Canada, Europe & Tourist Visas

[August1991]

I haven't seen this in English so excuse the French cite:

Les Canadiens pourraient devoir se procurer un visa pour aller en France, au Royaume-Uni ou en Italie.

L'Union européenne (UE) menace en effet d'exiger un visa des Canadiens pour visiter un de ses 27 pays membres, si Ottawa ne renonce pas à son obligation d'en exiger un des citoyens de dix pays admis récemment dans l'organisation, rapporte vendredi La Presse.

R-C

At issue is Canada's out-of-control refugee system.

The European Union has admitted new countries in the past few years. But Canada still requires that citizens of these countries obtain a visa before coming to Canada. Why? Because almost anyone from anywhere in the world, even a citizen of a civilized European country, can come to Canada and claim refugee status. Canada's refugee system amounts to a welfare system for the world.

In response to the bureaucrats of our refugee system, the bureaucrats of our visa system advise that Canada require citizens of certain countries obtain a visitor visa before coming to Canada.

This is a war of bureaucrats. Some bureaucrats want to allow "refugees" to stay in Canada. Other bureaucrats don't want the refugee applicants to come here.

European politicians are now saying that if Canada requires visitor visas of European citizens, then Europe should require visitor visas of Canadian citizens. I can't blame the Europeans.

[Saturn]

This is a war of bureaucrats. Some bureaucrats want to allow "refugees" to stay in Canada. Other bureaucrats don't want the refugee applicants to come here.

It's not a war of bureaucrats. It's a war of immigration lawyers and consultants against the bureaucrats.

I can't blame the Europeans either. If we are so damn afraid of them, they should be equally afraid of us - we aren't any better than they are.

[August1991]

It's not a war of bureaucrats. It's a war of immigration lawyers and consultants against the bureaucrats.

That's an original argument.

Bureaucrats establish and apply arbitrary rules about who gets to be a Canadian citizen based on whether a foreigner can get to Canadian soil. Other bureaucrats believe these rules are too arbitrary and generous and want to force foreigners to apply for a visa before they arrive here.

And you blame lawyers and consultants for the end result?

Saturn, you are saying that we have too many police spot checks - ignoring the number of drunk drivers there are. Or you are blaming tax lawyers for the existence of taxes.

----

The basic problem is that Canada's refugee system is out of control and has been for about 20 years or so. It's getting worse, not better.

There are six billion people in the world. We can't accept every hard luck story.

[geoffrey]

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/national/070313/n031368A.html

This criminal refugee is about to have a Canadian child. I think this is one of the biggest issues.

They even got Belfour Deur to represent them, the real hotshot of Calgary defense lawyers (I bet you FTA disagrees, but he likely wouldn't dare say ).

There's obviously money in this game for the refugees. It needs to end.

I think only extending citizenship to children of Canadians is step one in limiting our international welfare commitments.

[myata]

Wouldn't / Shouldn't the "safe third country" agreement solve this problem? I mean, if a country is a member of the EU, it's got to be "safe"? Everybody who tries to claim being a refugee arriving from the EU should be detained at the airport and sent back on the next flight.

[Wilber]

Wouldn't / Shouldn't the "safe third country" agreement solve this problem? I mean, if a country is a member of the EU, it's got to be "safe"? Everybody who tries to claim being a refugee arriving from the EU should be detained at the airport and sent back on the next flight.

That's too obvious.

[Charles Anthony]

I must let the Europeans retaliate as they please. It is their perogative.

If I owned Canada, I would accept the European retaliation and my citizens of Canada would have to deal with more bureaucracy. It would be tough luck. This extra bureaucracy is the price we must pay for how we believe we must protect ourselves. Protection should not be free.

The basic problem is that Canada's refugee system is out of control and has been for about 20 years or so. It's getting worse, not better.

It will only get worse as long as our transportation industry -- with state support -- continues to unload its responsibility to the public.

There are six billion people in the world. We can't accept every hard luck story.

-- and we do not have to. Who brings these refugees to Canada? The airplane and the shipping companies.

Refugees should not be a Canadian problem. They should be the responsibility of the agents in our transportation industry. CAVEAT: If somebody takes this next comment and simply labels me as a racist-bigot, so be it. They are wrong and they would be stupid for misunderstanding the important issue of Who is responsible for refugees? My parents are foreign and if they never came to Canada several years ago, I probably would not be alive because neither would they. I believe all state borders should be abolished. I believe all people in every part of the world should be free to travel and reside wherever they are accepted. I believe this because all "public" property should be private. Thus, the admission of a traveller should be decided by the private property owner -- not by irresponsible statesmen. Now for the comment: Airplanes, airports, ships, shipyards and ports should not be allowed to pollute in Canada. Think about that.

We would not permit an airplane to leave unattended luggage or drop off its garbage at the tarmac before flying off, now, would we?? We should not let them unload people.

[Wilber]

I don't think it's racist, just stupid. You say that transportation companies should be responsible for those they bring to this country and next you say people should be able to travel and live anywhere they want. You make no sense.

[Charles Anthony]

You say that transportation companies should be responsible for those they bring to this country and next you say people should be able to travel and live anywhere they want. You make no sense.

What part of I believe this because all "public" property should be private. Thus, the admission of a traveller should be decided by the private property owner -- not by irresponsible statesmen. do you find difficult to understand?????

Wilber, did you conveniently skip that next part just to dismiss my proposal? or do you genuinely have difficulty understanding those two sentences?

Either way, it is no wonder that you can not make sense out of my proposal. Maybe I wrote too many sentences all at once.

[Wilber]

What part of I believe this because all "public" property should be private. do you find difficult to understand?????

What do transportation companies have to do with all public property being private? If privately owned airlines owned the airports, they could bring who they pleased.

[Charles Anthony]

If privately owned airlines owned the airports, they could bring who they pleased.

Correct. Now, Wilber, I challenge you to put yourself in the shoes of such an airport owner. Two questions:

1) Would you let your airport become a refugee camp?

2) Would you let the airplanes pollute your airport?

Anyway, Canadians do not want private property. They would rather shuffle off personal responsibility. Thus, I am proposing that the airlines and the shipping companies be responsible for their cargo before they are allowed to unload it.

[Wilber]

Anyway, Canadians do not want private property. They would rather shuffle off personal responsibility. Thus, I am proposing that the airlines and the shipping companies be responsible for their cargo before they are allowed to unload it.

Oh I see, each individual property owner will decide who and how many people he will import into the country. Would those people be free to go where ever they wanted once their importer collected them from the airline or would they have to be passed on to another property owner? Who takes responsibility then? Kind of sounds like the slave trade don't it? Or at least indentured service.