Illegal Border Crossing into Canada - Asylum Seekers

[tomahawk6]

I think they are a bit shocked that they are not given the warm recption they had hoped for. I see them as future Liberal voters. ;D

http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/troops-set-up-tents-at-border-old-royal-vic-to-shelter-asylum-seekers-1.3538567

Canadians soldiers are being deployed to St-Bernard-de-Lacolle to erect tents for asylum seekers attempting to enter Canada from the United States.
Almost 100 troops will be used to set up the camp site, which will consist of "modular tent shelters with lighting and heating and may temporarily accomodate close to 500 people," Department of National Defence spokesperson Evan Koronewski told CTV Montreal in an email.
"The Canadian Armed Forces is aware of the difficult situation that is requiring significant resources of Canada Border Services Agency, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and other partners in the area of St-Bernard-de-Lacolle," said Koronewski.

Subject modified as per Reply #4. mm

 

[EpicBeardedMan]

I think they are a bit shocked that they are not given the warm recption they had hoped for. I see them as future Liberal voters. ;D

A warm place to sleep and food, with guarantees of moving into shelters afterwards is not a warm reception? They should be building a wall, not a welcome center.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

That's probably a couple million dollars worth of MSA stores we probably won't recover, but will still have to pay for out of our budget.

 

[Lumber]

Not sure how you came to the conclusion that they are all "libs", but hey, the more the merrier! We can't have sunny ways without these shinning stars! 

 

[Journeyman]

http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/troops-set-up-tents-at-border-old-royal-vic-to-shelter-asylum-seekers-1.3538567

Maybe the Mods could change the title to reflect that they are predominantly the Haitian refugees, which have been in the news for a week for those who don't shun reading, rather than "US Libs."
      :

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

My wife has been saying for more than a week now that the Army should be sent ... to set up a few thousand feet of double concertina wire  ;D

Here's a bizarre thought: These people (most of which, it appears, are economic migrants from Haiti currently legally in the US on valid visa - that can expire - issued further to the recent earthquake) are coming through that "gap" because, if they were coming at an actual border post, the Can/US agreement would kick in and they would have to claim status in the US. Now, CBSA has set itself up with covered facilities and assigned personnel there and so has the RCMP, there are regular buses set up, there are porta-potty set up, now army tents, etc. Here's my thought, at which point does this not become a "border post", which then makes the agreement with the US kick in?  Just asking!

 

[mariomike]

Maybe the Mods could change the title to reflect that they are predominantly the Haitian refugees,

ok

 

[Lumber]

ok

Political Correctness wins again! :cdnsalute:

 

[Journeyman]

Political Factual (according to the article cited)  Correctness wins again! :cdnsalute:

Insincere apologies to those who find a preference for honesty troubling.  :not-again:

 

[Lumber]

Insincere apologies to those who find a preference for honesty troubling.  :not-again:

No no I really appreciate the switch (look up and you'll see I was the first to call out the thread name)... I'm just stirring the pot...  :threat:

 

[The Bread Guy]

Given the makeup of the surge, this draws the eye ...

Why a visit from the Haitian government has Quebec immigration lawyers worried
'We want to make sure if they are sent back, that they won't be facing problems,' lawyer says
By Benjamin Shingler, CBC News Posted: Aug 09, 2017 4:50 PM ET Last Updated: Aug 10, 2017 6:52 AM ET

A visit by Haitian government representatives to Montreal as thousands of people from the country seek asylum here is raising alarm among Quebec immigration lawyers.

Haiti's Foreign Affairs Minister Antonio Rodrigue and Stéphanie Auguste, the minister for nationals living abroad, met with Mayor Denis Coderre after arriving in Montreal on Tuesday. The pair had even hoped to meet with asylum seekers staying at the Olympic Stadium, Rodrigue told a news conference alongside Coderre.

In the end, they did not visit the stadium, said a spokesperson for PRAIDA, the provincial organization that assists arrivals to Quebec in their first months.

The visit, however, is still cause for concern, said Jean-Sébastien Boudreault, head of the Quebec Association of Immigration Lawyers. He said any contact with the Haitian government could compromise the safety and privacy of those seeking refuge from the country.

"We need to make sure, first and foremost, that we are protecting the people we are supposed to be protecting, which are the people who are seeking a refugee status," Boudreau said in an interview.

"Some of them may not be received as refugees, might not meet the requirements of refugee claimant as stated in Canadian law. So, some of them might be sent back to Haiti and we want to make sure if they are sent back, that they won't be facing problems."

The visit from the Haitian ministers coincided with a surge in asylum seekers from the country ...

More @ link

 

[jmt18325]

Here's a bizarre thought: These people (most of which, it appears, are economic migrants from Haiti currently legally in the US on valid visa - that can expire - issued further to the recent earthquake) are coming through that "gap" because, if they were coming at an actual border post, the Can/US agreement would kick in and they would have to claim status in the US. Now, CBSA has set itself up with covered facilities and assigned personnel there and so has the RCMP, there are regular buses set up, there are porta-potty set up, now army tents, etc. Here's my thought, at which point does this not become a "border post", which then makes the agreement with the US kick in?  Just asking!

I would think the US would have to agree to the commissioning of a new border post.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Build a Wall! Build a Wall!  anic:

 

[George Wallace]

I would think the US would have to agree to the commissioning of a new border post.

Why?

Just turn them around and send them back from whence they came.  No need for there to be a post on both sides of the border.  Just a point at which to turn them back.

 

[George Wallace]

Several thoughts on the whole fiasco, as Trudeau has remained absolutely invisible in the past couple of weeks, never making any comment on this whole matter.  I hope this case is not a "Chretienism" of "ignore the problem and hope it goes away".

First off, Canada has escaped the mass invasion of Economic Migrants, that Europe has suffered under, due to being surrounded by three oceans, and having a nation to our South who takes its border control very seriously. 

A fear that others than Haitians are mixing in with these groups is a Security Issue that must be addressed.  A fear that Somali criminal elements may be mixed in the crowds is being looked at.

The fact that with the large number of illegal migrants claiming 'refugee' status upon entering the country could mean that the timings to get their immigration hearings could exceed eleven months, and a statement from the Liberal government that there may be an "Amnesty" offered, is very disconcerting.

The fact that these may be predominantly persons from a predominantly Roman Catholic, Western nation, who speak a French dialect, may make them much better candidates to integrate into Canadian society, than those from an African or Middle Eastern nation who may not share our Western values, nor speak either French or English, could be seen as a positive point.

 

[jmt18325]

Just turn them around and send them back from whence they came.  No need for there to be a post on both sides of the border.  Just a point at which to turn them back.

That would be hard to do legally.  When they're on the US side of the border we have no jurisdiction, and because they're not US citizens or permanent residents, we have no authority to send them back to the US once they're on our side.  Because the Safe Third Country Agreement specifies border posts, we also have no legal ground to deny asylum claims by those crossing illegally.

 

[George Wallace]

.....  Because the Safe Third Country Agreement specifies border posts, we also have no legal ground to deny asylum claims by those crossing illegally.

Because of the Safe Third Country Agreement, they were already in a 'Safe Third Country': "America"...................  Crossing into Canada illegally does not mean that they stay here.....Back they go to that Safe Third Country they chose first. They have NO legal ground to seek asylum here.

 

[jmt18325]

Because of the Safe Third Country Agreement, they were already in a 'Safe Third Country': "America"...................  Crossing into Canada illegally does not mean that they stay here.....Back they go to that Safe Third Country they chose first. They have NO legal ground to seek asylum here.

The Safe Third Country Agreement doesn't apply where they're crossing.  The US is fine with that.  They like it this way.  If they didn't, they'd stop the migrants, because they are the only ones with absolute power to stop the migrants.  We have no authority to send non Americans back to the US once they enter Canada.

 

[PuckChaser]

The Safe Third Country Agreement doesn't apply where they're crossing.  The US is fine with that.  They like it this way.  If they didn't, they'd stop the migrants, because they are the only ones with absolute power to stop the migrants.  We have no authority to send non Americans back to the US once they enter Canada.

Send them back to Haiti then. The first major news article that said someone caught illegally crossing was not sent back to the US, but to their home country, would immediately cease all illegal traffic using this loophole.

We can also close the loophole by having expedited hearings (matter of days not years) to boot them either back across or back to home country.

 

[jmt18325]

Send them back to Haiti then. The first major news article that said someone caught illegally crossing was not sent back to the US, but to their home country, would immediately cease all illegal traffic using this loophole.

If they say the word asylum and they are not subject to the Safe Third Country Agreement, we have to process their claim.

We can also close the loophole by having expedited hearings (matter of days not years) to boot them either back across or back to home country.

I'm all in favour of that - the system just isn't designed for this sudden spike though.  I'm totally willing to spend whatever it takes.