Sign in to follow this  
Jaydee

Canadas Immigration Policy Totally Out of Control

Recommended Posts

"He said Canada has been in “constant contact” with the U.S. about the Roxham Road crossing, near St. Bernard-de-Lacolle, Que., where many of the illegal crossings take place. But he said no formal negotiations to make the entire border subject to the agreement are taking place."

Nero fiddles while Rome burns!

Get the government out of the way.

This farce could be brought under control quickly by a few actors with guns & blanks.

Make a pile of noise, fire a few shots, add a few pretend victims and poof, the illegals would flee. The word would spread quickly that the CBP had started to shoot illegals attempting to cross our border.

Build a wall.

Problem solved.

  

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, DEFCON said:

Build a wall.

Problem solved.

Even easier, stop inviting people to enter Canada this way in the international media. Then stop creating sanctuary cities were the normal laws of immigration are deliberately thwarted.

It seems like everyone who was in favour of these actions is now shocked and dismayed to find their invitation was accepted. There was no other possible outcome. This is so blatant, obvious and self inflicted that it doesn’t even merit inclusion in the “what did you think was going to happen” file.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8891 km long wall.... That sounds feasible.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The “wall” wording would change the intent of the 3rd country safe agreement by elinminating the unofficial border crossing points ie the whole border, coast to coast,  becomes a de facto official crossing point.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boestar

Walls can be made out of militia / military personnel and strategically placed you know.

Should there be no timely and and meaningful response from government I'm hoping concerned citizens will take up border protection activities on their own and start repelling the invaders.

Do you have anything in the way of a plan to offer that would stop the third world from over running our Country?

Edited by DEFCON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

elect a different prime minister?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seems to me there is only one tactic that can be used to at least slow down the illegals and that is to prevent them from crossing...... No need for a fence, just a strong military or police presence at the most favored illegal crossing points that is charged to stop them, physically if they don't turn back on their own.  Sure some will go to other points but I bet the total number who are able to cross will go down drastically. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrew Coyne: Problem with asylum seekers in Canada can only be fixed if U.S. decides to help

Those who are demanding, in response to the latest surge in illegal crossings, that Canada 'get control of its borders,' are therefore talking through their hats

May 7, 2018
7:59 PM EDT

Filed underbutton_close_black.svg
Share this story
Andrew Coyne: Problem with asylum seekers in Canada can only be fixed if U.S. decides to help

The frontier between the United States and Canada is often described as the “world’s longest undefended border.” This is untrue. It is defended by the United States, in both directions.

The Americans are certainly vigilant in defence of their own border, as anyone who has visited the United States lately could attest. But they are no less responsible, in a way, for defending Canada’s.

So far as the border goes undefended by Canada, it is because it is, as far as we are concerned, indefensible. We simply don’t have the resources to patrol a eight-thousand-kilometre border — still less tens of thousands of kilometres of coastline.

That a few million people, indeed, could lay claim to the entire northern half of the continent, without more than a fraction of the armed might needed to defend it, was always a bit of a con. It has relied, from the start, on our proximity to the United States.

The country exists, it is not too far to say, because the United States agrees it should. The Americans could invade any time they liked; there would be nothing we could do to stop it. They simply choose not to. So, too, we would be powerless to prevent any serious power from invading from abroad. Our security depends instead on the Americans refusing to tolerate this.Something of the same applies to those little “invasions” by thousands of desperate individuals who, to escape persecution and privation (for most, the motives are mixed), will cross whatever international borders they must: legally if possible, illegally if necessary.

 

Most western countries are grappling with this. That Canada has been relatively lightly affected is because we are bounded on three sides by thousands of kilometres of water — and on the fourth by the United States. The security of our southern flank has very little to do with the policies we enact. It depends rather on what the Americans do.

The Safe Third Country Agreement between our two countries that is the subject of so much recent controversy is an example of this. Negotiated by the Chretien government in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, it was essentially a favour to us, part of a larger package of border measures; Canada had indeed been seeking such an agreement for years.

Ostensibly, the accord is reciprocal: each country agrees to turn back refugee claimants from the other, since each agrees to regard the other as “safe.” Those seeking asylum are therefore obliged to make their claims in the first country they arrive in.

But who’s kidding whom? So far as the agreement was intended to prevent “asylum shopping,” the flow of claimants was only ever likely to be in one direction.

Few, after all, would turn their back on the relatively lenient Canadian system to take their chances on the relatively strict American system. It was done at our request, to limit the number of refugee claimants entering by our southern border — and with the understanding that their claims would instead by heard by the U.S.

Even at the time, it was widely predicted to fail. If it reduced the number of legal border crossings, it could only be at the cost of creating “an incentive for people to cross the border in illegal ways,” as the executive director of the Canadian Council for Refugees, Janet Dench, noted. “They’re going to come across fields and rivers, in the backs of trucks and cars,” said the organization’s vice-president, Nick Summers. “They’re going to take risks and there are people who are going to die.” I think we can now acknowledge he was right.

Those who are demanding, in response to the latest surge in illegal crossings, that Canada “get control of its borders,” are therefore talking through their hats. It’s not something we can do on our own.

For starters, any change to the Safe Third Country Agreement — extending its reach from a small number of official ports of entry to the entire border, as the Conservatives have demanded — could only be done with the Americans’ co-operation. We can’t simply turn back refugee claimants, unless the Americans agree to take them. That’s true not only as a matter of U.S. law, but of our international obligations, under the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, not to mention Canadian law.

It seems unlikely, to say the least, that the current administration would accept such an amendment. Even if they did comply, that would still leave us with the task of policing 8,000 km of border. The more broadly we cast our net, the further afield the asylum seekers would be likely to go to evade it.

If we want to cut the flow of illegal border crossers, rather, we have to alter the incentives that encourage them to take this route. Right now they have every incentive to cross at irregular points, since that way they are guaranteed a hearing, in contrast to the official ports of entry, where they are turned back automatically.

What if we reversed that: enter by the lawful door, you get a hearing; enter anywhere else and you are sent back? But again, the U.S. would have to agree.

More broadly, we have to close the gap between Canadian and American practices, in reality or perception, that leads people to believe it is worth fleeing north. That’s not just a matter of reminding would-be claimants that acceptance is not automatic, that they may well be deported after their hearing. So long as their chances of being accepted are materially greater in Canada, the incentive will remain.

I suppose we could tighten our procedures to American designs. Or, if that’s intolerable to us, we can try to persuade the U.S. to be more liberal.

But one way or another, it is the Americans who will decide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite Goodale’s assurances that Canadians are safe and things are under control at our migrant free ticket entry point, some law enforcement agencies think otherwise:

Quote

The federal government has warned Canadian police services “violent” gangs known for cutting off the heads of victims are attempting to sneak across U.S.-Canada border points to avoid President Donald Trump’s changing immigration policy, The Toronto Sun has learned.

The classified “Alert” from Criminal Intelligence Service Canada (CISC) warns “violence linked to the MS-13 is often described as brutal, from senseless beatings to dismemberment.”

Toronto has seen this gang before — even arresting members who threatened a Toronto justice official. MS-13 stands for Mara Salvatrucha which CISC calls a “Latin American street gang known for its violent activities and that exploits migration patterns to set up new cells.”

 

 

CISC stated in a two-page document obtained by the Toronto Sun that “the Canadian law enforcement community should be aware of the group’s modus operandi” which includes “the use of extreme violence to exert power and ensure cohesion among its members.”

It also suggested “influx of Salvadoran migrants is expected throughout 2018 and 2019 requesting asylum in response to the removal of their Temporary Protected Status (TPS) in the United States.”

It tells cops and border security people “MS-13 members will likely exploit the migration of Salvadorians to Canada to set up new cells, most likely in the Greater Toronto Area, Montreal and Vancouver.”

With the tats these guys have all over their bodies, they shouldn’t be too hard to pick out.

http://torontosun.com/news/crime/warmington-cops-warned-to-watch-for-violent-ms-13-gang-members

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How long before we get to the point that we  have to call the Americans in to assist Canada in restoring law & order?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone mentioned earlier, we are accepting the US’s garbage...Trumps problems solved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, st27 said:

It tells cops and border security people “MS-13 members will likely exploit the migration of Salvadorians to Canada to set up new cells, most likely in the Greater Toronto Area, Montreal and Vancouver.”

Good, sanctuary cities one and all. Renounce the status, and then apologize to the rest of the country and do it with feeling, get JT to muster up a few tears and make it heartfelt.... then we can talk; and not one second before.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, st27 said:

As someone mentioned earlier, we are accepting the US’s garbage...Trumps problems solved.

Not sure the people are "Garbage" but no matter , we can not blame it on Trump. Our PM holds full responsibility.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The parallels of what happened to Europe and what is evolving now in Canada are downright scary...

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most people don’t realize how Europe has changed. All of the major cities have areas where there are huge Muslim neighbourhoods. Some, like Marseille are virtual no go zones for the local police. Even Switzerland is not Heidi, cheese, and the Sound of Music.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jaydee said:

The parallels of what happened to Europe and what is evolving now in Canada are downright scary...

The people who wanted this will soon turn on the government that gave it to them. 

Instead of being scared, Canadians need to embrace this now because it's done, no turning back, it's final. That was why many people advised caution, and consideration of population concentrations and long term demographic trends. They were branded racist. 

Now, open your wallet and pay the bill.... and smile while you do it. New reality here, time for Canadians to grow up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing is final.  Just look at Trump undoing everything his predecessor did.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, boestar said:

Nothing is final.  Just look at Trump undoing everything his predecessor did.

 

The influx of people with residency status and citizenship pending in Europe seems pretty damn final to me. Love to hear your suggestions, I say there is no turning back now… you are in the pot, learn to swim.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great videos above thanks.

Wolfhunter

If we just give in / up and pay, aren't we just encouraging more of the same dangerous and stupid behaviour from politicians? 

How about a bunch of new policies and laws that protect the people against dim witted politicians such as term limits, getting rid of the Senate altogether, or transforming it into a small elected body, holding referendums on important matters etc., etc., etc.? 

And how about a law that says you get three years in Country to prove you are, or are well along the way to becoming a productive law abiding citizen? Any thing less and you're out with no recourse to the courts.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DEFCON - All reasonable ideas that provide a framework for further discussion. In the mean time, you play the cards you are dealt and fight with what you have. The situation that stands before us simply is what it is unless and until such times as it is moderated.  As I mentioned in a previous post, I fully expect to stand solidly against liberal voters with buyers remorse and a pathetically weak commitment to their stated values. Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NDP plan to turn Ontario in a Sanctuary Province; https://www.thepostmillennial.com/the-ndp-wants-a-sanctuary-province-is-that-really-a-good-idea/

 

I was recently browsing Brian Lilley’s website and stumbled on a fascinating article he had written back in April that is even more important today.

In it, he discusses the NDP’s plan to turn Ontario into a sanctuary province with their policies which “would simply allow people to access health, police and social services without disclosing their immigration status. So people that pay no taxes could get healthcare, welfare, send their kids to school. Soon it would mean getting drivers licenses and any other service that requires the rest of us to be citizens or permanent residents.”

Now while these consequences are significant, I will be covering other aspects.

Specifically, I want to focus on why the goals of the NDP and other sanctuary city proponents, as laudable as they are, may be misplaced in bad data and rhetoric.

I’d like to acknowledge what the NDP aims to do is good in theory, but terrible in reality.

These politicians and their supporters imagine seeing a group of desperate people who have crossed the border, who now live peacefully in their community, and are in desperate need of aid.

What is the problem with this?

The federal government told Canadians that 90% of Haitians who came did not qualify as refugees, while recent waves hover around 50%.

These non-refugees bring with them serious problems.

Firstly, they drain national resources when they are not actually refugees, and second, they provide administrative cover for dangerous individuals to get into Canada, while our security forces, which lacks resources, struggle to keep up with the large numbers of new arrivals.

Already the federal government has warned Canadian police services “violent” gangs known for cutting off the heads of victims are attempting to sneak across U.S.-Canada border points to avoid President Donald Trump’s changing immigration policy.

While danger and gangs are a severe problem, there is also a genuine moral and financial arguments for why these policies should not go forward.

Canada will already let in 300,000 immigrants, and 40,000 refugees through legal channels this year.

To all of these people who have waited in line, sanctuary cities indeed make no sense.

On top of this why wait extended periods of time to immigrate to Canada when economic migrants are bypassing the process entirely?

The politicians are likely not thinking about any of this.

Instead, they are focusing on continuously gaining votes by seeming more friendly on an issue that could have serious consequences for Canada.

Why do I think this?

Primarily because 96% of the individuals who have come to Canada illegally are actually in Quebec.

The declarations of support put forward by these governments do nothing to help Quebec or the people in Quebec but make sure as heck make Andrea and the other vote desperate politicians look better.

A growing trend

The Ontario NDP is certainly not the first to think of this.

Toronto was the first city in Canada to declare itself a sanctuary city, with Toronto City Council voting 37–3 on February 22, 2013, to adopt a formal policy allowing undocumented migrants to access city services.

Hamilton, Ontario declared itself a sanctuary city in February 2014 after the Hamilton City Council voted unanimously to allow undocumented immigrants to access city-funded services such as shelters, housing, and food banks.

In response to US President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 13769, the city council of London, Ontario voted unanimously to declare London a sanctuary city in January 2017 with Montreal doing the same in February 2017 after a unanimous vote.

The cities of Calgary, Ottawa, Regina, Saskatoon, and Winnipeg are also considering motions to declare themselves sanctuary cities.

Dangerous Political Motivations

This growing trend is perilous and politically motivated.

Canadians are angry at the moves taken by Donald Trump and now believe that this emotionally motivated action is the right one.

The sad truth is that this is not the case.

The nation is already actively taking in as much it can, and doing the most possible to help those in need.

Last year, RCMP intercepted a total of 20,493 people who crossed the border illegally. So far this year, 6,373 irregular migrants have arrived in Canada this way — more than double the 2,784 irregular migrants who arrived in Canada between January and April 2017. This growth is simply too large for us to genuinely manage.

Toronto’s shelters already see almost 40% of their space taken up by refugees. According to the CBC in October the wait time for refugee status was 16 months. In February, it was 20 months.

According to an internal report from the Immigrant and Refugee Board, if current rates of border crossing continue, the wait could be as long as 11 years by 2021.

These failures are occurring due to these politically motivated actions.

More of it will do nothing to help anyone sustainably. But it will undoubtedly bankrupt our nation.

For these reasons, it is irresponsible to push for sanctuary city, or sanctuary province policies, we, therefore, hope to see an end to their politically motivated movements.

Edited by seeker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is enough momentum now to assure the NDP plan fails to resonate with more than 20% of voters (I think). BTW, they had a reasonable shot here but insist on snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. 

The first step in disavowing “liberal values” is manipulation of language and giving time for new buzz words to resonate with the base. Like migrant instead of refugee and “non-refugee” instead of migrant. Essentially, calling things what they aren’t is the first step. Paradoxically, we got to where we are now by the same process; the “virtue signalling” tactic of calling things what they are not…. in short, the process is going full circle and the only change here is that liberals "gotta man up" and they lack the gas. Get ready for use of the word “anti” (or perhaps expansion of the word non), like when pro-life became anti-abortion, not sure how they will work that in but it will serve as the precursor to actual movement/action on the issue. That assumes that no convenient tragedy or atrocity befalls us that can be manipulated to good advantage.

It’s an old dance, people are comfortable with the moves and know them by heart even if they deny using the tactic. Still, I never grow weary of watching liberals run for the nearest exit with a mouthful of bacon when they see the bill coming. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" So this self-confessed terrorist admitted that he lied to get back into Canada and that's it? No punishment? No incarceration until the police can check out his story? He just gets to leave to join a terrorist group, slaughter people then waltz back into Canada and carry on? Great signal to send to the rest of the terrorists wanting to come back. 

"He said the second killing left him feeling “disgusted” and determined to return to his parents in Canada. He escaped to Turkey, and then on to his grandparents’ home in Pakistan. He eventually made his way home to Canada, telling immigration authorities at the airport that he’d spent the past 10 months at university in Pakistan. “I said it in a way so that it didn’t seem I was lying,” he said."

 

If self-confessed ISIL killer is not held accountable, who will be?

 

 

 

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/john-ivison-if-self-confessed-isil-killer-is-not-held-accountable-who-will-be

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this