Visa Restriction Introduced for Czech Rep and Mexico

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

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.

I imagine it has some effect. In my experience, true refugees that need asylum are stuck in refugee camps suffering through deplorable conditions and utter hell. I would prefer resources be directed at helping those people out.

"Refugees" that manage to fly into Canada often have the means to take care of themselves and have demonstrated this through the exorbitant fees they have paid to handlers for fake documents and other frauds in order to make the trek in the first place. Some are legitimate claimants no doubt but I'll bet you all the money in my left front pocket they are far out numbered by the ######s that ruin the system for everyone else.

[jolinar of malkshor]

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?

Ok IFF. What is the better way? Like someone had suggested, changing the Immigation legislation so people from countries like USA, Mexico and EU sates could not make refugee claims in Canada would be great. I would support that over VISA requirements. The problem is it would require parliament to make those changes; I could not see how the liberals or NDP would vote for that.

They could change the legislation kind of like the USA where they have the VISA waiver program. People from certain countries are not required to apply for a VISA, BUT, if they break the Immigraiton laws while in the USA they removed immediately and do not have any legal recourse. I would be in favour of that. Again, that would require legislative change which would not happen in a minority government. Until there is a majority, and most likely a Conservative majority (because a Liberal majority would never make these kind of changes to the Immigration Act) it will not happen.

This is really the only solution for now. I do not see the outcomes that you think might happen. IMO there is no way Mexico would even consider imposing a VISA on Canada. They are hurting from the economic downturn as it is and Canadians will just go to other sunny destinations like DR, where all you need is a drivers licence.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

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

No I hadn't but do you really think French, German, Italy, Spain will go along with forcing Canadian tourists to require visa's? I dont. You now what, I will put my "money" where my mouth is. Next year I am planning on going to Spain. If I have to get a visa to go there I will never post on CP again. Thats how confident I am that Western Europe will not allow a bunch of Eastern European gypsie countries to ruin very lucrative travel arrangements.

Also, the US has visa requirements on the CR, do their citizens get hassled when they enter other EU countries. I doubt it, if its anything like us the all they probably have to do is check a box on a form that says I have no intention on going to the CR.

The Mexico thing will hurt tourism a bit, but then again why not have a blanket no refugree acceptance policy from Mexico?

Also, only in Europe would they come up with such a clusterfrack.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by fredr123

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 only know the little bit that I posted above, part of which is speculation, honestly--my guess is we're in slightly uncharted waters. I have traveled in the Schengen area, so I know a little bit on that basis.

Here's the gist: twenty-five countries are signatories to a treaty called the Schengen agreement, and as such they lack any border controls for travel between member countries, but have strengthened border controls that you must go through prior to entering the Schengen area.

That's what I know. Here is what I presume to be true but don't know for sure: in spite of being Schengen signatories, each member nation may still if it wishes impose a visa requirement on any non-member nation. In that case, the only place where that visa requirement could be enforced would be at the border of the entire Schengen area, meaning that the Czech Republic could only enforce their requirement by checking for that visa at every Schengen port of entry in all twenty-five member countries.

Depending on how the Czechs respond, this could easily turn into a major fiasco for Canadian travelers.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

No I hadn't but do you really think French, German, Italy, Spain will go along with forcing Canadian tourists to require visa's? I dont. You now what, I will put my "money" where my mouth is. Next year I am planning on going to Spain. If I have to get a visa to go there I will never post on CP again. Thats how confident I am that Western Europe will not allow a bunch of Eastern European gypsie countries to ruin very lucrative travel arrangements.

Also, the US has visa requirements on the CR, do their citizens get hassled when they enter other EU countries. I doubt it, if its anything like us the all they probably have to do is check a box on a form that says I have no intention on going to the CR.

I think before you make blanket claims about how travel will work if the Czech Republic starts requiring a visa, you should read up on how Schengen actually works.

Also, the US does not require citizens of the Czech Republic to have an entry visa.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

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?

I will have to find the article that I read last night, but it indicated the jump in OUR Mexican tourism is due solely to the issue that the States has recently required visas from Mexicans.

Edit....

One of the main reasons for the increase in visitors to Canada was that the United States imposed a visa requirement for Mexicans.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/sto...o-toronto.html

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

I will have to find the article that I read last night, but it indicated the jump in OUR Mexican tourism is due solely to the issue that the States has recently required visas from Mexicans.

Edit....



http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/sto...o-toronto.html

I stand corrected.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Also, the US does not require citizens of the Czech Republic to have an entry visa.

This, too, is only a recent development and the US might in fact revert back to requiring one given the situation in Canada.

http://travel.state.gov/visa/temp/wi...hout_1990.html

NEW COUNTRIES ADDED: The Visa Waiver Program (VWP) was expanded to include the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, the Republic of Korea, and the Slovak Republic in late 2008.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

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.

We don't offer it to them to begin with. They must request it from an officer. Like I said before,they can always make a claim abroad, they do not need to be in Canada to do it.

[Glenflame]

It is very good to close the door otherwise tens (or even hundreds) of thousands of Mexicans will flood in as refugees (claim to be a traveller before on board).

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by 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 [h]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.
...

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.
....



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.

... 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.

Man, I believe you outlined exactly the problem right there. Red tape, miles and miles of it. The difficulty of putting these refugees through our system is a problem regarding the system, not the refugees. However, my problem (and one I'm hearing from others on this thread) is that the current solution given is to add even more red tape, and layers of expense, to an already fairly bloated and inefficient system. In addition to this, the current solution given would inconvenience thousands to hundreds of thousands of innocent
bystanders who have no part in the current problem. The solution given by mykalberta I believe, to CUT the red tape, is a sensible one, and one that would probably be readily accepted by everyone involved. With the potential ramifications of the current solution becoming more and more apparent, in addition to more serious, we need to actually look at what the problem actually is. It's not that there are problems with the populations of Mexico or the Czech Republic - it's with the Canadian system. Visa requirements target their populations while making the issue worse by making it more cumbersome.


My previous post suggested that the solution to the problem is to streamline the system, and to make it far easier for refugees to come into the country. I stand by that claim. Either they come in easily, with us knowing who they are (without spending a boatload), or they come in easily (for them) without us knowing who they are, making it more difficult for the more law-abiding of the refugee hopefuls to make it in. If the costs are as astronomical as you claim, killing this red tape should easily pay for the additional welfare costs that some of these refugees will use up. After all, welfare doesn't pay all that well.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

This, too, is only a recent development and the US might in fact revert back to requiring one given the situation in Canada.

http://travel.state.gov/visa/temp/wi...hout_1990.html

Thanks for the link Shawnski. This is part of that page.

Travelers should be aware that by requesting admission under the Visa Waiver Program, they are generally waiving their right to review or appeal a CBP officer’s decision as to their application for admission at the port of entry. Likewise, if the traveler is later found to have violated the conditions of admission under the Visa Waiver Program, they do not have the right to contest a removal order (See CBP website for additional details.)

Like I was saying before, if Canada had a program like this, I would be in favour of it. Basically, we won't require the Foreign national to apply for a VISA and be checked out prior to arrival, but if you F-up and break the law, you are gone, no ifs ands or buts.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

This, too, is only a recent development and the US might in fact revert back to requiring one given the situation in Canada.

http://travel.state.gov/visa/temp/wi...hout_1990.html

That's around when Canada rescinded theirs too, isn't it--or a little later?

I don't see anything about reverting back. Have you heard anything specific? As I understand it the US doesn't have as many refugee claimants from the CR.

[Glenflame]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Man, I believe you outlined exactly the problem right there. Red tape, miles and miles of it. The difficulty of putting these refugees through our system is a problem regarding the system, not the refugees. However, my problem (and one I'm hearing from others on this thread) is that the current solution given is to add even more red tape, and layers of expense, to an already fairly bloated and inefficient system. In addition to this, the current solution given would inconvenience thousands to hundreds of thousands of innocent
bystanders who have no part in the current problem. The solution given by mykalberta I believe, to CUT the red tape, is a sensible one, and one that would probably be readily accepted by everyone involved. With the potential ramifications of the current solution becoming more and more apparent, in addition to more serious, we need to actually look at what the problem actually is. It's not that there are problems with the populations of Mexico or the Czech Republic - it's with the Canadian system. Visa requirements target their populations while making the issue worse by making it more cumbersome.


My previous post suggested that the solution to the problem is to streamline the system, and to make it far easier for refugees to come into the country. I stand by that claim. Either they come in easily, with us knowing who they are (without spending a boatload), or they come in easily (for them) without us knowing who they are, making it more difficult for the more law-abiding of the refugee hopefuls to make it in. If the costs are as astronomical as you claim, killing this red tape should easily pay for the additional welfare costs that some of these refugees will use up. After all, welfare doesn't pay all that well.

They claim they are refugees, but do you really think they are all refugees? They are just the people wanting to move into this country without going through immigration system (the current immigration system require better edcation or more money). The time when millions of Mexicans live in this country (like today's CA), you all will know it is wrong not to do so.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Man, I believe you outlined exactly the problem right there. Red tape, miles and miles of it. The difficulty of putting these refugees through our system is a problem regarding the system, not the refugees. However, my problem (and one I'm hearing from others on this thread) is that the current solution given is to add even more red tape, and layers of expense, to an already fairly bloated and inefficient system. In addition to this, the current solution given would inconvenience thousands to hundreds of thousands of innocent
bystanders who have no part in the current problem. The solution given by mykalberta I believe, to CUT the red tape, is a sensible one, and one that would probably be readily accepted by everyone involved. With the potential ramifications of the current solution becoming more and more apparent, in addition to more serious, we need to actually look at what the problem actually is. It's not that there are problems with the populations of Mexico or the Czech Republic - it's with the Canadian system. Visa requirements target their populations while making the issue worse by making it more cumbersome.


My previous post suggested that the solution to the problem is to streamline the system, and to make it far easier for refugees to come into the country. I stand by that claim. Either they come in easily, with us knowing who they are (without spending a boatload), or they come in easily (for them) without us knowing who they are, making it more difficult for the more law-abiding of the refugee hopefuls to make it in. If the costs are as astronomical as you claim, killing this red tape should easily pay for the additional welfare costs that some of these refugees will use up. After all, welfare doesn't pay all that well.

But that is exactly what the VISA requirement does. It kills the red tape. Instead of multiple layers of government involved in a ref claim in Canada. Only one person has to decide the legitimacy of an application, all the other programs need not apply.

Listen, I am all for making the refugee system more effective. The law is set up so that claims could be heard and decided within a month or two. Even within weeks. But, because of the amount of claimants, we do not have the resources to handle it and make decisions in a timely matter. Also, changes need to be made so that refugee eligibility can be more easily determined by the first officer that deals with them.

Did you know, that if anyone, even an American citizen, entered Canada say today, they can make a refugee claim. It doesn't matter what the basis of the claim is, could be that he feels that the gas price is to high in his country, WE MUST entertain his claim. The only way we can deem him ineligible is if he meets the list set out in section 101 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Basically they have to be a serious criminal (which is not decided by the officer it is someone in Ottawa), have been a failed refugee claimant in Canada before, has a enforceable removal order against them or is inadmissible for terrorism or crimes against humanity. All other claimants will have their claim heard. So in this case, the American can hang around Canada to have his claim heard, which is now sitting at about 15 months. They get free healthcare, welfare and all the other ares in the book.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

That's around when Canada rescinded theirs too, isn't it--or a little later?

I don't see anything about reverting back. Have you heard anything specific? As I understand it the US doesn't have as many refugee claimants from the CR.

Didn't we lift the Czech one in 2007? Given that extra time, we have since noticed the issue. And that is what I meant when I said the US "might in fact revert back to requiring one given the situation in Canada"

Edit, yes, October 2007. About a year before the States did. Damn them... following our lead. Aren't we supposed to always be following them?

Mexico provides Canada with the most refugee claimants, with the number almost tripling to more than 9,400 since 2005, said the Immigration Department. The Czech Republic ranks second with nearly 3,000 refugee claims filed since the visa requirement for visitors from that country was lifted in October 2007.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/...c-visa015.html

[Knalus]

My biggest problem with using the Visa system to solve this problem is that it targets (and punishes) everyone, not just the refugee claimants. I don't think that's fair, either.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Man, I believe you outlined exactly the problem right there. Red tape, miles and miles of it. The difficulty of putting these refugees through our system is a problem regarding the system, not the refugees. However, my problem (and one I'm hearing from others on this thread) is that the current solution given is to add even more red tape, and layers of expense, to an already fairly bloated and inefficient system. In addition to this, the current solution given would inconvenience thousands to hundreds of thousands of innocent
bystanders who have no part in the current problem. The solution given by mykalberta I believe, to CUT the red tape, is a sensible one, and one that would probably be readily accepted by everyone involved. With the potential ramifications of the current solution becoming more and more apparent, in addition to more serious, we need to actually look at what the problem actually is. It's not that there are problems with the populations of Mexico or the Czech Republic - it's with the Canadian system. Visa requirements target their populations while making the issue worse by making it more cumbersome.


My previous post suggested that the solution to the problem is to streamline the system, and to make it far easier for refugees to come into the country. I stand by that claim. Either they come in easily, with us knowing who they are (without spending a boatload), or they come in easily (for them) without us knowing who they are, making it more difficult for the more law-abiding of the refugee hopefuls to make it in. If the costs are as astronomical as you claim, killing this red tape should easily pay for the additional welfare costs that some of these refugees will use up. After all, welfare doesn't pay all that well.

There have been efforts to streamline applicants for work permits and skilled worker immigrants. I'm not sure those measures have gone far enough but it is certainly encouraging to see the government seek to cut red tape and help legitimate immigrants who will provide a net positive to the Canadian economy.

Cutting, as you say, the red tape and simply not making it illegal to be an undocumented immigrant/asylum seeker/whatever is not a smart solution. True refugees require support. There are plenty of foreign nationals that would look to take advantage of Canada's generous social welfare systems (just like the many Canadians who do it now) and contribute little. You can't discount the effect that would have on relations with the USA either. The flow of migrants into Canada wouldn't stop at the 49th parallel.

[Glenflame]

Originally Posted by fredr123

There have been efforts to streamline applicants for work permits and skilled worker immigrants. I'm not sure those measures have gone far enough but it is certainly encouraging to see the government seek to cut red tape and help legitimate immigrants who will provide a net positive to the Canadian economy.

Cutting, as you say, the red tape and simply not making it illegal to me an undocumented immigrant/asylum seeker/whatever is not a smart solution. True refugees require support. There are plenty of foreign nationals that would look to take advantage of Canada's generous social welfare systems (just like the many Canadians who do it now) and contribute little. You can't discount the effect that would have on relations with the USA either. The flow of migrants into Canada wouldn't stop at the 49th parallel.

You are way smarter than most stupid people at CP.

[Glenflame]

For me, I pay $3x,xxx for tax and I brought about $50,000 in 2002 from home country as a skilled worker (master degree, my wife also has a unversity degree). We are young and healthy so we are for sure positive to the system. I can not understand why the government allows so many so called "refugees" into this country to crash down already weakening welfare system. You will find the successfully claimed refugees will bring their girlfriend, brother, friend, neighbour, neighbour's neighbour, or neightbour's neighbour's friend..., etc into this country.

Why do not stop this?