Visa Restriction Introduced for Czech Rep and Mexico

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

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.

I guess my question is how does Canada take steps to stop a problem that seems to be at least somewhat, if not largely, the domain of another nations policing. It seems to me the real issue here is a form of human trafficking, importing people and then charging them a fee, and at least part of that responsibility lies with the exporting nation (my apologies for using import/export like these people are goods, I just couldn't think of a better term and unfortunately they really are being treated as goods). Obviously there is activity in Canada that makes this happen, but it seems to be a two nation issue.

Now I don't know what other measures have been attempted, or what the options are, but doesn't it seem to be a pretty effective solution to make the process more difficult and thereby make this little ploy less effective? Maybe there are less drastic measures to accomplish that goal, but I do think it's an actual issue that needs to be addressed.

The other concern I have with allowing this end run around the immigration process is the impact it has on legitimate claimants. I'm currently in the process of immigration, and while my process is admittedly rather painless, it's still a massive pain. It's odd because I'm usually not a 'them's the rules' type, but it seems tremendously unfair to me that legitimate applicants are getting bumped back in line due to people skirting the system. I keep picturing a line for Splash Mountain and having all these people cutting in front of me, and it drives me into a Hulk like rage.

One thing I will agree with is that it hasn't been handled all that delicately, although I do think some of the Czech anger is more posturing than anything else.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by valo403

Now I don't know what other measures have been attempted, or what the options are, but doesn't it seem to be a pretty effective solution to make the process more difficult and thereby make this little ploy less effective? Maybe there are less drastic measures to accomplish that goal, but I do think it's an actual issue that needs to be addressed.

I'd say the solution is to fix the refugee process so it is not a cash cow for people who want to abuse it. I mean it's just there for the taking so of course certain people will want to take a bite.

The solution is not to make the visa process more difficult for everyone, even for people who wouldnt dream about claiming a refugee status.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by 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?

The reason they work at an arms length from CIC is because it is a quasi judical body that makes decisions against CIC and CBSA as well as decisions for them. They need to be somewhat apart to prevent the department from dictating the out come of the decision by the IRB and the ID.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Knalus

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.

I can't tell what in your post is sarcasim and what is real, if any. One thing though is your are mixing regular immigration and the refugee stream. Regular immigration is usually done overseas at the embassy's and most of the refugee determination is done in Canada (because that is where the majority of the claims are made). Regular immigration there are fees associated to the application. A refugee claim, there are no fees, every thing is provided and all the costs are covered. They get welfare, interm-federal health, settlement assistance and much more. Per capita, a refugee claim cost substansially more than a person making an application for permanent residency. To be honest, CIC probably makes some money off of some of the PR applications. Usualy it is a non-refundable fee. So if it is a straight forward appication and doesn't meet the points required, thanks for the fee, and see you later.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

I can't tell what in your post is sarcasim and what is real, if any. One thing though is your are mixing regular immigration and the refugee stream. Regular immigration is usually done overseas at the embassy's and most of the refugee determination is done in Canada (because that is where the majority of the claims are made). Regular immigration there are fees associated to the application. A refugee claim, there are no fees, every thing is provided and all the costs are covered. They get welfare, interm-federal health, settlement assistance and much more. Per capita, a refugee claim cost substansially more than a person making an application for permanent residency. To be honest, CIC probably makes some money off of some of the PR applications. Usualy it is a non-refundable fee. So if it is a straight forward appication and doesn't meet the points required, thanks for the fee, and see you later.

And you guys seriously think the visa is going to fix this? Dude who screws the system gets welfare, heathcare, assistance and what not. Dude who goes by the book and misses a point gets hosed. Yeah the visa are going to fix THAT.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Here are a few sites I found. This one is a study by the IRB in 2004. Numbers are already 5 years old. The average cost just to the IRB was around $2,000. Now remember, these are only costs associated to the IRB. It does not included Healthcare, welfare, legal fees, CIC processing fees, initial refugee determination costs (which usually take several ours per claimant by one officer) federal court costs, removal costs, Inland Enforcement costs (if the people decide they do not wish to leave once the claim is denied and officers have to go track them down), detention costs. Not to mention the costs that cannot be calculated like the reduction in service for other CIC programs, increase demand on the healthcare system, increased demand on the welfare system, increase demand on the immigration enforcement system and any potentional criminal acts that could have been committed.

http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/Eng/disdiv.../stream07.aspx

Here is a more recent look at the costs associated to the refugee process. Numbers from 2007. IRB average cost per claimant, now at $4700. Again, does not include all the other costs. This amount does include some legal costs.

This is for IFF.

The significant decrease in decision-makers and unexpected influx of claims in 2007-2008 resulted in a pending inventory of approximately 42,300 claims; an amount that will increase in the next fiscal year without the required decision-makers. As a result, it is projected that the pending inventory could exceed 60,000 claims by the end of 2008-2009. Even with new appointments, this number will increase due in part to the time required to train new decision-makers.

As you can see, there are more claims than can be heard, thus there is a continued backlog of claims. 10000 claims but only 5500 decisions. That is what I stated before and you claimed that my numbers were wrong.

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rpp/2008-20.../IRB02-eng.asp

Average cost for a IRB appeal. $3000

http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/Eng/tribun...es/iaacaf.aspx

Remember, if this appeal is denied, they can again appeal to the federal court.

This is a study done regarding the costs of refugees in Canada. Page 85 it states that in 2002 refugee claimants received approximately 126 million in welfare payments. It goes on to say in the next page that refugee's take up a large portion of the $4 billion budget for the immigration program. It also states many times how hard it is to get a actual cost per refugee claimat because there are so many factors and levels of government involved the information is hard to come by.

http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=c...da&hl=en&gl=ca

So look at these numbers. Does it appear that I am far off? No, most certainly it is over $10,000 per claimant and if you factor in all the other costs it would be much more. Canadians need to know this.

I don't get it, these refugees are costing Canadians posibily billions of dollars, bogging down our refugee system, making it harder for legitimate immigrants to enter Canada. We complain our taxes are to high, we complain that the government is inefficent. Yet, when the government tries to do something about it we have people complaining.

Remember, if these people are legitimate refugee's they can make a claim at ANY Canadian embassy. Their claim can be heard and decided by an officer there. The system is still in place to help those that need it.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

And you guys seriously think the visa is going to fix this? Dude who screws the system gets welfare, heathcare, assistance and what not. Dude who goes by the book and misses a point gets hosed. Yeah the visa are going to fix THAT.

?? Yes I do, and it has been proven many times in the past that imposing a VISA on a country like Mexico, greatly reduces the amount of fraudulent claims. It has been proven. It may not stop it completely, but nothing in this world works 100%

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

?? Yes I do, and it has been proven many times in the past that imposing a VISA on a country like Mexico, greatly reduces the amount of fraudulent claims. It has been proven. It may not stop it completely, but nothing in this world works 100%

It may reduce fraudulent claims from a country that has been hit by visa but since the cash cow is still there, you'll get fraudulent claims from other countries. You are not fighting the cause, you are fighting symptoms (and poorly, one might add).

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

It may reduce fraudulent claims from a country that has been hit by visa but since the cash cow is still there, you'll get fraudulent claims from other countries. You are not fighting the cause, you are fighting sympoms (and poorly, one might add).

Claims from other countries? Like where? Which countries will take over Mexico's place of 10,000 refugee claims per year that are not doing it now. Wouldn't they be doing it now if they could?

My friend, there is no way Canada or even a country like the USA could do anything to deal with the causes of Mexico's internal problems. The change needs to happen within. We can only control what happens within our borders, and thus, this is what needs to happen.

[hockeycop]

I dont type as fast as Jolinar so I will keep it short...

He is bang on about the cost or refugee processing vs. visa costs. They are not even comparable. Massive amounts of money and time will be saved. This is money and time better spent on processing claims from REAL refugees.

Being from a country that gets a visa requirement slapped on sucks if you are a genuine traveller, because it is inconvenient. Some honest people with good intentions do fall through the cracks and get denied. The visa officers aren't perfect. That being said, some good people probably get bounced at the port of entry anyway for not being able to prove intentions. If we're looking for bright sides, I guess it's better if the person knows they can't come before they buy a plane ticket...

Visas have the ability to almost stop fraudulent claims for refugee. That can be seen by the fact that the Czechs went from 5 claims in 2005, to over 3000 after the visa was lifted.

Mexico has never been subjected to a visa requirement for travel to Canada to my knowledge. I would bet a years salary that it will significantly decrease economic migrants filing false claims.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

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?

[Flame Of Liberty]

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?

No chance EU does that. European solidarity doesn't translate well from paper to reality when there's a chance it might hurt.

IMO what will happen is that EU will do nothing and Czechs will impose the visa requirements to Canadians (they have to wait for the decision of the EU, and the decision should be made in september IIRC).

[fredr123]

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?

Isn't that what Canada is doing though? Closing the "loophole" that allowed Czechs to come to Canada without any prior scrutiny at a Visa Office abroad?

Under Canada's relevant immigration laws, the default is that you have to apply for and obtain approval to travel to Canada from a Visa Office before you get here. That's the case whether your company transferred you to Edmonton, you are visiting your Great Grandchildren for the first time in Kenora or if you plan to study history at Dalhousie.

From that general rule, they carve out exceptions for certain groups. You don't need a Visa if you are an American citizen visiting Canada for less than six months as a tourist. You may not need a study permit if you are going to be taking ESL classes only. You don't have to get preapproval for some kinds of work permits if you are an intra-company transferee pursuant to NAFTA or GATTS.

There is a list of countries whose citizens don't require a Visa to visit Canada. Countries are added and removed from that list from time to time for a variety of reasons. When circumstances change, the government takes a second look at whether or not that country should be on the list. This is how Canada can address problems that arise from time to time.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

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?

My guess is that the flood of asylum-seekers would be too much for the Canadian government to handle. Illegitimate claimants would come here in droves as well.

I have had some personal experience with families (or what was left of them) that came to Canada as bona fide Red Cross-sponsored refugees from Sudan and elsewhere. The hell they went through just to survive and all that they went through in the refugee system to eventually get to Canada are things I'm not sure I'm strong enough to endure. Compare that to some of the reasons that I have heard from people who come to Canada seeking refugee status (rival gang member wants to kill me, I'm bored at home, etc.) who had the means to purchase fake travel documents and plane tickets to get here.

Not just Canada but the world ought to do more to help the former category of travellers. Visa requirements help to cutdown on the latter category. The focus then shifts from processing claims in Canada to processing claims in the field, so to speak, in each individual country. There are still costs but they are potentially minimized.

[mykalberta]

Why not have a blanket no refugee claims from certain countrys? Like Mexico, USA, Germany, France etc. Any country that meets a set of standards of living.

There is no way normal EU countries will impose visa restrictions on visitors. The east bloc counties might but no country that really matters for tourism/trade.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Why not have a blanket no refugee claims from certain countrys? Like Mexico, USA, Germany, France etc. Any country that meets a set of standards of living.

There is no way normal EU countries will impose visa restrictions on visitors. The east bloc counties might but no country that really matters for tourism/trade.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by fredr123

Isn't that what Canada is doing though? Closing the "loophole" that allowed Czechs to come to Canada without any prior scrutiny at a Visa Office abroad?

Under Canada's relevant immigration laws, the default is that you have to apply for and obtain approval to travel to Canada from a Visa Office before you get here. That's the case whether your company transferred you to Edmonton, you are visiting your Great Grandchildren for the first time in Kenora or if you plan to study history at Dalhousie.

From that general rule, they carve out exceptions for certain groups. You don't need a Visa if you are an American citizen visiting Canada for less than six months as a tourist. You may not need a study permit if you are going to be taking ESL classes only. You don't have to get preapproval for some kinds of work permits if you are an intra-company transferee pursuant to NAFTA or GATTS.

There is a list of countries whose citizens don't require a Visa to visit Canada. Countries are added and removed from that list from time to time for a variety of reasons. When circumstances change, the government takes a second look at whether or not that country should be on the list. This is how Canada can address problems that arise from time to time.

That's a fair point. But really, one huge reason we don't lift the exemption for, say, Americans is because we don't want to a) kill tourism and b) prompt reciprocal action.

This situation has been handled in a completely hamhanded way. Last summer 200,000 tourists came here from Mexico. How many of those will now decide that since no visa is necessary to visit the U.S., that going to the Grand Canyon sounds just as good as the Rocky Mountains or Niagara Falls?

Meanwhile, the likelihood is high that the Czech Republic will now impose a visa on Canadian visitors. They are full members of the EU, and although I suspect FOL is correct that it's unlikely that all EU members will impose the same restriction, this could easily create a major problem for Canadian travels entering any of the twenty-five Schengen countries. This is because the Czech Republic are Schengen signatories, which means there are no border controls between those nations. In practical terms, this means that if the CR imposes a Visa on Canadians, Canadians will now probably face delays and extra scrutiny when entering any country in the Schengen area, and be forced to satisfy the border guard that they do not intend to travel to the Czech Republic. Not so bad if you're entering Iceland, but a big problem if you're entering Austria, Slovakia, Poland, the list goes on.

So to stop a few thousand Romas from escaping persecution in their own country, we have now alienated an EU member, a NAFTA member, hurt tourism and possibly created huge travel hassles for Canadians abroad. Don't you think there might have been a better way?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Why not have a blanket no refugee claims from certain countrys? Like Mexico, USA, Germany, France etc. Any country that meets a set of standards of living.

There is no way normal EU countries will impose visa restrictions on visitors. The east bloc counties might but no country that really matters for tourism/trade.

I'm going to go ahead and guess that you've never heard of the Schengen Area.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by fredr123

My guess is that the flood of asylum-seekers would be too much for the Canadian government to handle. Illegitimate claimants would come here in droves as well.

I have had some personal experience with families (or what was left of them) that came to Canada as bona fide Red Cross-sponsored refugees from Sudan and elsewhere. The hell they went through just to survive and all that they went through in the refugee system to eventually get to Canada are things I'm not sure I'm strong enough to endure. Compare that to some of the reasons that I have heard from people who come to Canada seeking refugee status (rival gang member wants to kill me, I'm bored at home, etc.) who had the means to purchase fake travel documents and plane tickets to get here.

Not just Canada but the world ought to do more to help the former category of travellers. Visa requirements help to cutdown on the latter category. The focus then shifts from processing claims in Canada to processing claims in the field, so to speak, in each individual country. There are still costs but they are potentially minimized.

You don't think they cut down on both? The basic loophole in the UN's Refugee convention is that if refugees never arrive on our soil we never have to offer them asylum.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

That's a fair point. But really, one huge reason we don't lift the exemption for, say, Americans is because we don't want to a) kill tourism and b) prompt reciprocal action.

This situation has been handled in a completely hamhanded way. Last summer 200,000 tourists came here from Mexico. How many of those will now decide that since no visa is necessary to visit the U.S., that going to the Grand Canyon sounds just as good as the Rocky Mountains or Niagara Falls?

Meanwhile, the likelihood is high that the Czech Republic will now impose a visa on Canadian visitors. They are full members of the EU, and although I suspect FOL is correct that it's unlikely that all EU members will impose the same restriction, this could easily create a major problem for Canadian travels entering any of the twenty-five Schengen countries. This is because the Czech Republic are Schengen signatories, which means there are no border controls between those nations. In practical terms, this means that if the CR imposes a Visa on Canadians, Canadians will now probably face delays and extra scrutiny when entering any country in the Schengen area, and be forced to satisfy the border guard that they do not intend to travel to the Czech Republic. Not so bad if you're entering Iceland, but a big problem if you're entering Austria, Slovakia, Poland, the list goes on.

So to stop a few thousand Romas from escaping persecution in their own country, we have now alienated an EU member, a NAFTA member, hurt tourism and possibly created huge travel hassles for Canadians abroad. Don't you think there might have been a better way?

I have to admit ignorance of most of what you just wrote about the EU, Schengen and the Czech Republic. For the most part, my comments were written with Mexico in mind. I think the imposition of a visa requirement on Mexico was a justifiable move. I'm not sure about the Czech situation and would have to read up on it a bit.

I will add that there are plenty of other reasons there is no visa requirement for the USA. We are each other's best trading partners. We are right smack dab next to each other. There don't seem to be as many asylum seekers from the USA. We are culturally quite similar.

Reciprocation for a visa requirement would be a giant pain in the ass although, if memory serves, USA started the passport requirement for Canadians before Canada began a similar requirement for Americans. We all dealt with that (eventually).