Masked Chinese migrant released from custody

This needs to be changed.



So does this.


Just a bad sysytem all the way round.

What bullshit. He's claiming refugee status on the basis that he will be persecuted in Chian for coming to Canada illegally. All he had to do was stay in China and he would have been fine. But, you know they're going to let him in, and we'll have another slime ball to deal with.

I would have to disagree with both of you somewhat for this case.

I don't feel that someone entering Canada illegally due to needing asylum needs to be changed. If someone wants to leave their country for reasons which they would request asylum for, it is not uncommon that these people are incapable of getting there due to legal, political or economical factors. I'm sure everyone has heard stories of people working to get over here -- I know of a few who got here on boats which were shot at, for example, escaping Vietnam. Someone who is seeking refugee status or asylum usually does have something they would be prosecuted for prior to making the attempt, so it should be no surprise that there are many cases which involve illegal access or transport of some kind.

I do agree that the lengthy refugee process does need to be accelerated.

I would disagree with andy as well. The article does not state why he needed asylum, just like it does not state his name. What it does state is that his custody was protective and he is a flight hazard as a result of how he got into Canada, not that his actual asylum request was due to how he got here. Given the bond was paid, his family was paid and those responsible appear to have been arrested in Hong Kong, he has been released into the care of a family friend here in Canada.

No Kahr, this article doesn't. But others do. His lawyer says he's in danger in China because his name was leaked so the Chinese authorities are out to get him. No other reason has been given for his refugee application. This is just more immigration by the back door.

Not only does the process need to be speeded up, but it needs to be toughened up. We take way more refugees per capita than other western countries, because we're such softies.

If you're shot at leaving a country illegally, ie if your ownly reason for persecution is that you're not allowed to leave the country, then we shouldn't take them. That's just not enough of a reason.

To be frank, nothing you said there made sense to me. What "others" have said that this is the only reason he is allowed to stay? We don't know his name, why would we be privy to the status of reason of his application, or the reasons why it was submitted? The only reason we even know about the existence of this case is because of a security leak, not because the folks in the government wanted us to know about it.

I just went through as many news articles as I could find, and absolutely none of them state that the only reason he is seeking asylum is due to the way he got here and the only reason he may recieve it is because of that. They all say the same thing -- he was he protective custody because of the snakeheads, he had to have the bond paid to pay off other folks, he is a flight risk, etc. If there are "others" who have said it, then post 'em now, to what you claimed. Not a single site I checked has said what his reasons for coming here are -- the hearing has not even happened yet, so he has not stated his reasons for coming here and seeking asylum in a public forum as of yet.

Until the man or his lawyer say something, or the hearing commences, we don't know squat about what specific reasons brought him to Canada seeking asylum. Just because no other reason has been given does not mean there is no other reason. Evidence of absence and all that.

Other articles, Khar. In those the lawyer makes those arguments, and no other reason is given for refugee status. The lawyer argued that it's not safe to send this guy back to China because his name was leaked to the authorities. Well, if there were other reasons not to send him back, why only mention the one that has the weakest argument?

He's not in protective custody because of snakeheads, as the above article says:

It's funny how Canada twists itself into logical knots: "snakeheads bad, people who use snakeheads innoncent refugees." If he's an innoncent refugee, shouldn't the snakeheads be given a medal for helping him to freedom?

I don't want him locked up. I want him on the next flight home.

Other articles you still haven't provided, even though I have provided you several. The lawyer has also not said what you claim he has -- that is what the adjudicator said, when explaining her reasoning why she believes it was indeed a human smuggling operation. It was also not his lawyer who wanted him to remain in custody, but a government lawyer. Indeed, his own lawyer has said very little but point out the options of this Chinese man and move for him to leave prison on a bond.

Also, as the above article says:



Now explain to me why he would be concerned about those debts and why they could stop him from appearing in court? He certainly could make a run for it, and I'd bet it would be out of concern for personal harm. As I mentioned, there were also requests he stay in prison because of his flight status, I did not leave that out. I simply augmented it with what seemed like a pretty reasonable extension of what was going on.

As the bit YOU quoted showed, he was released because his debt had been paid. As in he was no longer perceived to be in danger from these folks to the extent that he would consider running. I mentioned this in a previous post and several of the articles mentioned the bond and the debt.

I'm not sure what you're on about, Khar. I heard/read the lawyer say he can't be sent back because his name has been leaked and so he's in danger if he returns. As I said, to me that's pretzel logic, if he hadn't left he wouldn't be in danger.

We have lots of phony refugees that take holidays back in the old country - if they were in danger what are they doing going back there? Time to stop this bullshit. Unless this guy can prove he was active in the democracy movement and faced serious imprisonment because of that, send him back. Yesterday.

His debt has been paid because he has people behind him that want to help him with his queue jumping. Probably his parents, who he'll sponsor as soon as he can.

As I said, I can't find where he said that, and you haven't provided a link to where he said that, or quoted him. As I showed, his lawyer hasn't said that. As I have stated, you cannot state that that to be the only reason, because you simply can't know that.

he said she said can't say. What have you showed his lawyer didn't say, and how did you manage that trick?

You're right, I don't know if it's the only reason. But you'd think his lawyer would come up with a better argument if he had one.

If we plan to make snakeheading illegal, ie prosectue people who help smuggle people into the country, why aren't we prosecuting the people that are being smuggled? Makes no sense to me. If those people didn't willingly participate, there would be no crime, the crime exists because the smugglee is involved.

No, I don't think he'd come up with a better reason. In fact, he never came up with the reason you attributed to him -- that was not his choice for his client to be jailed, nor was it his statements that he be allowed to remain on those grounds. Indeed, no one has said such a thing. The closest is that he was in part jailed out of concern that he would not show up for his removal order should it be given, but as the man had a person pay his bond and get sufficient guarantee for his involvement in the process, that is a moot point. The man's name is being protected from public. It's not a big leap to think that the lawyer is not only under orders to avoid stating the name, but is also under orders not to discuss the case.

Also, he never said what you claim he did in any of these cases. You still haven't quoted or linked me to anything of substance. Simple fact is, this man's lawyer has said none of the things you have claimed. You keep trying to drag this back on a point I've already demonstrated is moot -- he is not staying here because of the smugglers. There is no evidence that is his only reason, or will be his only reason.

Had a guarantor not paid his bond, he would likely still be jailed until a hearing, but the only difference is that he would be jailed to make sure he doesn't leave rather than in part to assure his safety. If at that time it was agreed that he should be allowed to pursue the options the lawyer as outlined in those links, such as getting a work permit, then he would have been given leave to do so.

Christ Khar, you sure throw in everything but the kitchen sink. It's got nothing to do with this guy being jailed here. The lawyer told reporters that his client could not be sent back to China now that his identity had been leaked, because he would be in danger if he was. (Forget if I read it or heard it reported) That to me says he was not in danger beforehand, otherwise this argument would be irrelevant. "Well he's being persecuted for his political activities, but I'm going to argue he's not safe because his mame was leaked." Does that make sense to you?

Your new post above is actually in line with what I have stated about protective custody to some extent. Well, minus the fact that you still haven't managed to find a reference for those assertions.

The argument would not be irrelevant, assuming that it does exist in the first place from the lawyer (I am betting personally if anyone said it, it was the adjudicator) -- basically, all it means is that if the reason had not been acceptable, then he would have to be sent back if he had not been identified. It does not mean that his original reason is not acceptable in any way. All it means is now, because of someone in border security, there is now a 100% chance that the man can be identified and could be prosecuted/persecuted upon returning to China. It does not mean they think he will.

There are other alternatives between welcoming him into Canada with asylum and sending him back to China.

Does that make sense to you?

I haven't been looking for any reference. I remember what I read/heard, that will do for me. You don't want to believe it, that's your choice.

The lawyer said it, outside the hearing, to reporters. The adjudicator isn't going to say it, it would prejudice her finding.

What other alternatives exist between keeping him here to jump the gueue or sending him back?