Canada to deport U.S. army deserter

[Mot]

More platitudes from The Devil's Advocate. I certainly don't need tolerance lessons from the likes of you.

 

[Hydrogen]

More platitudes from The Devil's Advocate. I certainly don't need tolerance lessons from the likes of you.

The "likes of" me? Why don't you spell out what you mean?

And yes, you certainly need some lessons in tolerance. Your words:

Being conservative to me means being an asshole.

You've concluded that - without any differentiation between individuals - all people with a different point of view than yours, and who you label as conservative, are "assholes." That's quite an intolerant stance.

 

[Mot]

The "likes of" me? Why don't you spell out what you mean?

And yes, you certainly need some lessons in tolerance. Your words:



You've concluded that - without any differentiation between individuals - all people with a different point of view than yours, and who you label as conservative, are "assholes." That's quite an intolerant stance.

You're known for snark and intolerance around here. So a lesson from you isn't exacly from a good source. I am intolerant to those who are intolerant, so sue me.

Not everyone with a different point of view is an asshole, just the self righteous Cons.

 

[kEiThZ]

One of the things the movement has asked the government is to allow the sodliers to apply for permanent residency with work permits and wait in line just like other in country immigrants. We also promised to financially support them so it does not cost the government anything. The Tory's refused.

As human beings we need to look out for each other.

You are asking for an exemption from the landing at port of entry requirement. I doubt the goverment is being malicious in denying this special request. It has to create laws that apply evenly. Today you want an exemption for US deserters. Tommorrow, somebody else will want an exemption for someone else. Eventually, our laws will become the swiss cheese of migration policies. This is why I have argued that special treatment for US deserters, or for that matter, any other US citizen cannot be granted. It would leave to eventual failure of our very sound immigration and refugee policies.

And never forget that once laws start getting tampered with, things can go any which way. Today we will be letting in US deserters. Down the road, another government might feel that its okay to refuse US draft dodgers if it suits their political agenda. Meddling with established laws and traditions take us down a dangerous path.

As to the morality of those laws. I doubt one could accuse them of being immoral or unfair. The purpose of refugee status is to save someone's bacon, not to grant him immigration. There is nothing immoral about that. And I have already pointed out that loosening that policy would encroach on our immigration policies. The purpose of immigration policies are to select those that are best suited for Canada. This is done on a very sound point system. Not liking your government back home does not help you integrate into Canada any better. That's why its not taken into account. To me the point system is very fair, effective and transparent. I don't think it should be played with.

WRT the exit requirement, many countries have that, including the US. The reason they have this policy is to discourage anyone from overstaying on a visit visa.

Forget refugee status, these people should be given work permits with relative ease and then they would automatically be eligible for permanent residency in due time.

The resisters cannot legally immigrate to Canada now. They are banned from re-entering the country because they sought refugee status and lost.
The ones still here cannot apply from within the country until the courts are done with their cases. If they lose they are banned. It's a no win situation.

I would suggest that the US deserters travel to a third country and apply for residency from there and subsequently re-enter legally into Canada. They cannot at present be given work permits of course, because they are not legally entitled to take up residence in Canada, either as refugees or as permanent residents.

There is lastly the issue of our relationship with the US. The problem here is not with the 200 deserters here today. That would make a few headlines in the US. It's with the few thousand that might show up if we start handing out refugee status. The message that would send would have severe repercussions. Will this damage our interests? Of course. Even with a Democrat in the White House, accepting US deserters on par with refugees who are fleeing for their lives, will send a stinging and inappropriate political message. Should we disagree with their policies, particularly on Iraq? Of course. Should we voice that disagreement? Definitely. And I assure you, our military, intelligence, and policy personnel routinely criticize US analysis and intelligence that comes across our desks if we think its wrong. But should Canada go out of its way to undermine US policy. I don't think friends and neighbours should undertake subversive actions. Remember, if it's okay to do it to the US, shouldn't the reciprocal also be true? ....Our interference would legitimize US interference in Canadian domestic issues, or US intransigence on Canadian priorities (ie. Arctic sovereignty is shaping up to be a major Canada-US fight). As a Canadian I would rather avoid that situation.

All that being said, perhaps enabling them to travel to a third country and seek immigration from there is an option that your movement should study. I am worried about the political ramifications of accepting them as refugees, but I think there should be no issue with taking them on as permanent residents.

 

[Mot]

Keith,

You make it sound like immigration law in this country is stagnant and never changes. Just this year the current Tory government made big changes to immigration policy with some pretty negative ramifications.

I certianly don't see allowing these men and women the ability to legally immigrate that big of a deal, just like Vietnam soldiers were not such a big deal. As Chretein recently said on "The Hour" his refusal to send soldiers to Iraq had no ramifications on US/Canada relations.

Just like the US holding our citizens without fair trial or executing them does little to affect the relationship between the two nations. Business is business as they say.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Just this year the current Tory government made big changes to immigration policy with some pretty negative ramifications.

What negative ramifications? I thought it made great sense for the government to be able to fast track some immigrants and stop cold others. As an immigrant myself, I say pick the best of the crop, stop family reunification except for your own wife and kids (sorry Grandma) and kick those that don't meet the criteria to the curb. The current system left people in waiting lists for years, at least we can put a stop or slow on that.

 

[kEiThZ]

Keith,

You make it sound like immigration law in this country is stagnant and never changes.

I haven't suggested that at all. I have said, that changes that you are proposing should be considered by their ramifications for all migrants, not just US deserters seeking refuge. For example, the issue of landing at a port of entry. There is no point seeking exemptions for the deserters who are here....refer to my previous point of making swiss cheese out of our laws with exemptions. Perhaps we should debate that law as a separate issue, that way it can be lifted for all migrants.

Just this year the current Tory government made big changes to immigration policy with some pretty negative ramifications.

I second Beez's comment on this point. What ramifications? The Liberals yammered on about giving students the right to apply for permanent residency for a decade. What's wrong with the Conservatives implementing the policy now.

I too, as an immigrant, have no problem with allowing the government to keep certain people out. You will note that under the Liberal's interpretation of our laws, we got the people who gave us the Air India bombing and the people who made Toronto the global centre of LTTE funding and brought ethnic gangs to whole areas of Toronto (chinese and vietnamese in Markham, Tamil in Scarborough, and now punjabi gangs in sauga and brampton). You may not find these to be significant issues in Cabbagetown, but if you ever had to go to high school in Malvern with armed thugs, you might grow up wondering why the immigration system didn't screen these folks out. Did you ever have a cop stationed full time in your high school? Did you ever have to walk past a bunch of fillipino guys handling an uzi? Or Tamil guys raising funds for the LTTE, while showing of handguns in the trunk of their car?

My parents, myself and many other relatives I know used to vote Liberal faithfully, because of their pro-immigrant stance. My brother used to be an arch-liberal, until he saw all this. Now he will only vote Conservative at the federal level. They changed quickly, once the shootings started in Scarborough. The Liberal solution = gun control. The Conservative solution = get better immigrants and keep the thugs out. Give it a few years, and I can easily some ridings in the 416 go blue. Particularly if the Conservatives ever get smart and adopt some kind of gun control policy. And given the flexible nature of Canadian politics, this is entirely possible.

And I have no problem with certain migrants being fast tracked. If you have a skill Canada needs, you should be able to get a visa within a month..... My mom's cousin who has an MBA made it here in 6 months and I thought that was too long. But fast tracking family class applications is just a waste of resources. The reasons immigrants are doing worse in the 90s is because Canada has started taking lower quality migrants, as the emphasis shifted away from economic migrants to family class applicants. Fast-tracking does not mean, that somebody won't qualify, it just might take them longer. But that's the point of the immigration system, to pick the best migrants for Canada, not to let in whoever wants to come here. If the Conservatives want to raise the bar a little, I am all for it. The Liberals wanted to do many of the same things but lost the courage; they didn't want to jeopardize their ethnic vote base.

I certianly don't see allowing these men and women the ability to legally immigrate that big of a deal, just like Vietnam soldiers were not such a big deal.

On this we disagree. I see it as a big deal, because they are seeking special treatment and exemptions from our laws. And because they are trying to involve us in a domestic affair of the United States.

Vietnam draft dodgers were an altogether different moral test. And many stayed on here by seeking residency not refuge.

As Chretein recently said on "The Hour" his refusal to send soldiers to Iraq had no ramifications on US/Canada relations.

Chretien is an idiot who was lucky enough to pick the right finance minister. Of course, his decision to Iraq had ramifications. Maybe not directly. But does anyone think that the acrimonious relationship between him and the US really helped any of our trade disputes with the US?

Just like the US holding our citizens without fair trial or executing them does little to affect the relationship between the two nations. Business is business as they say.

You and I both know that's not how it works. Canada allows in Cubans and alll of a sudden there is some US senator who stops a bill on border integration because Canada is soft on terrorists.....That sadly is reality. Imagine the hay they could make if Canada started giving deserters refugee status.

 

[EnviroTO]

What negative ramifications? I thought it made great sense for the government to be able to fast track some immigrants and stop cold others. As an immigrant myself, I say pick the best of the crop, stop family reunification except for your own wife and kids (sorry Grandma) and kick those that don't meet the criteria to the curb. The current system left people in waiting lists for years, at least we can put a stop or slow on that.

I have to disagree with this. The changes are definitely a step backwards. The previous system was first-in-first-out and guaranteed that every application would eventually be looked at. Obviously some applications require more review than others and that can't be helped. Creating a system which keeps bringing people to the front of the line means others will never be looked at. I have no problem with the government reviewing a case and deciding that someone is inadmissible or doesn't qualify but to never work through their case because the applicant doesn't have the right business or political connections doesn't sit right with me. People who are wishing to re-unite with family shouldn't simply be put on hold indefinitely or until job openings in Alberta are filled.

The correct solution to handle the backlog would be to hire more resources to deal with the case load, not shuffle the case load and deny the ones that require more effort exist.

Maybe Harper will deal with other backlogs the same way. Infrastructure backlog? Move up the quick fixes and delay the more intensive repairs indefinitely. Hospital waiting lists? Those really sick people are a strain... send them home and tell them to try again getting admitted to the hospital once all the people needing stitches, casts, and minor surgeries are done.

 

[Hydrogen]

The problem here is not with the 200 deserters here today. That would make a few headlines in the US. It's with the few thousand that might show up if we start handing out refugee status. The message that would send would have severe repercussions.

Which presents a slippery-slope with respect to every other country involved in a war or military conflict. If Canada does it for one nation, do we apply the same policy towards otherwise friendly countries with volunteer or conscripted militaries that may be involved in conflicts that individual soldiers disagree with?

You're known for snark and intolerance around here. So a lesson from you isn't exacly from a good source.

Have you taken a poll Mot, or are you once again just assuming knowledge of what others think yet again? The latter, no?

 

[Dilla]

Not everyone with a different point of view is an asshole, just the self righteous Cons.

You're calling people self righteous? That's rich.

 

[Mot]

I call it as I see it Hydrogen.


Dilla, Yes I fought against intolerance in the US against self righteous conservatives and continue to do so. I would never wish on them what they did to my family. Perhaps you can give me an example of where I have done this. Perhaps it's my use of "asshole". I wonder if you would chastize other people who were the victims of prejudice for calling their political enemies by a name that suits them.

In this thread I am fighting for real life human beings that I personally know, not some abstract concept.

BTW who the hell are you? I don't remember ever discussing anything with you. I guess you're not very memorable. It's weird to have such an opinion based on never discussing anything with me or knowing the first thing about me. So be it. I am just glad most of the Canadians I know aren't like you.

 

[Dilla]

I call it as I see it Hydrogen.

I too call it as I see it, Mot.

I would never wish on them what they did to my family. Perhaps you can give me an example of where I have done this. Perhaps it's my use of "asshole".

Perhaps you need a refresher course in words.

self-right·eous

–adjective
confident of one's own righteousness, esp. when smugly moralistic and intolerant of the opinions and behavior of others.

Example:

I certainly don't need tolerance lessons from the likes of you.

Moralistic, self revering, I think that fits. In fact, I know it does.

So, to be self righteous, you need not wish on them what they did to your family. That's way off. I really have no idea what you thought it meant, but it seems you were aiming for something along the line of "vengeful", perhaps? At any rate, you should probably avoid words of which you're not sure the definition.

So be it. I am just glad most of the Canadians I know aren't like you.

It's weird to have such an opinion based on never discussing anything with me or knowing the first thing about me.

It IS weird, isn't it?
So I know nothing of you, in fact I cannot even say that you're coming off as self righteous in this thread (the only attribute I've ever assigned to you), where I've read pages of your opinion on this matter. Yet you know what I'm like, overall, as a person, after one sentence (which, unsurprisingly was crtical of you). Really. Now that's prejudice. As with self-righteousness, you behave the way you chastise others for behaving.

I wonder if you would chastize other people who were the victims of prejudice for calling their political enemies by a name that suits them.

Whom am I chastising in this instance, Mot? I've not criticized anyone other than yourself. Are you the victim of prejudice? How so? If you mean to say my comment has made you a "victim" of "prejudice", I'm somewhat flabbergasted.

At any rate, wonder no more; In some circumstances I might. I mean, if you're talking about yourself as the victim, I suppose I'm doing it now, and I'm quite comfortable with it. Still, I'm not sure that's what you're talking about. It all seems a bit outlandish.

If you are, please let me rant.
I loathe this sentiment, where labeling yourself a victim puts you on a pedestal where you cannot be questioned or held to account. This idea is why everyone who's able to now clings to victimhood. It has become a label which is a trump card against all criticism, where those lucky enough to dawn its cloak can cover themselves from their detractors and absolve themselves from the rules which govern the lives of "non-victims". I see it to be the most asinine trend to come from this generation. Just because you call yourself a victim doesn't mean you are, and it should not give you any special status.

Really, though, what prejudgment are you talking about here? My assertion that you're being self-righteous? There's evidence for my claim (see above), whether or not you agree with the conclusion I drew from it. It can hardly be called prejudice. Are you talking about the soldiers, rather than yourself? That would make more sense, but I get the impression you're not. Bizarre.

calling their political enemies by a name that suits them.

It's a name you think suits them, and as I've pointed out, you don't even seem to know what it means.

In this thread I am fighting for real life human beings that I personally know, not some abstract concept.

Actually, in this thread you're not fighting for anything. To fight for something requires that the battle could change the outcome. We're just typing on a small message board on the internet. There's what, maybe 8 (mostly lovely) people reading this? Don't get ahead of yourself.

BTW who the hell are you?

I guess you're not very memorable.

Me? I'm just some guy on the internet. but I trust you'll remember me now.

To end:

I fought against intolerance

Onward, righteous soldiers!

 

[kEiThZ]

I would never wish on them what they did to my family.

I for one am curious to know what was done to you and your family. As far as I know the US is still a democracy with a fairly strong rule of law. What did US authorities do that was so bad? And last I checked political parties don't have the right to conduct vendettas... Are you implying that a set of conservatives broke the law and targeted your family directly with illegal actions?

 

[Mot]

Actually Dilla I assumed you were a shrill woman. So I guess I will remember afterall. What a shock that you are actually a man.

 

[Mot]

I for one am curious to know what was done to you and your family. As far as I know the US is still a democracy with a fairly strong rule of law. What did US authorities do that was so bad? And last I checked political parties don't have the right to conduct vendettas... Are you implying that a set of conservatives broke the law and targeted your family directly with illegal actions?

Actually Conservatives of both major parties prevent and outright fight against the equal rights of gay citizens. In my case gay families are denied the right to sponsor their spouses for immigration. Lucky for us we were able to come to Canada. Only after spending over $15,000 and six years in US Federal courts.

So I relate to the deportation of the war resisters and their problems with the government of their birth country being hostile to them.

Perhaps you should read the platform of the Republican party. It's pretty disgusting the vendetta they have against us. They don't break the law (they make them) and prevent the equal application of the law.