Visa Restriction Introduced for Czech Rep and Mexico

[jolinar of malkshor]

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.

You know what IFF. You and I have had out disagreements in the past, but this is really pissing me off. You make statements that I have misrepresented the numbers. I have showed you all the refugee numbers and corrected you on several statements that you have made. As well as provided multiple sources for additional costs and you cannot even except any of those facts. You haven't acknowledged your mistakes that I have pointed out.

I have always had somewhat of a cordial debating respect for you but I think that is now out the window.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

To me, a retaliation is some actual shot, be it a fist, a bullet, a missile, even a some sort of sanction! No... they did the following:



Good luck with that one Czechs....



Please... this current scenario is exactly what was in place up until the current government tried to lift the restrictions in October of 2007 and found that it wasn't the right move. They have since reinstated the same visa requirements that previously existed. What is the problem with that? They tried but it failed. Give them credit for recognizing the problem that obviously bloomed.

Don't underestimate the importance of maintaining good relations with the EU. Not to mention the fact that there is only one way to enforce a Czech visa--and that is at every port of entry to the Schengen area--that is, 22 EU countries, plus three non-member nations. This could prove to be a giant hassle for Canadian travelers.

The problem isn't imposing a visa as an issue of principle. Obviously there's nothing wrong with that in principle--we currently require visas for citizens of most nations in the world including some of the Czech republic's neighbours. The problem is handling a relatively minor situation in such a completely hamhanded way. It's the equivalent of killing an ant with a shotgun--and the result has been some collateral damage to Canada's reputation abroad and its relations with two important allied nations.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

The problem isn't imposing a visa as an issue of principle. Obviously there's nothing wrong with that in principle--we currently require visas for citizens of most nations in the world including some of the Czech republic's neighbours. The problem is handling a relatively minor situation in such a completely hamhanded way. It's the equivalent of killing an ant with a shotgun--and the result has been some collateral damage to Canada's reputation abroad and its relations with two important allied nations.

So let me get this straight. Canada has been acting "hamhanded" for decades... recently lifts their ham fist in Oct '07... finds that a serious problem is occurring... goes back to the exact same practice as historically acceptable.... and is again "hamhanded".

Is that your argument?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

So let me get this straight. Canada has been acting "hamhanded" for decades... recently lifts their ham fist in Oct '07... finds that a serious problem is occurring... goes back to the exact same practice as historically acceptable.... and is again "hamhanded".

Is that your argument?

No. And I think you know that it isn't. Surely you can see the difference between leaving an existing visa requirement in place and re-imposing a visa requirement after first lifting it.

I guarantee you the Czechs see a pretty big difference.

[FlamesAddiction]

As the child of parents who came to Canada as asylum seekers, I feel it is important to limit the fraudulent refugee claims. A very large portion of them are people are migrating for economic reasons and not because they are truly being persecuted at home.

What's better? Having 10,000 claims (and subsequent hearings) and letting 10% of them stay.... or having 5,000 claims (and subsequent hearings) and letting 20% of them stay? As long as the legitimate asylum seekers are still being heard, then I think this is a good thing. I guess we'll have to wait and see how it plays out.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Lets wait to see what the EU actually decides to do before we start calling things a fiasco. We can't take any credibility in reports from cbc and loud noises from the Czechs. Of course they are going to do what they can for their people, but in the big picture, they are small fish in the EU pond.

I still think that the Czech will most likely come up empty, but the small fish just got a bit of support from a bigger fish:

Stockholm - The Swedish presidency of the European Union on Wednesday threw its weight behind fellow-member the Czech Republic in a row over Canada's new visa requirements, saying that it backed the idea of making Canadians apply for a visa to enter the EU.

'As presidency we're in favour of this reciprocity, but it looks to the (European) Commission to end the problem, because the commission is responsible for the reciprocity mechanism,' Sweden's minister for migration and asylum, Tobias Billstrom, said.

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/ne...nse__Roundup__

[Knalus]

The Mexicans have imposed Visa restrictions on Canadian Dignitaries.

[Kswiss]

Really too bad about this. In the grand scheme of things, this will definitely put a bad taste in all of these countries involved. However, I am for the fact that if the system is broke...fix it...Even the Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek states that the Roma are not being discriminated in the Czech Republic. Believe what he says or not, but if this is true why are the Romas making these claims? We dont know exactly whats going on, so why not put up the restrictions from 2007 and re-evalute things.

[peter12]

Wait, how does even apply to refugees? I thought that refugees had to go through a special process and then were only invited by the Canadian government after going through an intense period of scrutiny. How will tourist visas prevent frauds?

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by peter12

Wait, how does even apply to refugees? I thought that refugees had to go through a special process and then were only invited by the Canadian government after going through an intense period of scrutiny. How will tourist visas prevent frauds?

All you have to do is show up in Canada and utter the magic word (hint: it rhymes with nephew-gee). The government will be obligated to entertain your claim. Once the claim is made in Canada, there are beaucoup levels of appeal you can resort to as well as take your beef to the Federal Court if your claim is denied. All of this costs the Canadian government a lot of money (how much? jolinar thinks it's a lot, others think it's less). The vast majority refugee claimants who show up at Canada's borders and make these kinds of claims are found to have not bona fide claims.

By imposing a visa requirement, the purpose for travel to Canada can be scrutinized abroad before the person ever arrives in Canada. It's not going to stop all of the people who would show up and make a claim but it will cut down on a lot of the obvious ones. You will have to prove your intentions for travelling to Canada (visiting friends, going to work, etc.) rather than just hopping on a plane and working on your cover story during the flight.

Mexico has started to increase the number of direct flights to Canada, especially, Calgary in the past few years. That, coupled with the economic downturn and other social and political problems that plague Mexico right now have lead to a dramatic increase in people seeking asylum in Canada from Mexico.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by fredr123

All of this costs the Canadian government a lot of money (how much? jolinar thinks it's a lot, others think it's less).

Bogus refugee claims are costly--Kenney says processing just one claim sets Canadian taxpayers back $29,000.When these claims clog up the system, wasting time, money and human resources, it means that legitimate refugee claims get backlogged and take that much longer to deal with. That's patently unfair to those in dire need of help

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/vi...273/story.html

I am also trying to find a story that has a very important tidbit in it. Basically is says that there are no safe countries in the world from a refugee perspective. Most democracies have a list of other countries that they don't take refugees as the countries are deemed to be a safe environment. Canada has no such list.

Here it is....

On the basis of widely used international standards, nations that receive refugees for permanent resettlement have drawn up lists of humane countries from whose nationals they refuse to even consider a refugee claim. Other countries, for example, will not allow a U.K. citizen, a Canadian or a Swede to lodge a refugee claim. The reason is obvious: These are democratic jurisdictions with good human rights records and do not persecute their citizens. In refugee parlance, they are described as “safe countries of origin.”


When the legislation establishing the IRB came into effect, however, the refugee lobby was successful in pressuring the government into not declaring any other countries to be “safe.” The objective was to ensure that our door would be left as wide open as possible. As a result, our refugee-determination system has been constantly clogged, and at times overwhelmed, by thousands of claims from people whom no other country would permit to register an asylum application.

So perhaps it is time to make a "safe" list and alleviate, instantly, any refugee claims from those countries.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

So perhaps it is time to make a "safe" list and alleviate, instantly, any refugee claims from those countries.

In principle, a good idea. As long as we aren't including on that list countries with widespread and nominally state-sanctioned human rights abuses. Being a "Western-Style Democracy" is nowhere near a sufficient criterion in my opinion, though it surely ought to be among the necessary criteria.

[Shawnski]

Agreed IFF. To me this would be the first step to take to mitigate bogus claims and get the process flowing quicker for those that truly need help.

But even "safe" or not safe is still too black and white. Perhaps another designation in the middle would allow for immediate return of refugees, but they are still eligible to apply from their home country. Mexico might be one of those 'tweener countries.

This story sums their situation up for me. They aren't being persecuted at home, but have arrived here claiming asylum. Sorry, back home for you. Claim from there if you like. IF they are then deemed legitimate, come on back.

[hockeycop]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

This story sums their situation up for me. They aren't being persecuted at home, but have arrived here claiming asylum. Sorry, back home for you. Claim from there if you like. IF they are then deemed legitimate, come on back.

This makes up pretty much ALL of the claims filed from Mexico. Most are fabricated. Crap like "I read in the newspaper that there are killings" or "someone called my phone"...

A lot of them lie and try to enter as tourists. When the lies are unravled, and they are about to be denied entry, boom, they hit the officer with the R word. Once that word has been said, the claim must be processed. They go through the system, and 90% of the time and $29000 later, back to Mexico they go.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/vi...273/story.html

I am also trying to find a story that has a very important tidbit in it. Basically is says that there are no safe countries in the world from a refugee perspective. Most democracies have a list of other countries that they don't take refugees as the countries are deemed to be a safe environment. Canada has no such list.

Here it is....



So perhaps it is time to make a "safe" list and alleviate, instantly, any refugee claims from those countries.

Thanks for the quote. Shows that my numbers are getting a lot closer than some people suggested. I am sure the $29,000 only includes direct costs associated to CIC.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

In principle, a good idea. As long as we aren't including on that list countries with widespread and nominally state-sanctioned human rights abuses. Being a "Western-Style Democracy" is nowhere near a sufficient criterion in my opinion, though it surely ought to be among the necessary criteria.

I agree as well, however, again this would require legislative change which I do not see how the Conservatives could get it to pass through the house in a minority government.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by hockeycop

This makes up pretty much ALL of the claims filed from Mexico. Most are fabricated. Crap like "I read in the newspaper that there are killings" or "someone called my phone"...

A lot of them lie and try to enter as tourists. When the lies are unravled, and they are about to be denied entry, boom, they hit the officer with the R word. Once that word has been said, the claim must be processed. They go through the system, and 90% of the time and $29000 later, back to Mexico they go.

Exactly, so $29,000 at 90% of 10,000 claims equals a cost to Canadian tax payers of $261,000,000 a year and growing.

That is a LOT of money to deal with fraud.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Exactly, so $29,000 at 90% of 10,000 claims equals a cost to Canadian tax payers of $261,000,000 a year and growing.

That is a LOT of money to deal with fraud.

Honest question - isn't $ to hear claims already budgeted for, and it wouldn't matter where the claimants are coming from? Or is this $ that wouldn't have been spent otherwise?

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Exactly, so $29,000 at 90% of 10,000 claims equals a cost to Canadian tax payers of $261,000,000 a year and growing.

That is a LOT of money to deal with fraud.

That still doesn't stop the Visa restrictions on these people from being a hamhanded way of dealing with this. Heck, Czech's can't even apply for visas in their own country, they have to go to Vienna. That's pretty rude.

The Canadian tourism industry says Mexcians accounted for 266,000 visitors alone last year. (CBC News, 2009) Mexico was the sixth largest source of tourists to Canada last year, and the numbers had been steadily increasing. However, Mexican asylum claims make up one quarter of all applications that Canada receives, the government says. (The Star, 2009)
In the first three months of this year, the number of claimants from the Czech Republic jumped to fourth place (653). Mexico was first, at 3,648, with impoverished Haiti (688) and Colombia (656) just ahead of the Czech Republic. (Dose.ca)
(the links were to long, I did not include them)


You want to look at numbers? 3648/266,000 = 1.4% of Mexicans coming to Canada could be potentially applying for refugee status. What will happen to the economy when Visa requirements are in place for Mexican tourists? The number of Mexican tourists increased dramatically recently due to the ease of travel here to Canada. If you want to add intangible costs to the refugee claimants, you should also subtract the intangible costs associated with more difficult tourism here to Canada.

I'll make up a few numbers, too. If each Mexican coming here to Canada on Vacation spends a week here, and spends approximately $2000 per week on a trip, that results in $532,000,000 in spending that Mexicans bring into the country every year. If this is cut in half, that's a cost to the Canadian Economy of $266,000,000. The Mexican portion of the refugee claims is only 3,648, bringing the cost to the government to 3,648*29,000=$105,792,000 - resulting in a net loss to Canada of -$160,208,000 per year of operation, not counting the costs of diplomatic coolness between two close countries.

Remember, too, that tourism to Canada was increasing significantly year over year. That is now over. These costs do not include additional future capital lost due to no longer increasing tourism numbers.





In addition, "The Immigration and Refugee Board has accepted 118 Czech asylum applications since late 2007, determining that the applicants had "a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular political group."
(National post, 2009) If the Czech numbers are at 653 claimants per year, with 118 ACCEPTED (across a time span roughly approximating a year, late 2007 to early 2009), then the fraudulent numbers are down to 535 per year. There are many, many refugee claimants that come to Canada that are accepted.

To think (or suggest) that Visas will cut these claims to zero is laughable. The number of refugees that Canada will accept this year will be 10,000. Next year, it will be 10,000. The year after that, it will be 10,000 - merely because that is the maximum that Canada can process, and there will continue to be more than the maximum applying. Especially with the fraudulent Czech Roma applications, which can be made from any country in the EU, including Great Britain and France. Hell, Czech's have to apply for Visas in another country right now anyways. This stops nothing.

Net result - big economic losses for Canada, minor net reduction in refugee claimants, no net reduction in costs for Canada's refugee board, Major net losses in International standing, relations with European and North American neighbours, as well as the whole thing reeks of unfairness and isn't the right thing to do.

all this over 4248 people entering the country a year, out of 1.1 million, THAT WE KNOW ABOUT. Remember my "sarcastic" comment about just letting them come in? Yeah, not so silly now, is it?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Knalus

That still doesn't stop the Visa restrictions on these people from being a hamhanded way of dealing with this. Heck, Czech's can't even apply for visas in their own country, they have to go to Vienna. That's pretty rude.

Nobody has to go anywhere to apply for a Visa, unless you count the mailbox.