Should Charter rights apply to foreign nationals?

[Machjo]

I've read a few times on Canadian Content that we should be allowed to deny entry to Canada for any reason and deport a person for any reason. Those who say this, do they really mean it?

Imagine a white CBSA agent denying entry to a black man because he thinks all blacks are criminals, or an Arab CBSA agent denying entry to a woman in tight jeans because he sees that as proof that she is coming to Canada to work the sex trade, or a bored CBSA agent denying someone entry because he's bored and wants to stir up some excitement?

As for deportations, should the CBSA be allowed to detain someone for deportation and never inform him that he has a right to a lawyer and never collect evidence just because of racial profiling?

I am curious, do people really mean it when they say foreign nationals should not have a right to due process?

 

[WLDB]

I imagine quite a few of those people do mean it.

 

[FiveParadox]

Of course foreign nationals should have protections under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If we are not going to demonstrate respect for basic human rights and freedoms for all persons, regardless of citizenship, then Canada loses any moral standing to speak to the advancement of human rights protections on the international stage.

 

[taxslave]

The only right foreigners should have is the right to get back on the plane or boat they came on. They can appeal or whatever from where ever they came from. Coming to Canada is a privilege not a right.

 

[JamesBondo]

I think you are blowing smoke. There is a show that features CBSA investigating people that are trying to enter Canada. They need a valid reason to deny a person entry, and the traveler is given the opportunity to appear before a judge to appeal the decision.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

I've read a few times on Canadian Content that we should be allowed to deny entry to Canada for any reason and deport a person for any reason. Those who say this, do they really mean it?

Imagine a white CBSA agent denying entry to a black man because he thinks all blacks are criminals, or an Arab CBSA agent denying entry to a woman in tight jeans because he sees that as proof that she is coming to Canada to work the sex trade, or a bored CBSA agent denying someone entry because he's bored and wants to stir up some excitement?

As for deportations, should the CBSA be allowed to detain someone for deportation and never inform him that he has a right to a lawyer and never collect evidence just because of racial profiling?

I am curious, do people really mean it when they say foreign nationals should not have a right to due process?

As a matter of international law, any country may say who may come and who may stay.

Obviously, any country that wants to consider itself civilized must work out criteria and procedures for this determination, based on international understandings of human rights and the country's own understanding of rights.

I don't think anybody here is suggesting that individual CBSA agents should be allowed to grant or deny entry based on their personal preferences. I don't know of any Canadian government job (besides Parliament) that allows employees to do whatever they feel like.

 

[Machjo]

The only right foreigners should have is the right to get back on the plane or boat they came on. They can appeal or whatever from where ever they came from. Coming to Canada is a privilege not a right.

You go to the US on holiday for three months. A month in, the cops detain you for deportation accusing you of something you didn't do. You insist on your innocence but they don't bother collecting fingerprints, DNA, or other evidence. They don't even bother informing you of your right to a lawyer. You were at the wrong place at the wrong time and because of that you deserve what you get. Deportation and barred from re-entering for a year. But hey, you're not a US citizen so suck it up buttercup. Have I got it right?

I think you are blowing smoke. There is a show that features CBSA investigating people that are trying to enter Canada. They need a valid reason to deny a person entry, and the traveler is given the opportunity to appear before a judge to appeal the decision.

That is true, but I have read comments from posters before disagreeing that it should be like this

 

[damngrumpy]

To start with yes if you arrive at our boarder we should have the right to refuse you entry
for any reason or for no reason You are not a citizen period.
As for deportation if you commit a crime while in the country we should have the option of
putting you in jail or throwing you out on the first plane after the conviction.

We as Canada should implement a law that states once receiving citizenship if you are
found to be a criminal or wanted in another country you can be stripped of citizenship and
shipped out immediately.

On the other hand if you are here as a foreign visitor and you are accused but not convicted
you should be afforded all the rights of anyone else under innocent until proven guilty.

The difference in position is this if you are here and there is a problem you were let in at the
discretion of immigration. If they decide you should not gain entry they should refuse you
without appeal but once here different matter

 

[Machjo]

To start with yes if you arrive at our boarder we should have the right to refuse you entry
for any reason or for no reason You are not a citizen period.
As for deportation if you commit a crime while in the country we should have the option of
putting you in jail or throwing you out on the first plane after the conviction.

We as Canada should implement a law that states once receiving citizenship if you are
found to be a criminal or wanted in another country you can be stripped of citizenship and
shipped out immediately.

On the other hand if you are here as a foreign visitor and you are accused but not convicted
you should be afforded all the rights of anyone else under innocent until proven guilty.

The difference in position is this if you are here and there is a problem you were let in at the
discretion of immigration. If they decide you should not gain entry they should refuse you
without appeal but once here different matter

What if the CBSA officer just didn't like your beard so decided to deny you entry?

 

[gerryh]

What if the CBSA officer just didn't like your beard so decided to deny you entry?

Does any of this happen?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

What if the CBSA officer just didn't like your beard so decided to deny you entry?

Asked and answered. Next question.

 

[Machjo]

For example, if a country says ai can visit it without a visa for six months, and I plan and spend according to that, I expect to be let in except for just cause and not because the border guard just disn't like my face.

 

[Goober]

For example, if a country says ai can visit it without a visa for six months, and I plan and spend according to that, I expect to be let in except for just cause and not because the border guard just disn't like my face.

Off topic - The Charter applies as soon as you are in Canada.That is the law.
Now the questions you pose should be posted in a different but clear thread.

 

[gerryh]

For example, if a country says ai can visit it without a visa for six months, and I plan and spend according to that, I expect to be let in except for just cause and not because the border guard just disn't like my face.

Again, does this happen?

 

[JLM]

I've read a few times on Canadian Content that we should be allowed to deny entry to Canada for any reason and deport a person for any reason. Those who say this, do they really mean it?

Imagine a white CBSA agent denying entry to a black man because he thinks all blacks are criminals, or an Arab CBSA agent denying entry to a woman in tight jeans because he sees that as proof that she is coming to Canada to work the sex trade, or a bored CBSA agent denying someone entry because he's bored and wants to stir up some excitement?

As for deportations, should the CBSA be allowed to detain someone for deportation and never inform him that he has a right to a lawyer and never collect evidence just because of racial profiling?

I am curious, do people really mean it when they say foreign nationals should not have a right to due process?

There should definitely be no discrimination based on colour, race or creed, but apart from that entry should be allowed or denied at any time regarding other situations like job availability or the economy. Once a person is here then they should be able to count on remaining here as long as they are of good character and don't commit any criminal acts, or get convicted of any.

 

[skookumchuck]

I've read a few times on Canadian Content that we should be allowed to deny entry to Canada for any reason and deport a person for any reason. Those who say this, do they really mean it?

Imagine a white CBSA agent denying entry to a black man because he thinks all blacks are criminals, or an Arab CBSA agent denying entry to a woman in tight jeans because he sees that as proof that she is coming to Canada to work the sex trade, or a bored CBSA agent denying someone entry because he's bored and wants to stir up some excitement?

As for deportations, should the CBSA be allowed to detain someone for deportation and never inform him that he has a right to a lawyer and never collect evidence just because of racial profiling?

I am curious, do people really mean it when they say foreign nationals should not have a right to due process?

Are you assuming that CBSA agents have the power to make those kind of choices?

 

[Machjo]

Are you assuming that CBSA agents have the power to make those kind of choices?

Legally and Constitutionally, no.

However, a friend's girlfriend is planning to sue the CBSA. Apparently they're supposed to be heard in December. Though he didn't give me the details, apparently the police detained her for working illegally in Canada (she had no visa and though allowed to visit, was not allowed to work) and without bothering to collect evidence turned her over to the CBSA. The CBSA detained her for deportation without informing her of her right to a lawyer. My friend hired her a lawyer and of course she denies the charges, but apparantly the CBSA never even bothered to collect the evidence to back their accusations. It sounds like my friend and his girlfriend have a solid case and are planning on arguing racial profiling among other things. The impression they got was that the CBSA accused her, pronounced her guilty without trial, and sentenced her to deportation military style, never expecting a lawyer to get a hold of her.

If his story is true, how many others were deported in this fashion?

Sure the courts will handle this case, but I have read comments in the past that foreign nationals should have no rights in Canada.

If my friend's side of the story is true, it would seem that the CBSA believes the same.

 

[JLM]

Legally and Constitutionally, no.

However, a friend's girlfriend is planning to sue the CBSA. Apparently they're supposed to be heard in December. Though he didn't give me the details, apparently the police detained her for working illegally in Canada (she had no visa and though allowed to visit, was not allowed to work) and without bothering to collect evidence turned her over to the CBSA. The CBSA detained her for deportation without informing her of her right to a lawyer. My friend hired her a lawyer and of course she denies the charges, but apparantly the CBSA never even bothered to collect the evidence to back their accusations. It sounds like my friend and his girlfriend have a solid case and are planning on arguing racial profiling among other things. The impression they got was that the CBSA accused her, pronounced her guilty without trial, and sentenced her to deportation military style, never expecting a lawyer to get a hold of her.

If his story is true, how many others were deported in this fashion?

Sure the courts will handle this case, but I have read comments in the past that foreign nationals should have no rights in Canada.

If my friend's side of the story is true, it would seem that the CBSA believes the same.

It doesn't surprise me, as I've heard of quite a few cases over the years that seem pretty hokey based on someone's whim and void of any substantial reasons. But of course I wasn't privy to all the details, but if it was legitimate why would they not be laid out for all to see. "Justice must not only be done but be SEEN to be done".

 

[skookumchuck]

Legally and Constitutionally, no.

However, a friend's girlfriend is planning to sue the CBSA. Apparently they're supposed to be heard in December. Though he didn't give me the details, apparently the police detained her for working illegally in Canada (she had no visa and though allowed to visit, was not allowed to work) and without bothering to collect evidence turned her over to the CBSA. The CBSA detained her for deportation without informing her of her right to a lawyer. My friend hired her a lawyer and of course she denies the charges, but apparantly the CBSA never even bothered to collect the evidence to back their accusations. It sounds like my friend and his girlfriend have a solid case and are planning on arguing racial profiling among other things. The impression they got was that the CBSA accused her, pronounced her guilty without trial, and sentenced her to deportation military style, never expecting a lawyer to get a hold of her.

If his story is true, how many others were deported in this fashion?

Sure the courts will handle this case, but I have read comments in the past that foreign nationals should have no rights in Canada.

If my friend's side of the story is true, it would seem that the CBSA believes the same.

And because it was a friends girlfriend you will believe everything? Why would you wish to put that kind of incredible pressure on CBSA agents? Nothing better to whine about today?

 

[gerryh]

I'm surprised he hasn't mentioned Sweden or some U.N. resolution condemning Canadian Customs.