[Delwin]

You make it sound like these people are on a trip to Disney land. The legitimate claimants are people who were forced to leave their homes and readjust to a new life in a foreign country. They are forced to live off a very nominal sum unless they are granted a 6 month work permit. We are not feeding them caviar and putting them up at the Royal York. Most of them would like to earn an honest living.

With regards to that, Harper has removed the ability of people from DCO's to work. That's right, if you are from a DCO you are not granted a work permit, so while your father was able to come here and etch out a living these people have had that taken away.

Let's not forget the fact that they are not asking for bags of Candy, this is heart medication, Insulin, and other medicine that they require to live. It's not like they are are getting tummy tucks and butt lifts.

The program itself costs $90 Million a year, Harper spent $650 million on Syrian refugees in Jordan to educate them. How the fuck does that make sense?

Why are we assuming that the refugees in Canada are all fraudsters, travelling thousands of miles and leaving their homes to live on $600/month?

[PublicAnimalNo9]

And Delwin, a while back, I forget which thread, I kind'a shit on you for saying that Bart and Martin should be banned from the site for not being Canadian enough or some crap like that. Going through my post history I saw that it was not you that said that.
Since I called you out in the forum and wrongly accused you of that, I'd like to publicly apologize for wrongly accusing you and the tone/language that I used in doing so.
So, I'm sorry I was a dick to you for no reason.

[Delwin]

+5, No hard feelings. Mistakes happen.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Delwin Delwin:

You make it sound like these people are on a trip to Disney land. The legitimate claimants are people who were forced to leave their homes and readjust to a new life in a foreign country. They are forced to live off a very nominal sum unless they are granted a 6 month work permit. We are not feeding them caviar and putting them up at the Royal York.

Nope, but I HAVE seen them put up at the Hilton before.

Delwin Delwin:

Most of them would like to earn an honest living.

With regards to that, Harper has removed the ability of people from DCO's to work. That's right, if you are from a DCO you are not granted a work permit, so while your father was able to come here and etch out a living these people have had that taken away.

Let's not forget the fact that they are not asking for bags of Candy, this is heart medication, Insulin, and other medicine that they require to live. It's not like they are are getting tummy tucks and butt lifts.

The program itself costs $90 Million a year, Harper spent $650 million on Syrian refugees in Jordan to educate them. How the fuck does that make sense?

Why are we assuming that the refugees in Canada are all fraudsters, travelling thousands of miles and leaving their homes to live on $600/month?

Which circles back to my original argument about the whole thing. We have actual Canadians here, right now, who go without the bare essentials far too frequently. How do we justify spending $90 million/yr on refugees, particularly from DCOs? Canada is only legally obligated to accept refugees from countries involved in civil wars or wars of aggression/conquest.
As I said before, most of the countries on the DCO list are also countries we generally don't accept immigrants from.
Seems kind of stupid to allow people to come here as "economic refugees" when we won't allow immigration from those same countries for the same reason.

[Delwin]

Canada has legal obligations towards refugees in Canada under the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the Convention against Torture. These obligations extend beyond civil war and conflicts:

$1:

Article 1. - Definition of the term "refugee"

A. For the purposes of the present Convention, the term "refugee,, shall apply to any person who:

(1) Has been considered a refugee under the Arrangements of 12 May 1926 and 30 June 1928 or under the Conventions of 28 October 1933 and 10 February 1938, the Protocol of 14 September 1939 or the Constitution of the International Refugee Organization;

Decisions of non-eligibility taken by the International Refugee Organization during the period of its activities shall not prevent the status of refugee being accorded to persons who fulfil the conditions of paragraph 2 of this section;

(2) As a result of events occurring before I January 1951 and owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.

In the case of a person who has more than one nationality, the term "the country of his nationality" shall mean each of the countries of which he is a national, and a person shall not be deemed to be lacking the protection of the country of his nationality if, without any valid reason based on well-founded fear, he has not availed himself of the protection of one of the countries of which he is a national.

B. (1) For the purposes of this Convention, the words "events occurring before I January 1951" in article 1, section A, shall be understood to mean either (a) "events occurring in Europe before I January 1951"; or (b) "events occurring in Europe or elsewhere before I January 1951"; and each Contracting State shall make a declaration at the time of signature, ratification or accession, specifying which of these meanings it applies for the purpose of its obligations under this Convention.

(2) Any Contracting State which has adopted alternative (a) may at any time extend its obligations by adopting alternative (b) by means of a notification addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

C. This Convention shall cease to apply to any person falling under the terms of section A if:

(1) He has voluntarily re-availed himself of the protection of the country of his nationality; or

(2) Having lost his nationality, he has voluntarily reacquired it; or

(3) He has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality; or

(4) He has voluntarily re-established himself in the country which he left or outside which he remained owing to fear of persecution; or

(5) He can no longer, because the circumstances in connection with which he has been recognized as a refugee have ceased to exist, continue to refuse to avail himself of the protection of the country of his nationality;

Provided that this paragraph shall not apply to a refugee falling under section A (I) of this article who is able to invoke compelling reasons arising out of previous persecution for refusing to avail himself of the protection of the country of nationality;

(6) Being a person who has no nationality he is, because the circumstances in connection with which he has been recognized as a refugee have ceased to exist, able to return to the country of his former habitual residence;

Provided that this paragraph shall not apply to a refugee falling under section A (I) of this article who is able to invoke compelling reasons arising out of previous persecution for refusing to return to the country of his former habitual residence.

D. This Convention shall not apply to persons who are at present receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance.

When such protection or assistance has ceased for any reason, without the position of such persons being definitively settled in accordance with the relevant resolutions adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, these persons shall ipso facto be entitled to the benefits of this Convention.

E. This Convention shall not apply to a person who is recognized by the competent authorities of the country in which he has taken residence as having the rights and obligations which are attached to the possession of the nationality of that country.

F. The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that:

(a) He has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes;

(b) He has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee;

(c) He has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

The Supreme Court of Canada has also confirmed that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights of asylum seekers to fundamental justice. Not everyone who makes a claim in Canada will be found to be a refugee, but all need to be heard to ensure that no one is sent back to face persecution or torture. Canada does not have the same legal obligations towards refugees outside Canada who apply for resettlement, which is why they often enter the country before applying.

We don’t know whether a claimant is a refugee or not until their case has been decided. Are you arguing that it is a impossible for a person whom is from a DCO to be forced to flee their home or suffer persecution ?

Article 3 of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, of which we are a signatory, states that the process needs to be the same without discrimination based on country of origin:

$1:

Article 3. - Non-discrimination

The Contracting States shall apply the provisions of this Convention to refugees without discrimination as to race, religion or country of origin.

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/v1crs.htm

[PublicAnimalNo9]

It's still bullshit Delwin. Back in the early 90's when I still lived in Windsor we had a bunch of Tamils sneak across the Detroit/Windsor border to come here as "refugees".
Of course they were permitted to remain. They were even put up at the Riverfront Hilton for two weeks while their fate was decided. I had no idea that the Tamils suffered such persecution in the US, considering the number that actually still live there.
And non-American asylum seekers using the US to make their way here is more common than most people realize.

As it is right now, 1 in 9 refugees who resettle globally, end up here. Maybe it's time the other so-called civilized countries start taking up the slack.

As for the issue with DCOs, it's not like Canada is the only possible option for people who may be being persecuted in those countries.
UN conventions be damned. We can either try and solve our "appalling"(their words) child poverty rate or we can spend the resources trying to help solve everyone else's problems. The UN can't have it both ways and Canada is currently in no position to do both.

[Delwin]

You keep treating this like it is about money, it isn't. It is 100% about keeping people out and discouraging people from coming here. The Judge in the case questioned whether this would amount to any kind of cost savings.

$1:

While I have insufficient evidence before me to make a finding in this regard, I would also note that there is a real question as to whether the cuts to the IFHP will in fact achieve any real cost savings to taxpayers – another stated objective of the changes – or whether the costs of providing medical care to those seeking the protection of Canada are simply being downloaded to the provinces and others.

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/do-the- ... ake-sense/

And as already mentioned, the entire cost of the program is $91 million. Of that only a small fraction is going to people from a DCO. Of those, only a fraction are illegitimate claims. What you are talking about here is having people suffer and die to save what amount to a pittance in the grand scheme of things.

Also, as I had stated, the fact is that this can only happen when we prejudicially assume that people who come here from a DCO aren't legitimate claimants. This is in direct contradiction to the international agreements we have signed.

I would also like to hear how you feel about the children of these people. Be they fraudsters or legitimate claimants, you have to admit that the kids are innocent in all this, you would have them suffer and die to save what ? $10 Million, 20?

It absolutely makes me sick to think of that. Today He committed $20 Million to stop forced marriages in the middle of fucking nowhere, you think that program is not going to be abused? That is more important than the people inside our borders dying along side us while we enjoy our affluence?

You referenced the UN's comments with regards to our child poverty issues, is it really too much to ask for us to feed our hungry children AND honour our international obligations ? What kind of country have we become?

Do we then decide whether we are going to feed our pets OR our children?

[andyt]

I want to keep people from coming here who are only economic migrants. So if they've come from a safe country that denied them refugee status, they should not be allowed to try again here, play the refugee lottery. If their country is generally a safe country that doesn't produce refugees, they should have to make a much better case for being allowed to stay - life or death.

We hear about, and I know about all sorts of "refugees" that are given pr status here only to then travel back to their own countries for visits - how dangerous can it be there for them?

The world has 7 billion people, most of whom live in shittier countries than Canada. We can't take them all, or even a significant percentage. UN sponsored refugees, and ones sponsored by groups here, who agree to look after them, fine, we should take a percentage of those. But the ones that just hop on a plane or boat to come here, sorry, you get one hearing to make a convincing case, if you can't, it's buh bye. We're better off trying to help make things better in refugee producing countries than trying to take them all in here. And just as with immigrants, the period it takes to attain citizenship should be longer - say 7 years. You can't keep your nose clean during that time, and buh bye.

We need to start thinking of Canadians first. Not keep taking in huge numbers of people that just depress wages and cost our social system far more than they contribute in taxes. We also need to find a way to get immigrants to go where they are actually needed - northern Alberta and Saskatchewan, instead of all clustering together in Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto, trying to recreate their homeland there.

No more family class sponsorships except spouses and dependent children. You want to live with the old folks, stay home.

[PluggyRug]

andyt andyt:

I want to keep people from coming here who are only economic migrants. So if they've come from a safe country that denied them refugee status, they should not be allowed to try again here, play the refugee lottery. If their country is generally a safe country that doesn't produce refugees, they should have to make a much better case for being allowed to stay - life or death.

We hear about, and I know about all sorts of "refugees" that are given pr status here only to then travel back to their own countries for visits - how dangerous can it be there for them?

The world has 7 billion people, most of whom live in shittier countries than Canada. We can't take them all, or even a significant percentage. UN sponsored refugees, and ones sponsored by groups here, who agree to look after them, fine, we should take a percentage of those. But the ones that just hop on a plane or boat to come here, sorry, you get one hearing to make a convincing case, if you can't, it's buh bye. We're better off trying to help make things better in refugee producing countries than trying to take them all in here. And just as with immigrants, the period it takes to attain citizenship should be longer - say 7 years. You can't keep your nose clean during that time, and buh bye.

We need to start thinking of Canadians first. Not keep taking in huge numbers of people that just depress wages and cost our social system far more than they contribute in taxes. We also need to find a way to get immigrants to go where they are actually needed - northern Alberta and Saskatchewan, instead of all clustering together in Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto, trying to recreate their homeland there.

No more family class sponsorships except spouses and dependent children. You want to live with the old folks, stay home.

Well summed up Andy, +5 if I could.

[andyt]

I'm only a bleeding heart liberal as far as Canadians are concerned.

[Delwin]

andyt andyt:

I want to keep people from coming here who are only economic migrants.

Sorry, not sure if I understand you correctly, you don't believe in immigration at all ?

[andyt]

I would way reduce it. Go with the recent change made by the Cons where more are brought in because they already have a job lined up, their qualifications have been accepted. Unless have very low unemployment, I don't want to bring in 1/4 million people every year, whether we need them or not. No more doctors driving cabs and so forth. I want Canada to start training it's own people for the skills it needs, not rob trained people from third world countries where that third world country had the expense of training them and when they get here their qualifications aren't recognized. I don't want to bring in parents and grandparents to be burdens on our social systems without ever having paid into them.

A suggestion was to only bring in people as temp workers for skilled jobs. If they work here for 4 years and everything works out, they get quick acceptance for pr status. Sounds good to me. That way, they would settle where the jobs actually are, in Alberta and Saskatchewan, instead of all clustering together in the 3 major cities. For unskilled workers, only allow them in for temp jobs like agriculture or tourism, where they have to go home during the off season. If it takes higher wages to attract Canadians to take low skill, permanent, jobs, so be it. I'm with Jason Kenney on that one.

[Xort]

Delwin Delwin:

I disagree, I believe we are morally obligated as a civilized society, unless you are native, at some point your family came here looking for a better life and were not turned away, just like mine did about 150 years ago, so what makes you special ?

They came under an immigration program looking for people, not as refugees.

I don't think we should have any refugee program at all. I think immigration should be a controlled action with a vetting system.

Further more just because a policy was used in the past doesn't mean it must still be valid today. That's not logical.

$1:

We are an underpopulated country and risk a very real funding crises with the aging workforce so unless we experience a serious baby boom, we are going to need to bring in immigrants.

Or we could work on technological solutions to expand our labour forces ability to produce. Raise the product per capital rather than just raising the total number of people.

Delwin Delwin:

http://www.doctorsforrefugeecare.ca/the-issue.html

That link provides no source for their claim, do you have an official government release? Also wouldn't you call a refugee from a developed nation a false refugee? Can someone be a refugee from Norway?

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Delwin Delwin:

You keep treating this like it is about money, it isn't. It is 100% about keeping people out and discouraging people from coming here. The Judge in the case questioned whether this would amount to any kind of cost savings.

$1:

While I have insufficient evidence before me to make a finding in this regard, I would also note that there is a real question as to whether the cuts to the IFHP will in fact achieve any real cost savings to taxpayers – another stated objective of the changes – or whether the costs of providing medical care to those seeking the protection of Canada are simply being downloaded to the provinces and others.

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/do-the- ... ake-sense/

And as already mentioned, the entire cost of the program is $91 million. Of that only a small fraction is going to people from a DCO. Of those, only a fraction are illegitimate claims. What you are talking about here is having people suffer and die to save what amount to a pittance in the grand scheme of things.

Also, as I had stated, the fact is that this can only happen when we prejudicially assume that people who come here from a DCO aren't legitimate claimants. This is in direct contradiction to the international agreements we have signed.

I would also like to hear how you feel about the children of these people. Be they fraudsters or legitimate claimants, you have to admit that the kids are innocent in all this, you would have them suffer and die to save what ? $10 Million, 20?
It absolutely makes me sick to think of that. Today He committed $20 Million to stop forced marriages in the middle of fucking nowhere, you think that program is not going to be abused? That is more important than the people inside our borders dying along side us while we enjoy our affluence?

That last paragraph was a nice strawman. I have zero idea what made you think that if I have a problem with money going to FAILED and bullshit refugee claimsants, I'd have no problem with the govt throwing money at other countries.

Delwin Delwin:

You referenced the UN's comments with regards to our child poverty issues, is it really too much to ask for us to feed our hungry children AND honour our international obligations ? What kind of country have we become?

What kind of country have we become? Let's see now, calculating the debt of ALL levels of govt, adding in other liabilities they are responsible for, our country is on the hook for $4.1 TRILLION. That's $117,000 for every Canadian, $243,000 for every taxpayer, or to put it another way, it's 230% of our GDP.
So where are we supposed to continue getting the money to solve everyone else's problems? Where's the $91 million coming from if we're $4.1 trillion in the hole?
You keep harping about our international commitments. Well sorry, but when we're $4.1 trillion into the red, the commitment to Canadians has to come first and foremost.
Borrowing money to essentially hand it to someone else is just fucking stupid.

Now let's look at the $91 million figure you like to quote. You're telling me that in 2012 when we had some 23,000 refugees accepted that it cost less than $4000/person to bring them here, resettle them and provide financial assistance, on top of health care and other govt services? Because if that's the case, I'm calling serious bullshit.

[Delwin]

The $91 Million was for the Interim Federal Health Program which covers the health costs for the refugees. The $20 Million is the savings that came from the changes to the program, which is the issue we are discussing:
(2011-2012 Costs below)

$1:

The IFHP payments cost $84-million last year, a budget that will be slashed by about $20-million annually.

Currently, refugee claimants are entitled to a full range of health-care services during the waiting period for provincial health insurance (a period of about three months), and Ottawa pays the bill.

(2009-10 Numbers)

$1:

And there you have it: The government brought in a cruel and inhumane program aimed squarely at the most vulnerable people in the country, sold it in the basest way imaginable by appealing to the least generous impulses in us all and hasn’t proved it will save one red cent of the $91-million cost of the program.

(from recent ruling)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/hea ... le4178642/

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 ... -shameful/