Visa Restriction Introduced for Czech Rep and Mexico

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Aeneas

Is it possible some people don't like the visa, because they (clearly from their posts) dislike the minister?

I like Mexicans.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Aeneas

Still not sure how this makes an extra level of bureacracy. Will not the visa process itself weed out the most dubious claimants to refugee status?

9400 (25% from all countries) claimants from Mexico and only 11% were found to be in need of refugee status. That is obviously a great deal of work to sort through, now they will have less.

Many of those claiming refugee status will now be stopped before they ever board the plane.

As to legit travellers being screwed, if they did not have time to go to an embassy and get the visa, they can apply for the first 48 hours in Canada upon arrival. No big deal.

Is it possible some people don't like the visa, because they (clearly from their posts) dislike the minister?

Hmmm, I think you might be on to something.

[Aeneas]

And I like gorgeous Czech women...visa requirements for Czechs:

1. F Y/N
2. Model Y/N
3. Tennis Player Y/N
4. Will stay in Canada illegally Y/N
5. Have any money Y/N

If you answer Y to querys 1-3, disregard 4 and 5; visa granted

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Aeneas

Is it possible some people only like the visa, because they (clearly from their posts) like the minister?

Fyp. These things go both ways.

And yeah, I'm not a member of Kenney's fan club. He is, after all--the guy who tried to increase civic responsibility among Canadian citizens by requiring new Canadians to take a citizenship test. He's obviously operating on a much higher mental plane than mere mortals such as myself--since he clearly understands that the best way to address a problem with Group A is to create a policy that applies only to Group B.

And as I've said a million times: I don't object in principle. I just think it's a bit silly. I don't think 5500 asylum applicants (of whom at most 4900ish are what we term "fraudulent," though these applications can be rejected for a lot of different reasons) is a very good cause for a moral panic. Certainly it's not a reason to start alienating allied nations. We live in a nation of 33 million people--and we're engaging in all this needless handwringing over what is a very tiny group of people.

Let's even assume that somehow, for some reason, this really is a pressing problem that we must address lest our nation fall into chaos and poverty. This policy is the equivalent of driving a nail into a board by driving over it with a pickup truck. Sure--it did the trick--but a hammer would probably have worked just fine.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Fyp. These things go both ways.

And yeah, I'm not a member of Kenney's fan club. He is, after all--the guy who tried to increase civic responsibility among Canadian citizens by requiring new Canadians to take a citizenship test. He's obviously operating on a much higher mental plane than mere mortals such as myself--since he clearly understands that the best way to address a problem with Group A is to create a policy that applies only to Group B.

And as I've said a million times: I don't object in principle. I just think it's a bit silly. I don't think 5500 asylum applicants (of whom at most 4900ish are what we term "fraudulent," though these applications can be rejected for a lot of different reasons) is a very good cause for a moral panic. Certainly it's not a reason to start alienating allied nations. We live in a nation of 33 million people--and we're engaging in all this needless handwringing over what is a very tiny group of people.

Let's even assume that somehow, for some reason, this really is a pressing problem that we must address lest our nation fall into chaos and poverty. This policy is the equivalent of driving a nail into a board by driving over it with a pickup truck. Sure--it did the trick--but a hammer would probably have worked just fine.

Where's the moral panic? The only thing resembling morality arguments I've seen has come from opposition to this.

In this thread I've seen Jolinar come up with numbers and a legitimate argument, and I've seen you dismiss them without any basis. I'm not entirely sold one way or the other on this, I hate having to deal with getting visas to travel, but I've only heard one supported argument so far. You've made a good point about excessive bureaucracy, but I've seen that point countered by a supported argument. If it comes back to a lack of need for these measures I'd ask you what the alternative is. Do we simply allow abuse of the system? Turn a blind eye to the glaring fact that it is occurring? Do we let it go on for a while and then only react when we realize it's a pressing issue? Isn't it better to be proactive? If these measures are overkill what's the more effective solution?

Overall I find your points hard to swallow without a bag of salt simply because you can't seem to make an argument against the visas without it turning into 'that guy's so stupid'. It makes it hard for me to get behind your ideas when they seem to be motivated largely by an agenda.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Fyp. These things go both ways.

And yeah, I'm not a member of Kenney's fan club. He is, after all--the guy who tried to increase civic responsibility among Canadian citizens by requiring new Canadians to take a citizenship test. He's obviously operating on a much higher mental plane than mere mortals such as myself--since he clearly understands that the best way to address a problem with Group A is to create a policy that applies only to Group B.

And as I've said a million times: I don't object in principle. I just think it's a bit silly. I don't think 5500 asylum applicants (of whom at most 4900ish are what we term "fraudulent," though these applications can be rejected for a lot of different reasons) is a very good cause for a moral panic. Certainly it's not a reason to start alienating allied nations. We live in a nation of 33 million people--and we're engaging in all this needless handwringing over what is a very tiny group of people.

Let's even assume that somehow, for some reason, this really is a pressing problem that we must address lest our nation fall into chaos and poverty. This policy is the equivalent of driving a nail into a board by driving over it with a pickup truck. Sure--it did the trick--but a hammer would probably have worked just fine.

^ One of the few posts in this thread that makes sense.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by valo403

Where's the moral panic? The only thing resembling morality arguments I've seen has come from opposition to this.

In this thread I've seen Jolinar come up with numbers and a legitimate argument, and I've seen you dismiss them without any basis. I'm not entirely sold one way or the other on this, I hate having to deal with getting visas to travel, but I've only heard one supported argument so far. You've made a good point about excessive bureaucracy, but I've seen that point countered by a supported argument. If it comes back to a lack of need for these measures I'd ask you what the alternative is. Do we simply allow abuse of the system? Turn a blind eye to the glaring fact that it is occurring? Do we let it go on for a while and then only react when we realize it's a pressing issue? Isn't it better to be proactive? If these measures are overkill what's the more effective solution?

You mean the numbers that Jolinar made up? That was pretty compelling, I agree. Until you realize that he doubled the number of Mexican asylum seekers and then invented imaginary costs for the rest of the numbers based on inside information that only he has but which can't be verified by the rest of us.

If you don't think the arguments being made in favour of this have the flavour and feel of a moral panic, then I respectfully disagree. You can package moral panics in all sorts of rhetoric, but if you don't think this has anything to do with the political rhetoric of nativism that is currently favoured by the Conservatives... well, let's just say that once again I respectfully disagree.

As for the heretofore hypothetical international effects, we're already seeing them--and it's getting a little chilly out there:

, the Czech Republic reacted strongly, with Foreign Minister Jan Kohout calling the action unprecedented against a European Union member and a war ally in Afghanistan. Kohout indicated to The Associated Press that the Czechs are likely to impose visa requirements on Canadians travelling to the country.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/...s-refugee.html

Also, for those who claim that there will be no administrative headache (see link above):

The department said it is working to increase its visa processing capacity in Mexico City, but the sudden imposition of the requirement will mean short-term delays in travel as resources are put in place.

I sure hope this is worth it!

In any case, here's a "supported" argument for you. If instituting a visa requirement makes it harder to seek asylum, why not lift the visa requirement for those nations that according to Kenney have more "legitimate" asylum claimants?

The Czechs, meanwhile, have recalled their ambassador. Yeah, they're not upset at ALL.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/...as-mexico.html

Note also that the EU is entering the fray, since this restriction affects an EU member.

Great idea, Kenney.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Some very impressive math--except for two things:

1. By your own admission, you made all the numbers up.

Oh ya, I just made them up eh. These numbers are a rough estimate coming from multiple sources that deal with refugees on a daily basis. Far from being made up.

2. It's not 10,000. It's 5500. Weren't you accusing me of not reading the numbers a while ago? Apparently you're the one who didn't read them. So, even if your numbers are correct (And they look pretty outlandish to me...) go ahead and cut them in half.

Wrong. Canada had 10,000 claimants, only 5500 where heard last year by the IRB because they cannot process all the claimants it gets every year. Thus this year it will have another 10,000 to hear plus the 4500 it didn't hear last year. Outlandish? Really? Even if we use the really low number of $10,000 per claimant that still works out to $100,000,000. Thats right, thats the number. Just the removal costs alone would probably be $1000. So $9000 to cover all the other expenses over a one year period. Still seam outlandish? I think not.

3. All the ######y comments like "what is with you?" are pretty unhelpful. I don't agree with you--it doesn't make me a moron. At least I'm not making up imaginary costs on the basis of my billion friends in the foreign service.

Well I never called you a moron, but if you want to call your self that feel free.

4. Have you met Jason Kenney? Let's just say this: Kenney's lucky Rob Anders is in the same caucus with him--it means he can be guaranteed that at all caucus meetings there will be a dumber person in the room.

Yes I have met Jason Kenny and talked to him about this very issue. This isn't the only issue he has tackled. Having a more stringent language requirement for the citizenship test is another one. Something that many Canadians believe in.

5. If you don't think adding a visa requirement for a nation that didn't have one before (keeping in mind that this will apply not only to asylum seekers but all travelers with Mexican citizenship) adds a layer of bureaucracy, then you have no idea how government works. There's a very simple principle that you should keep in mind: programs with simple, universal application cost very little money. Programs that identify and target subgroups, or apply rules unevenly on the basis of complex regulations are generally very expensive.

Haha........wow. You completed disregarded the infromation I gave you regarding the current Embassy in Mexico, didn't you. I told you how much it will cost and if you don't believe me go look at the numbers from other Embassy's in regards to the cost of processing TRV's. All you have to do is look at it as 30 more employees added to the government pay roll. This isn't some gun registry or HRSDC program we are dealing with here. It is a normal process that happens at all our consulates and Embassy's overseas. Nothing new at all.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Aeneas

And I like gorgeous Czech women...visa requirements for Czechs:

1. F Y/N
2. Model Y/N
3. Tennis Player Y/N
4. Will stay in Canada illegally Y/N
5. Have any money Y/N

If you answer Y to querys 1-3, disregard 4 and 5; visa granted

The visa should only apply to Czech men. I'm against anything that limits the flow of Czech women to Canada.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Well I never called you a moron, but if you want to call your self that feel free.

Seriously. If you can't debate like a civilized human being, I'm not interested. Surely your life has more pressing concerns right now than arguing on the internet. I know mine does. So long.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

You mean the numbers that Jolinar made up? That was pretty compelling, I agree. Until you realize that he doubled the number of Mexican asylum seekers and then invented imaginary costs for the rest of the numbers based on inside information that only he has but which can't be verified by the rest of us.

If you don't think the arguments being made in favour of this have the flavour and feel of a moral panic, then I respectfully disagree. You can package moral panics in all sorts of rhetoric, but if you don't think this has anything to do with the political rhetoric of nativism that is currently favoured by the Conservatives... well, let's just say that once again I respectfully disagree.

As for the heretofore hypothetical international effects, we're already seeing them--and it's getting a little chilly out there:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/...s-refugee.html

Also, for those who claim that there will be no administrative headache (see link above):


I sure hope this is worth it!

In any case, here's a "supported" argument for you. If instituting a visa requirement makes it harder to seek asylum, why not lift the visa requirement for those nations that according to Kenney have more "legitimate" asylum claimants?

The Czechs, meanwhile, have recalled their ambassador. Yeah, they're not upset at ALL.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/...as-mexico.html

Note also that the EU is entering the fray, since this restriction affects an EU member.

Great idea, Kenney.

See this is my point. Why should I listen to your arguments as if they're informed opinions when you can't make it through a post without making it abundantly clear that you have a pre-existing agenda.

I'm not really convinced that it's either the right or wrong idea, but I do know that between the 2 sides presenting arguments one has done so in a fashion that I much more apt to listen to and see as reasonable.

BTW, I'm completely disconnected from Canadian politics and have no idea who Kenney even is, lest you think I have an agenda of my own.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by valo403

See this is my point. Why should I listen to your arguments as if they're informed opinions when you can't make it through a post without making it abundantly clear that you have a pre-existing agenda.

I'm not really convinced that it's either the right or wrong idea, but I do know that between the 2 sides presenting arguments one has done so in a fashion that I much more apt to listen to and see as reasonable.

BTW, I'm completely disconnected from Canadian politics and have no idea who Kenney even is, lest you think I have an agenda of my own.

If I had an "agenda" I wouldn't be trying to advance it on a Calgary Flames discussion board. What I have is called an "opinion." I never pretended to be an unbiased observer. Are you sure you aren't predisposed to disagree with what I'm saying because of something else? It's pretty easy to sort the bias from the argument here. It goes like this:
1. Jason Kenney did A
2. Here's why A is dumb.
3. Jason Kenney is dumb!

Point 3 reflects (I freely admit) my own bias. However, that doesn't stop you from presenting counterarguments to 1 and 2 if you choose to do so. I note that you haven't. You seem more interested in identifying the biases that I have not even really bothered to conceal.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

If I had an "agenda" I wouldn't be trying to advance it on a Calgary Flames discussion board. What I have is called an "opinion." I never pretended to be an unbiased observer. Are you sure you aren't predisposed to disagree with what I'm saying because of something else? It's pretty easy to sort the bias from the argument here. It goes like this:
1. Jason Kenney did A
2. Here's why A is dumb.
3. Jason Kenney is dumb!

Point 3 reflects (I freely admit) my own bias. However, that doesn't stop you from presenting counterarguments to 1 and 2 if you choose to do so. I note that you haven't. You seem more interested in identifying the biases that I have not even really bothered to conceal.

I'm not really in a position to present counter arguments, hence why the majority of my posts have questions in them. I don't know much about this area, note how I've said repeatedly I'm not sure if this is a good or bad idea.

What I have noticed is that you haven't been bothered to address those questions, but instead went the route of snide remarks. That's fine with me, but now you'll understand why I don't take your 'opinion' seriously.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by valo403

I'm not really in a position to present counter arguments, hence why the majority of my posts have questions in them. I don't know much about this area, note how I've said repeatedly I'm not sure if this is a good or bad idea.

What I have noticed is that you haven't been bothered to address those questions, but instead went the route of snide remarks. That's fine with me, but now you'll understand why I don't take your 'opinion' seriously.

No offense, but you are blaming the wrong guy here. God knows I disagree with IFF a lot, but if there's something he does well, it's laying out arguments. That one emoticon is not painting the correct picture here.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by valo403

I'm not really in a position to present counter arguments, hence why the majority of my posts have questions in them. I don't know much about this area, note how I've said repeatedly I'm not sure if this is a good or bad idea.

What I have noticed is that you haven't been bothered to address those questions, but instead went the route of snide remarks. That's fine with me, but now you'll understand why I don't take your 'opinion' seriously.

Well, that's fair enough. I certainly don't expect you to take my opinion seriously--and to be honest, I hope you won't take it the wrong way if I say I'm not broken up about it. No offense intended--it's just internets. I hope you feel the same way--we both have lives to lead and much bigger fish to fry.

I'll admit I've been a little snide in this thread--but not (I hope) toward any posters who didn't agree with me. I've directed a little ire Mr. Kenney's way, and the reason for that is that I DO have some history to contend with there. I've followed Mr. Kenney since he was a reformer, and he hasn't changed a whole lot since then. Maybe it will help you to understand me if I say that I don't in principle object to visas for any particular country. I object to our government creating hassles, bureaucratic costs and enemies abroad, particularly when they do so in response to an invented crisis.

In short--I think you and I are asking different questions about this policy. You're mostly asking "why not?" I'm asking "why"? I haven't received a compelling answer to that question--and that isn't your fault since as you say you're mostly asking questions of your own. What I did get was someone saying "trust me it's a good idea, it's your fault you can't understand." That wasn't you--and to the extent that I've redirected some of that silliness your way, I apologize.

One of the things I treasure about Canada is our international reputation as an open, friendly country that is a team player on the world stage. This decision jeopardizes that--and has already alienated Mexico, (a NAFTA signatory) the Czech republic and the EU. And all because (in my opinion), Mr. Kenney thinks Mexicans and Gypsies make easy targets for the logic of nativism that for better or for worse the conservative party is hitching its electoral wagon to.

A few more statistics: the people affected by this new visa requirement make up less than a quarter of all asylum seekers in Canada. It will, however, negatively affect tourism and make us enemies abroad. It's a very blunt instrument for a tiny problem, and I suspect the government could easily have found simpler, more efficient and less costly ways of dealing with what was at worst an administrative headache. Instead, they opted for the easy public-relations play of rallying the nativist troops against a frightening, external other.

I don't approve--because I think politics should exist in the service of government, not the other way around. Harper and his pals disagree--but for that matter so did Chretien and his bunch, so it's not as though we can point to some magical partisan bullet.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Wrong. Canada had 10,000 claimants, only 5500 where heard last year by the IRB because they cannot process all the claimants it gets every year. Thus this year it will have another 10,000 to hear plus the 4500 it didn't hear last year. Outlandish? Really? Even if we use the really low number of $10,000 per claimant that still works out to $100,000,000. Thats right, thats the number. Just the removal costs alone would probably be $1000. So $9000 to cover all the other expenses over a one year period. Still seam outlandish? I think not.

Haha........wow. You completed disregarded the infromation I gave you regarding the current Embassy in Mexico, didn't you. I told you how much it will cost and if you don't believe me go look at the numbers from other Embassy's in regards to the cost of processing TRV's. All you have to do is look at it as 30 more employees added to the government pay roll. This isn't some gun registry or HRSDC program we are dealing with here. It is a normal process that happens at all our consulates and Embassy's overseas. Nothing new at all.

I agree. This costs too much. We should scrap the hearing process entirely, and come up with something simpler and less obtrusive. If that's the costs of processing an immigrant (and somehow I doubt those numbers), we shouldn't process them to such rigorous standards. The ones that get through are likely full of lies, and the ones that don't are likely the truthful ones (Murphy's Law). It's clear that our process is broken, probably due to too much Red Tape. Besides, we still have loads of illegal immigrants coming in to the country. The easiest way to make them not illegal anymore is to literally not make it illegal anymore.

And the Czech Republic has every right to be bitter about this. This is a step backward in our relationship with them, not a step forward.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

God knows I disagree with IFF a lot

Isn't it weird to agree with me on this issue, though? I feel kind of like a dog who just married a cat!

[Flame Of Liberty]

Another thing to consider is that this gypsy immigration is not accidental but organized. Apparently it is a good business for some people in Toronto and Prague to recruit couple of hundred gypsy people (where they sell them their "canadian dream" - living on welfare for monthz/years even if they dont end up with refugee status) and then take "consulting fees" from them.

It wouldn't be surprising if they start bringing romanian/hungarian/whatever gypsies over. Canada may end up handing visa left right and center.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Another thing to consider is that this gypsy immigration is not accidental but organized. Apparently it is a good business for some people in Toronto and Prague to recruit couple of hundred gypsy people (where they sell them their "canadian dream" - living on welfare for monthz/years even if they dont end up with refugee status) and then take "consulting fees" from them.

It wouldn't be surprising if they start bringing romanian/hungarian/whatever gypsies over. Canada may end up handing visa left right and center.

Interesting point. Mexican officials actually made a pretty similar comment about independent organizations taking fees to broker asylum requests for Mexican immigrants.

Maybe a point of agreement here is that this sort of organization should be subject to closer inspection/regulation.

[Bagor]

Sorta OT but can someone explain to me why the Immigration and Refugee board works indepently from the government, particularly CIC?

What's the rationale here?