red herring?if it walks like one,smells like one,looks like one...........I guess it is.you guys need to step up your imaginations a little more,this subject I rate 3 for creditibility.
Should Charter rights apply to foreign nationals?
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
Are you suggesting that "this chick my buddy used to bang" is somehow less than an unimpeachable source?
C'est incroyable!
No. It's their story. However, I'be since read similar while surfing online. Of course she might be guilty, but if the story is true, she still had a right to due process.
Whether or not the story is true is irrelevant to the discussion. We can treat it as a hypothetical. In this case, should foreign nationals have the basic legal rights laid out in the charter? I.E. habeas corpus or the right to a fair trial. Machjo also alludes to equality rights against discrimination.
But this is when a crime is committed. A violation of one's visa is different. In Vancouver there was some controversy a while about with transit police checking the immigration qualifications of fare evaders they'd caught. Several people were deported after getting a fine for not paying fares and then being referred to the real police for expired visas etc. People argued that the transit police shouldn't be doing that and should just fine people and be done with it, not ruin people's lives, as it were. But on the other hand, those people were in violation of immigration law and a strict application of the law required their deportation.
But this is when a crime is committed. A violation of one's visa is different. In Vancouver there was some controversy a while about with transit police checking the immigration qualifications of fare evaders they'd caught. Several people were deported after getting a fine for not paying fares and then being referred to the real police for expired visas etc. People argued that the transit police shouldn't be doing that and should just fine people and be done with it, not ruin people's lives, as it were. But on the other hand, those people were in violation of immigration law and a strict application of the law required their deportation.
Expired visas might be a different matter, but according to the story I heard, she does not need a visa if visiting for less than six months. The accusation against her is that she was working without a visa, but she proclaims her innocence.
But like you said, I have no way of verifying this story's accuracy, but my online readings suggest that the CBSA doesn't have a stellar reputation in this matter either.
Yet in principle, even in the case of an overstayed visa, should the person choose to contest it for whatever reason, it should be his right, though granted a visa overstay is pretty obvious so unless there should be some special circumstances involved (kidnapping?), he would likely choose to waive that right.
For legal purposes you are protected but the real question is should you be
For the most part yes but if the border official determines for some reason
you should not gain entry he should be allowed to decide that way we are not
treated to endless appeals and challenge. I agree that a person should not
be denied because of race.
If you don't have paperwork and government documentation you should be denied
and as for refugees we have to consider our position as to taking anymore in
period. I am not against immigration I am not so in favor of refugees simply
showing up at our gates. If you come through proper channels that is one thing
but simply showing up they should be detained and immediately deported
For the most part yes but if the border official determines for some reason
you should not gain entry he should be allowed to decide that way we are not
treated to endless appeals and challenge. I agree that a person should not
be denied because of race.
If you don't have paperwork and government documentation you should be denied
and as for refugees we have to consider our position as to taking anymore in
period. I am not against immigration I am not so in favor of refugees simply
showing up at our gates. If you come through proper channels that is one thing
but simply showing up they should be detained and immediately deported
If a clearly defined protocol states that if specific conditions are not met that the CBSA agent is to deny entry, and the CBSA agent follows that protocol (or ensures that he leave a clear paper trail explaining why he strayed from the protocol to deny someone entry or allowed entry, along with evidence to back up his claim, sure. That is all fair, transparent, above board, predictable.
As for refugees, there are things to consider. True refugees generally don't follow the proper channels. I knew a friend years ago who said that he had not planned to leave Iran until the day of his departure, which was not long after the Islamic revolution in the seventies. He'd left everything except his family and whatever else he could fit in his car and headed straight to Pakistan, Spain, then Canada. He was an engineer, so I din't know if he applied for refugee, immigrant, voth, or other status, but either way, I'd be more suspicious of refugees who do go through the proper channels. After all, if so scared for his life, why didn't he flee and stay under the radar until our of the xountry, possibly with few if any documents.
That unfortunately is how a true and legitimate refugee is most likely to come to Canada. Do we send him back because he didn't cross his t's or dot his i's in Iran?
My friend was saying that his girlfriend was in fact questioned about her safety if deported, and that she said she felt perfectly safe and had no interest in applying for citizenship or refugee status, only to visit him for a few months and that he is planing on emigrating.
When dealing with travellers, it's a whole different level of complexity. Could you imagine the reaction from the travel industry I'd we decided that a person had to provide certification of English or French proficiency at the border to enter Canada as a traveler? The airline, hotel, restaurant, and many other industries would have a fit. If we allow them in for their money, then it's only fair that as a civilized state we extend our Charter right to due process to them.
When I travel abroad (and I do), I damn well expect that that state's constitutional bill of rights applies to me as a simple traveller in the same way as it applies to its own citizens.