Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
Looks like the EU is looking at imposing the same requirements to Canadians going to the EU. What would be really funny when Canada backs down is for the EU to not back down and say fata you, you started this, visas for canadians.
If these migrants are using a "loophole" isn't this really our problem and we should close our loophole, change the rules instead of discriminating against one certain group?
|
Yeah, imposing this restriction on the current president of the E.U. may turn out to be a complete fiasco. It's utterly hamhanded.
Kenney was on CBC this morning, defending the decision--and gave in support of it a completely blinkered definition of the distinction between "discrimination" and "persecution"--since the latter qualifies for refugee status and the former does not. Without getting too detailed, let's just say that according to his definition, Tutsis in Rwanda weren't persecuted--they were discriminated against.
Also, no-one seems to want to answer the important question here: if a visa requirement is an effective means of deterring asylum claims, why do we require visas from virtually every country where the "legitimate" asylum claims are coming from? If our interest is really in allowing legitimate claims and not allowing others, shouldn't we lift visa requirements for, say, Myanmar?