Fishbone Jones said:
Do you feel the conservatives would still be allowing the unimpeded flow of illegal immigrants through the border? That they could not declare an emergency or use the non withstanding clause? I don't think, we'd be employing our federal law enforcement services on the borders as baggage handlers. Nor do I think we'd be housing thousands of them in Toronto, sucking Ontario dry.
Perhaps I'm being overly simplistic, but to throw up your arms, say there is nothing you can do about it and let thousands and thousands more through is not an answer or action. I don't think Harper would have let that happen. Nor do I think Scheer lacks the cojones to roll up his sleeves and say not on my watch.
Although in full reality only our current PM would be likely enough to send out the invite in the first place. Thus making this on him.
You certainly are being overly simplistic, and you're repeating factually inaccurate talking points that I've corrected you on before. At this point that's a conscious choice on your part.
First off, it's not an unimpeded flow. Every single person who crosses with the knowledge of law enforcement is immediately arrested, searched, identified, run against various databases both domestic and international, and their personal effects searched and inventoried. Secondly, what you refer to as RCMP acting as 'baggage handlers' is the police upholding their legal responsibility to maintain custody and care of the personal effects of a person they have arrested. Just as police are responsible for a prisoner, they are responsible for belongings seized incidental to arrest. I have of course explained this to you before, so I don't know why you're still trying to ignore it other than perhaps to try to get a dig in at me on this one. Until the arrested party is handed off to Canada Border Services, the RCMP are legally responsible for the safekeeping of all of their effects. It is of course also necessary to search those effects for things that aren't allowed in the country, which is done and which has resulted in some people being immediately held in custody and deemed inadmissible. Once these people are handed off to CBSA, they then by and large claim asylum, and go through that process which ultimately results in some staying and some being removed from the country. At the point of crossing the border illegally, however, police are responsible for arresting them, for keeping them and their belongings safe and secure, and for handing them off to CBSA, the appropriate authority for the next steps. And I'll say that the CBSA officers who've been deployed to Quebec to assist with this have done a bang up job holding up their end of things.
You seem to suggest that we could invoke the notwithstanding clause to pass legislation that would prevent them physically entering Canada. S.33 of the Charter does indeed give the government the authority to suspend a selection of charter rights. Could they suspend S.7 (life, liberty, security of the person) and allow police to deter border crossers by simply beating the crap out of those who attempt to cross? Or maybe just shooting them? I suppose that would have an impact, but likely not one that would reflect positively on our country... The law does not allow us to simply turn them around and force them back into the United States. Once they enter Canada's territory, they're Canada's problem. We cannot violate the sovereignty of the US by forcing them back across. One way or another as soon as they step foot on Canadian soil, they are a Canadian problem to be dealt with under Canadian law. But there's no viable, practical way to stop that first foot being set in our country. There are innumerable places to cross and very finite resources. The best thing for Canadian security is for every individual crossing to be arrested and identified immediately so that at least apparent threats to Canadian security, or those already deemed inadmissable, can be detected and dealt with immediately. That, at least, is largely happening. Could a suspension of said section of the Charter let us just arbitrarily jail all of them pending completion of their hearings? I suppose. But because you also seem concerned about resources being 'sucked dry', I don't imagine you would be too happy with the reality of Canada having to quintuple its immigration detention capacity. We don't have that many spare jail cells or police / correctional / border officers floating around.
Now if you were to suggest a rational policy approach, like greatly expanded funding and hiring for the quasi-judicial panels that hear these claims in order to reduce the backlog and get people processed (and consequently many kicked out) faster, I'd be right there with you.... But you haven't, so I can only speculate as to what notions you may have. Other rational policy approaches could include further outreach to the communities from which many of the asylum claimants are sourced, to try to deter them from coming up here in the first place. That was in fact done with some modest success, but it cannot stem the tide fully. Other rational policy approaches could include working with the US to reduce flow-through of people who show up in the US on a valid tourist visa and immediately bus to the border and come across. That has also been done as well to some extent. I'm not in a position to say whether there are further returns possible on this.
The simple reality is that most of those entering Canada illegally via the land border at the couple of well known illegal crossing sites are already resident in the United States, most with some sort of legal status, and we have only a limited ability to deter them from crossing the border on foot. The notwithstanding clause is not some sort of magic wand you can wave and magically the illegal immigrants just go away, sorry. The necessary logical result of what you're fumbling at would be basically empowering authorities - presumably the RCMP - to do things that would probably be quite unconscionable and that would bring that organization as well as our nation itself into disrepute. No thanks. The current approach is far from ideal, but there is at least room to throw more resources at the processing and try to get people moved through the system quicker to whatever the result may be. Many, after all, *do* quite legitimately qualify for asylum status. I'm fine with that. Many others do not and will be ordered removed from the country, and I'm fine with that too.
As to a state of emergency, the applicable legislation for that would be the federal Emergencies Act. It's quite specific in how it applies. The straw you are reaching for would be 'public order emergency', but that straw, like many of the legal realities of the situation, is eluding your grasp. A 'Public Order Emergency' must be based on something that constitutes a threat to the security of Canada as defined per S.2 of the CSIS act. You can find that definition
here, and it should be readily apparent to you that the shoe does not fit.
I will eagerly await the Conservative platform on border security. I want to see what viable approaches they intend to take that would have a positive tangible impact. I strongly believe that it is the absolute sovereign right of a nation to control who enters its borders, and this is something we need to get better at. However, to actually achieve strategic goals on the issue will require more than just pounding on a table. We must contend with 6400km of land border from BC to New Brunswick. We must contend with a neighbour to the south whose government is causing great fear among its immigrant population. We must contend with being a nation governed by the rule of law. These are objective realities that preclude quick or easy solutions to the approximately 20,000 people illegally crossing the border per year. At this same time, this represents less than 7% of Canada's total immigration. At the local level where diasporas congregate this may be profoundly inconvenient, but at the national level it is not the sort of crisis one abandons principles over.
I remain disappointed with how PMJT handled this initially. He screwed up in how he reached out and basically encouraged people to make their way to Canada one way or another. I'm not happy with it, and it's another one of the things I'm displeased with his performance in. Now we have to deal with the problem, and my interest extends only to the pragmatic and viable approaches everyone vying for election actually has to offer. I'm wholly uninterested in the massive amount of mud slinging to come. I want to know what parties intend to *do* about it, with enough specifics that we can take what they say seriously.