measuring beards and beating women who show hair or makeup or nail polish. Life in rural areas has not changed much in a thousand years, and the people are no more sophisticated there than they were 1000 years ago. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
guyser Posted March 17, 2007 Report Posted March 17, 2007 They hang teenage girls from cranes for being raped. They have men with clubs who roam the streets measuring beards and beating women who show hair or makeup or nail polish. Life in rural areas has not changed much in a thousand years, and the people are no more sophisticated there than they were 1000 years ago. I will get a reply from my Iranian co-worker. She will set you straight. But suffice to say, that is wrong. Quote
Argus Posted March 17, 2007 Report Posted March 17, 2007 They hang teenage girls from cranes for being raped. They have men with clubs who roam the streets measuring beards and beating women who show hair or makeup or nail polish. Life in rural areas has not changed much in a thousand years, and the people are no more sophisticated there than they were 1000 years ago. I will get a reply from my Iranian co-worker. She will set you straight. But suffice to say, that is wrong. When you get that reply you might ask your Iranian co-worker why she is working here and not in Iran. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
jenny Posted March 17, 2007 Report Posted March 17, 2007 They hang teenage girls from cranes for being raped. They have men with clubs who roam the streets measuring beards and beating women who show hair or makeup or nail polish. We let our women star in movies where they give oral sex to dozens of men that they have never met while another man she has never met is shoving his thing in her. And the men of our so called democratic , free world laugh and get aroused by this, and in some cases, feel the need to go out and attack women Quote
Canuck E Stan Posted March 17, 2007 Report Posted March 17, 2007 They hang teenage girls from cranes for being raped. They have men with clubs who roam the streets measuring beards and beating women who show hair or makeup or nail polish. We let our women star in movies where they give oral sex to dozens of men that they have never met while another man she has never met is shoving his thing in her. And the men of our so called democratic , free world laugh and get aroused by this, and in some cases, feel the need to go out and attack women So what you are saying is we should not allow women the freedom to do what they want. In this country they make their choices, it's not forced upon them. Maybe life in Iran would be better for you than living in Canada where the decisions for women are not made by the women. In Canada women do what they want even if you don't agree with it. You make no sense in your arguement. Either you're for freedom of choice to do what you want or you're not. Make up your mind.The choice is not about what YOU want,it's theirs. Quote "Any man under 30 who is not a liberal has no heart, and any man over 30 who is not a conservative has no brains." — Winston Churchill
guyser Posted March 19, 2007 Report Posted March 19, 2007 When you get that reply you might ask your Iranian co-worker why she is working here and not in Iran. During the uprising her brothers went to the US to study. They were prepared to go back but the parents said no as they would have to join the army. They all came to Canada later as refugees. Her parents go back for a couple of months every year. The Universities are fantastic, a good banking industry , proseprous business' all over the place. The people have beautiful houses, and are an intelligent group of people. Measuring beards? Beating on women ? Huh? Quote
jbg Posted March 19, 2007 Report Posted March 19, 2007 They are economic refugees. They don't flee to Jordan because they want to live life in the rich west. Even though they despise us as weak and Godless, and think our women are whores. Sounds like the Khadrs? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Argus Posted March 20, 2007 Report Posted March 20, 2007 They hang teenage girls from cranes for being raped. They have men with clubs who roam the streets measuring beards and beating women who show hair or makeup or nail polish. We let our women star in movies where they give oral sex to dozens of men that they have never met while another man she has never met is shoving his thing in her. What kind of laws do you think we should wrap around "our women" to prevent them from doing things they want but we don't want? Should we have laws about what clothing they wear, who they sleep with, and when? Maybe we could whip them for doing immoral things? And the men of our so called democratic , free world laugh and get aroused by this, and in some cases, feel the need to go out and attack women Uneducated drivel. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.