Justin Trudeau Creates Another Opening For The NDP By Cracking Down On Refugees "Asylum-Shopping"

10 posts / 0 new

Thu, 2019-04-11 11:55

Mighty Middle

The changes would prevent asylum-seekers from making refugee claims in Canada if they have made similar claims in certain other countries, including the United States, a move Border Security Minister Bill Blair says is aimed at preventing "asylum-shopping."

Lawyers and advocates who work with refugees are sounding the alarm about the legal changes, saying they would strip human-rights protections from vulnerable asylum-seekers.

Asylum changes 'shocking': NDP MP

But refugee advocates and lawyers say disallowing asylum seekers who have made refugee claims in other countries from making claims in Canada does just the opposite, stripping them of their ability to plead their cases to the Immigration and Refugee Board.

NDP immigration critic Jenny Kwan is particularly concerned that migrants to Canada wouldn't be permitted to make claims in Canada after having had their claims rejected in the United States.

She is concerned for those who might be rejected as a result of a shift in U.S. immigration policy last year. The new rules say domestic and gang violence can no longer be used as grounds for asylum in the United States.

"The Trump government has demonized immigrants and asylum-seekers, they have removed gender-based violence and gang violence as grounds for making an asylum claim, they have taken (migrant) children from their parents ... for Canada to take a page out of that with this measure is shocking to me," the Vancouver MP said.

Kwan, ask Speaker to break up budget bill

Kwan also raised the case of Seidu Mohammed — a man from Ghana who lost all his fingers to frostbite after crossing irregularly into Manitoba from the U.S. in December 2016. Both Mohammed and the man he was travelling with, Razak Iyal (who also lost digits to frostbite) had previously had their asylum claims rejected in America before coming to Canada.

Both of their claims for refugee protection were eventually accepted in Canada.

"If this law that's being proposed in the budget bill was in place, Mr. Seidu would be sent back. This is the real ramification for people and Canada is knowingly embarking on this path," Kwan said.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2019/04/11/trudeau-asylum-seekers-changes_...

Thu, 2019-04-11 16:35

voice of the damned

I'm really wondering who the writer thinks is gonna start voting NDP because of this issue.

Most people are either indifferent to the details of which refugees are granted status, or generally hostile to the idea of increasing the numbers. And a lot of the ones for whom a "generous" refugee policy is a point of national pride are the kind who uncritically buy into the Liberals' self-promoted image as the party of inclusion. They're not gonna do a microanalysis of whether the US should maintain its safe-country status, among other relevant issues.

The fact is, refugees can't vote, so for this to become a pivotal election issue, you need to rely on Canadian citizens deciding to vote on behalf of the refugees, AND be willing to do a close study of the issues involved before making a decision. I don't see there being sufficient numbers for that.

Thu, 2019-04-11 16:51

NDPP

There is no housing for the poor in Canada as it is. Especially in cities like Vancouver or mine, Toronto. This critical question of adequate affordable housing and supports must be addressed, as should continuing Canadian support for western regime change wars in the development of any rational humanitarian refugee policy.

Thu, 2019-04-11 17:58

Pondering

We need to drop the term "affordable housing". It means 250K+ condos not reasonably priced apartments.

P.S. Refugees aren't causing the housing crisis.

Thu, 2019-04-11 19:44

Mighty Middle

On rabble.ca

Trudeau government panders to fears of an invasion of refugees

http://rabble.ca/news/2019/04/trudeau-government-panders-fears-invasion-...

Thu, 2019-04-11 19:52

(Reply to #5) #6

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

Pondering wrote:

We need to drop the term "affordable housing". It means 250K+ condos not reasonably priced apartments.

P.S. Refugees aren't causing the housing crisis.

Recently in Ottawa and I was dismayed to hear that a lefty / progressive friend of mine is starting to believe this. Mind you, her son has turned to the Conservatives (even campaigning for them) and has mined this sentiment and a few others to make her question and seriously consider these conservative speaking points aka dog whistles.

Thu, 2019-04-11 20:59

NDPP

The point is not that refugees cause homelessness but that with steadily declining social inputs available and the average price of a one bedroom apartment in Vancouver and Toronto in excess of $2,000 per month, if you can find one, it is hard to take the refugee virtue-signalling at all seriously. To put it more bluntly - there is a demonstrated tendency of Canadians to not give a shit or lift a finger to alleviate the barbaric misery of our own poor. Why would we believe there is anything real about their empty words about refugees?

Fri, 2019-04-12 19:33

Mighty Middle

NDP MP Jenny Kwan tweets

Hey Justin Trudeau When Faith Goldy supports your Immigration policy, you know you are on the wrong side of the issue

https://twitter.com/JennyKwanBC/status/1116552943812009984

Thu, 2019-04-18 16:39

NDPP

Canada's Liberal Government Attacks Refugee Rights

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/04/18/trre-a18.html

"...Under the amendments, asylum seekers who have already made a refugee claim in a country with which Canada has an 'information-sharing agreement' will automatically be refused asylum. They will be denied the right to a full-case hearing and, in most cases will be quickly sent back to their home countries.

The 'information-sharing' countries in question - Australia, New Zealand, the UK and the US - comprise, along with Canada, the US-led 'Five Eyes' spying network that conducts mass surveillance of the world's population. Given that the US is the only one of these four partners with which Canada shares a border, the practical effect of the legislation is to empower authorities to summarily deport refugee claimants crossing the US-Canada border to escape Trump's anti-immigrant witch hunt..."

Fri, 2019-04-19 15:57

(Reply to #9) #10

Sean in Ottawa

NDPP wrote:

Canada's Liberal Government Attacks Refugee Rights

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/04/18/trre-a18.html

"...Under the amendments, asylum seekers who have already made a refugee claim in a country with which Canada has an 'information-sharing agreement' will automatically be refused asylum. They will be denied the right to a full-case hearing and, in most cases will be quickly sent back to their home countries.

The 'information-sharing' countries in question - Australia, New Zealand, the UK and the US - comprise, along with Canada, the US-led 'Five Eyes' spying network that conducts mass surveillance of the world's population. Given that the US is the only one of these four partners with which Canada shares a border, the practical effect of the legislation is to empower authorities to summarily deport refugee claimants crossing the US-Canada border to escape Trump's anti-immigrant witch hunt..."

I have been watching this story for a while.

I think we should discuss what the practical alternatives are. I am not making any definitive conclusions but I think we should consider the effects of the decision.

The reason for the decision, as I understand it, is to prevent a larger scale migration from coming to Canada, of people who have no hope of being accepted, due to increased US rejection of previously accepted residents there. The rationale for this is that the US, at ten times our population, could effectively expell years worth of people who have entered that country. The result to Canada could, on the one hand, overwhelm resources for refugee hearings here. On the other it could create such political resistance that Canada could shut the door more firmly against many sources of immigration where the people have a strong hope of eventual acceptance.

This does not affect people who are in the US illegally who have not made a claim. They could still have a hearing.

As I understand it, this is not as significant a change as it sounds to the eventual acceptance of refugees here. If a person has already had a hearing in the US, then their application process is almost certainly going to result in eventual refusal under existing law. The primary difference is that people who would have no hope of success will not be provided hearings that are both economically and politically costly to Canada and the immigration system.