bats

Australia doesn't have many walking over the border.

dbd33

I thought so. Mine was white too (as you know). I think that helped in getting her the benefit of the doubt in the early years when she left Canada only every six months or so. I doubt that someone from Haiti would get away with that for years on end.

BristolUK

Yes, but I did say similar and wrongness.

One may be legal, but it's still deception. Two wrongs don't have to be exactly the same for one to be frowned upon and the other not for double standards to apply.

BristolUK

I don't remember you being 'here' when this came up before but government services do have information about where people claim to come from and this is gone into.

You can't simply say you are from somewhere without having the sort of information that you ought to know.

Blimey, just applying for a NINO in the UK you're asked for checkable information about where you've come from (stuff like name of your school and so on). Imagine if you're asked for information not so easily researched like local geograpghy, details of journey and so on.

I don't know why so many people think all you have to say is no papers. Probably like how homeless people get extra benefits if they have a dog and myths like that.

carcajou

No, they don't have that information - not if you just show up and say "no papers" and/or give false information. That is NOT an urban myth. The authorities will then let you into the community rather than inter you and you can be gone/disappeared.

As you put it so well - "claim" to come from.

UN processing centres are places of safety with food and shelter where processing of legitimate refugees can be done. If you do it the other way like Merkel - where the vast, vast majority of people entering Europe are not refugees at all - the number of actual refugees making it through is far smaller.

Then as the other poster said that vast majority of fake refugees make it enormously tougher for the legitimate ones.

Australia's centres are not inhumane. Fake refugees don't like getting stopped on their way to Australia and then, after refusing to provide authentic documents, have to wait there while the authorities find out who they really are rather than just enter into the community and disappear like in Europe.

I have no problem letting in legitimate, bona fide refugees - I do have a problem with letting in 100 fake ones for every legitimate one, which is the road Trudeau is going to go down, and is going to result in the same backlash as Brexit, Trump, Le Pen, and so on. Only I think the stakes in Canada are a lot higher because the epicentre of this is a province with two independence referendums already under its belt.

carcajou

To the poster mentioning safe countries - that doesn't mean a hill of beans if you get swamped.

Merkel bet on that and failed spectacularly - she thought she could say that she wanted refugees, Germany wouldn't cap the number they take, and they would give the best refugee benefit package on the continent - and it wouldn't change things much.

Because Germany is landlocked, all those asylum seekers (not refugees) would therefore be stopped in Greece, Italy and so on and never make it to Germany.

She could then peel off SPD/Green votes, and ask the Nobel committee for her award.

Of course she had no idea what she was unleashing, or that due to differences in direct/indirect communication patterns in Europe vs much of Africa or the Middle East, what she was doing was telling every unemployed young man in Africa to get on a boat and come.

Expecting the southern European periphery to cope with 1.5 million refugees was never going to happen and Merkel was just as surprised as anyone.

For our purposes, yes they should be made to apply in the US and stay there - or Trudeau is going to find himself just as surprised as Merkel.

Australia and New Zealand get people traveling BY BOAT from Africa, Iran, the Subcontinent, other parts of the Middle East. Canada will too if the border gets turned into a turnstile.

carcajou

I believe applying under false pretenses is grounds for cancellation, and if found out, yes should be cancelled. For instance, student visa and then never showing up to class, or province-specific visa and intentionally sabotaging their work to be able to change province.

But I don't have a problem with someone getting a student visa, legitimately taking a course, and then changing status, or someone getting a province-based visa but legitimately giving that a go before changing status.

bats

Swamped? Please check your bigotry at the door.

Germany isn't landlocked.

BristolUK

I'm not saying it won't get them in. The myth I'm talking aout is that "all they need to do is have no papers and claim to come from whatever country seems appropriate" and they're nicely set up for good.

If they want a permanent status then they have to come up with something that gets believed. They have to report to places periodically as necessary.

Certainly they can get into countries illegally risking drowning, suffocating in a truck, being buried in snow and all the rest of it. And then disappear, live under the radar, anyone can do that. What happens when they want to do something that involves an authority?

BristolUK

Yes, but that's the thing...legitimately.

When someone mentions the province specific thing but really wanting to live somewhere else, you can almost see the wink and finger on nose when it's suggested they can move if it doesn't work out.

Another regular one - quite recently in fact - is where PR hasn't been maintained and the PR card has expired. "what you might get away with is coming into Canada by land crossing as a visitor and staying around for long enough, re-apply for PR Card and hope it's not picked up"

We don't really see a flurry of objections like we do when it comes to others finding not particularly legitimate ways around the rules.

It's almost as if it's organised with people registering to spread the objections.

dbd33

Another weak point in this post is that Trudeau is hardly going to be surprised, the situation of the Haitians has be well known for some time.

It's also a stretch to tie the Haitians to a future referendum on Quebec independence, there's no reason to suppose that less Haitians would go to an independent Quebec than to Canada. Quebec would likely have the same refugee laws as Canada and for the same reason, economic dependence on the US.

carcajou

Oh my goodness another one of "those" posters.

Bats, do you have any idea what "bigot" actually means?

A "bigot" is not a person who disagrees with you about something. A "bigot" is also not a person who is left-wing, as I am, but just not as left-wing as you are.

A bigot is someone who treats certain races and ethnic groups with hatred and intolerance.

So, as I look back in my posts, where have I directed hatred towards an ethnic group?

Was it when I posted - repeatedly - that legitimate refugees should be given asylum in Canada and resettled there? No, I don't see any bigotry in that statement.

How about when I said those denied asylum or who aren't legitimate refugees, should be encouraged to apply for residence, and then welcomed if they meet the criteria? No, no bigotry there either.

When I agreed with BristolUK that Westerners claiming residence on false pretenses should have their visas cancelled? That doesn't sound much like a bigoted remark.

When I said that Germany had been "swamped" by migrants? No hate statements at racial or ethnic groups there either - that's just a statement you disagree with (though I would say 1.5 million migrants in 18 months is indeed "swamped" and most logical and reasonable people would agree, especially as how none of the countries involved have been able to handle the situation).

When I warned that if people perceive a country as losing control of its borders, that could lead to more Trumps, Brexits, and Le Pens? That doesn't sound like bigotry either and in fact is pretty well documented. I am warning about them precisely because I don't support them.

Now, if I had said something like, black refugees shouldn't be allowed into Canada . . . bingo! That would be an example of a bigoted statement.

If I had said that it was terrible that Germany had been "swamped" by Muslims? Bingo! That would also be an example of a bigoted statement.

But I don't believe that which is why I didn't say that, and why I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you called me a "bigot" out of your own ignorance about what the term means, rather than that you were trying to use very dishonest rhetorical tactics.

In the future, I strongly, strongly recommend that when on BE you reply to posts that are actually written, and not phantom posts that exist only in your head; refrain from making false allegations against posters using grown-up terms you don't understand; and, if that fails, enroll in remedial reading comprehension courses that will help you better understand what is actually being written.

carcajou

I would argue that you are focusing too specifically on these particular cases; Quebecois are very sensitive about perceived threats to their culture, and if they feel that the border is slipping out of control and that the federal government is indifferent - it is wishful thinking to assume Quebec would be immune to the the same populist forces sweeping through the US and Europe.

Additionally - though I slipped in saying Germany is landlocked, in the context of migration it essentially is . . . unless there is fake news going around about the "Baltic Sea Route."

carcajou

I certainly agree with you, as I stated earlier, that those applying under false pretenses should have their visas canceled, and that the rules regarding wink-and-nod scams should be enforced. I couldn't give a toss where those trying to fudge the rules are from.

BristolUK

That's really not what I said at all. And I'm not sure where the "Westerners" part came from either.

I contrasted how someone using an immigration route that would work as a means to an alternative outcome that otherwise likely wouldn't work, was tolerated or even suggested as the way forward, with the disapproval of the actions of others who in a different way simply do what they see as similarly benefiting them in a desire to get into Canada.