1 dead, 6 others injured at NYE shooting + 1 dead elsewhere - Somali connection

[Slava]

Originally Posted by scottish_flame

Can't send them back to Somalia because it's a country at civil war. So either throw him in prison and our taxes pay for him or give him a slap on the wrist and let him walk freely.

Sending them back would sure sort them out

I just wonder if there is a reason we couldn't have a policy where if someone comes over and commits certain crimes within a certain amount of time of obtaining citizenship, or being a permanent resident that we could just send them back regardless of the situation in those countries? I know that the US has a similar policy regarding illegal immigrants from South America, and thats a little different because they're illegal to begin with.

Maybe someone with a little more knowledge of the ramifications and issues could chime in though. I really have no idea, it just seems like a good idea to get rid of these ne'er-do-wells sooner rather than later.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Slava

I just wonder if there is a reason we couldn't have a policy where if someone comes over and commits certain crimes within a certain amount of time of obtaining citizenship, or being a permanent resident that we could just send them back regardless of the situation in those countries? I know that the US has a similar policy regarding illegal immigrants from South America, and thats a little different because they're illegal to begin with.

Maybe someone with a little more knowledge of the ramifications and issues could chime in though. I really have no idea, it just seems like a good idea to get rid of these ne'er-do-wells sooner rather than later.

I've always been of the opinion that if we offer full Canadian citizenship to immigrants that they get to be a full Canadian, and are treated the same as any other Canadian citizen in terms of rights and punishment.

I know it's a weird and tough stance to take when it comes to discussing things like crime and it's easier to say "send them back to where they came from" and justify it by saying "Well, they're an immigrant, they should either follow our laws or go back to their country!".

But that sounds more appropriate if they were a guest to our country, but if we've granted them citizenship they shouldn't be treated as a guest they should be treated as a Canadian citizen and the law should be blind to the fact that they weren't born here. We have laws here to punish criminals.

Otherwise make two classes of citizenship then, with their own sets of rights and punishment, but then what kind of country are we?

Sorry, I deal with lots of immigrants and get fired up about these types of things.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by flameswin

I've always been of the opinion that if we offer full Canadian citizenship to immigrants that they get to be a full Canadian, and are treated the same as any other Canadian citizen in terms of rights and punishment.

I know it's a weird and tough stance to take when it comes to discussing things like crime and it's easier to say "send them back to where they came from" and justify it by saying "Well, they're an immigrant, they should either follow our laws or go back to their country!".

But that sounds more appropriate if they were a guest to our country, but if we've granted them citizenship they shouldn't be treated as a guest they should be treated as a Canadian citizen and the law should be blind to the fact that they weren't born here. We have laws here to punish criminals.

Otherwise make two classes of citizenship then, but then what kind of country are we?

Sorry, I deal with lots of immigrants and get fired up about these types of things.

I respect that, but I've always felt that citizenship should come with a contract whether written or implied that if you come here and break the laws of the land your citizen ship is rendered null and void.

For those that come from countries in turmoil. You jail them until either the turmoil ends and then you send them back, or they can make the choice to go home.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I respect that, but I've always felt that citizenship should come with a contract whether written or implied that if you come here and break the laws of the land your citizen ship is rendered null and void.

For those that come from countries in turmoil. You jail them until either the turmoil ends and then you send them back, or they can make the choice to go home.

I totally get that Captain, and it's a tough stance for me to take, so I'm not trying to com off as a bleeding heart or anything. But the issue, and I know people hate this term on CP, is the slippery slope.

Just using your own words and applying my concerns. And I'm not trying to twist your words or use hyperbole;

- If you make a law that nullifies citizenship for crimes, what's the cut off? What if you get a bad Prime Minister that decides there's too many immigrants, soe start sending them back for lesser crimes then previously to bring the numbers down.

"Yeah, so we've used this law for murderers, but going forward, we will now start sending any "violent offenders" back".

Next thing you know, a hard working immigrant goes to a bar, get's involved in a brawl, is charged with assault for sticking up for a buddy and get's sent back to his country.


- On jailing people indefinitely if their country is unsafe to return to; I would never ever want my country to partake in anything like that. That's American style thinking, and it's scary and inhumane. Imagine having Canadian citizens sitting in prison with indefinite prison terms? C'mon man, we can't even entertain that idea in this great country.

[jayswin]

The "contract" immigrants should have to abide by is the oath they take when they're sworn in to obey our laws or else face the punishment of Canadian laws in Canada. Aka, they're a Canadian citizen.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by flameswin

I've always been of the opinion that if we offer full Canadian citizenship to immigrants that they get to be a full Canadian, and are treated the same as any other Canadian citizen in terms of rights and punishment.

I know it's a weird and tough stance to take when it comes to discussing things like crime and it's easier to say "send them back to where they came from" and justify it by saying "Well, they're an immigrant, they should either follow our laws or go back to their country!".

But that sounds more appropriate if they were a guest to our country, but if we've granted them citizenship they shouldn't be treated as a guest they should be treated as a Canadian citizen and the law should be blind to the fact that they weren't born here. We have laws here to punish criminals.

Otherwise make two classes of citizenship then, with their own sets of rights and punishment, but then what kind of country are we?

Sorry, I deal with lots of immigrants and get fired up about these types of things.

Nothing to apologize for! That's why I asked. I do deal with some people who are relatively recent immigrants or permanent residents, but frankly these people would never be involved in these kinds of activities.

I do agree that we have laws to punish criminals, but really there is a different scenario here. We are making the decision to allow these people citizenship. Frankly, not being involved in the drug trade, or not committing violent crimes doesn't seem like its a lot to ask of newcomers?

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Slava

Nothing to apologize for! That's why I asked. I do deal with some people who are relatively recent immigrants or permanent residents, but frankly these people would never be involved in these kinds of activities.

I do agree that we have laws to punish criminals, but really there is a different scenario here. We are making the decision to allow these people citizenship. Frankly, not being involved in the drug trade, or not committing violent crimes doesn't seem like its a lot to ask of newcomers?

Yep, I totally respect where you're coming from and wasn't trying to insinuate you were being unfair or anything. I guess for me it just comes down to a blanket policy and I honestly can't wrap my head around what laws we could create and where we would draw the line.

Do you draw it at "gang involvement"? (I'm asking sincerely btw, not being snarky) Violent crimes? But then what constitutes violent crime? Do we leave room for interpretation?

I guess what scares me more than anything Slava, and you've been involved in politics so you'll probably understand my concern; Is not so much the idea of being able to send immigrants back in extreme cases, as much as how do we draft that legislature and how do we ensure it wouldn't be abused? Because if we leave room for interpretation, aka a slippery slope, it will get pushed and abused.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by flameswin

I totally get that Captain, and it's a tough stance for me to take, so I'm not trying to com off as a bleeding heart or anything. But the issue, and I know people hate this term on CP, is the slippery slope.

Just using your own words and applying my concerns. And I'm not trying to twist your words or use hyperbole;

- If you make a law that nullifies citizenship for crimes, what's the cut off? What if you get a bad Prime Minister that decides there's too many immigrants, soe start sending them back for lesser crimes then previously to bring the numbers down.

"Yeah, so we've used this law for murderers, but going forward, we will now start sending any "violent offenders" back".

Next thing you know, a hard working immigrant goes to a bar, get's involved in a brawl, is charged with assault for sticking up for a buddy and get's sent back to his country.


- On jailing people indefinitely if their country is unsafe to return to; I would never ever want my country to partake in anything like that. That's American style thinking, and it's scary and inhumane. Imagine having Canadian citizens sitting in prison with indefinite prison terms? C'mon man, we can't even entertain that idea in this great country.

I would assume that the oversight for the enforcement of the rules would come from the courts and not the department of immigration if anything like this came to past.

That would then remove the scenario that you've put into place.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by flameswin

Yep, I totally respect where you're coming from and wasn't trying to insinuate you were being unfair or anything. I guess for me it just comes down to a blanket policy and I honestly can't wrap my head around what laws we could create and where we would draw the line.

Do you draw it at "gang involvement"? (I'm asking sincerely btw, not being snarky) Violent crimes? But then what constitutes violent crime? Do we leave room for interpretation?

I guess what scares me more than anything Slava, and you've been involved in politics so you'll probably understand my concern; Is not so much the idea of being able to send immigrants back in extreme cases, as much as how do we draft that legislature and how do we ensure it wouldn't be abused? Because if we leave room for interpretation, aka a slippery slope, it will get pushed and abused.

If anything, they should connect it to something like when an offender obtains dangerous offender status, which is so few and far between. Mind you, someone convicted of murder can't be designated so who knows. I would think it would need to be on some sort of scale based on employment, criminal history, etc. Definitely a political landmine though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangerous_offender

...a convicted person who is designated a dangerous offender may be subjected to an indeterminate prison sentence, whether or not the crime carries a life sentence, but this does not apply to convictions of first degree murder, second degree murder, high treason, and treason.[1] The purpose of the legislation is to detain offenders who are deemed too dangerous to be released into society because of their violent tendencies, but whose sentences would not necessarily keep them incarcerated under other legislation,

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Slava

Nothing to apologize for! That's why I asked. I do deal with some people who are relatively recent immigrants or permanent residents, but frankly these people would never be involved in these kinds of activities.

I do agree that we have laws to punish criminals, but really there is a different scenario here. We are making the decision to allow these people citizenship. Frankly, not being involved in the drug trade, or not committing violent crimes doesn't seem like its a lot to ask of newcomers?

I guess if I was going to offer a rebuttal to this specific part I'd argue that we should be doing as much due diligence as possible before granting citizenship and then just knowing that we won't catch everything and that immigrants can still change once they get citizenship.

But Canada is already one of the hardest countries to get into, and I'd argue that the amount of extreme cases is statistically pretty small, it's just that born Canadians tend to get riled up when they feel someone has been given something and is disrespecting that gift.

I'm certainly coming from a place of experience and I do know there is lots of issues with lower income immigrants and crime. There's no worse feeling than feeling like you've really given a good opportunity to an immigrant and know that he's worked hard for you, overcome drinking issues and is now leaving to pursue an education only to have a coworker come up with the most wanted page of the sun, laughing, saying "Ha, remember this guy that worked for you? Now he's wanted by police for break and enter!!".

It's frustrating, but the way we deal with it is to make it tough to get here like it already is and work hard with immigrant communities to make the transition to life in a new country as painless as possible.

It's easy as an outsider to think 'How the hell do you come to Canada and screw it up by joining a gang?'. But the reality is, not being able fit in and transition to a new country is a much bigger issue than many may think and is one of the primary reasons why we see so many immigrants end up as criminals.

[jayswin]

From the perspective of a born-Canadian, it seems simple; Don't get involved in criminal activity.

But think of this scenario; You're a 22 year old Somalian immigrant. You come to Canada, you're looking to fit in, to actually have a life. You have three options;

1. Born-Canadians who ignore you and who you can't converse with that well anyways due to language barriers.

2. Older, non criminal somolian community

3. Bad, younger Somalian community.

Unfortunately, option three becomes the "comfort" pick for a lot of immigrants. The sad thing is, most new immigrants want nothing to do with the gang stuff, they just want people their age, that they understand in a crazy new life in a foreign country, and so they get stuck in this never ending cycle.

Just a little perspective from someone who deals with these guys all the time. I was a having a really good conversation with a guy once who was in some trouble and I questioned why he would roll that way when he's been given this amazing opportunity.

He said a lot of what I stated above and ended with expressing jealousy at us who were born here, but was still overjoyed at his opportunity, but gave two great quotes;

"When you're born in Canada, you've won the lottery of life", and when I asked about returning to his home country;

"You don't go back to hell when you've made it heaven.

[4X4]

What about option 4? Younger somolian community, and not being bad? I was pretty good friends with a few when I lived in Bankview. Plenty of parties, no murders. Calgary isn't exactly Compton. Nobody is forcing nice young immigrants to be bad to fit in.

I was agreeing with you until you pretty much exonerated these poor kids for either having to hang out with boring old people, or else go be bad to be cool.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by flameswin

From the perspective of a born-Canadian, it seems simple; Don't get involved in criminal activity.

But think of this scenario; You're a 22 year old Somalian immigrant. You come to Canada, you're looking to fit in, to actually have a life. You have three options;

1. Born-Canadians who ignore you and who you can't converse with that well anyways due to language barriers.

2. Older, non criminal somolian community

3. Bad, younger Somalian community.

Unfortunately, option three becomes the "comfort" pick for a lot of immigrants. The sad thing is, most new immigrants want nothing to do with the gang stuff, they just want people their age, that they understand in a crazy new life in a foreign country, and so they get stuck in this never ending cycle.

To me it comes down to mistakes (or ignorance) made by the Canadian government in distributing immigrant diasporas. Putting them geographically so close and in homegeneous communities only serves to breed suspicion, isolation and prevents full integration into Canadian society as a whole. For example, why does the low-income neighbourhood across from Westbrook Mall exist with, from what appears to me, to be at least an 80% Somalian community? This is esepcially critical now that immigrants have more communication tools than ever before to connect with the communities of their ethnic origins (e.g. social media).

I have never been a fan of things like "Little Italy" or "Chinatown" communities, or even more non-descript places such as Toronto's Jewish neighbourhoods or Woodbridge (where a ton of Italians live). While they are cultural calling points and can be good for cities, they can also serve as silos within towns and cities that, I think, do prevent communities from being the "mosiac" we strive for. There was a time in Calgary a few years ago when the City (rightfully) said no to a Muslim-only gated community (as far as I recall).

Much harder said than done though, especially in a society that believes in free speech, the right to assemble and all other personal freedoms of a democracy like ours.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by 4X4

What about option 4? Younger somolian community, and not being bad? I was pretty good friends with a few when I lived in Bankview. Plenty of parties, no murders. Calgary isn't exactly Compton. Nobody is forcing nice young immigrants to be bad to fit in.

I was agreeing with you until you pretty much exonerated these poor kids for either having to hang out with boring old people, or else go be bad to be cool.

Well, to be fair I did purposely leave out option four, as these guys are pressured pretty hard to get into a bad lifestyle. So yeah that's fair criticism.

I guess what affects them more than anything is they all tend to move in together to be with familiar people. Once you have a bunch of young Somalis/Sudanese with no parents, and the drinks start flowing, it becomes tough to stay away from the bad behavior and bad influences that go along with that.

I didn't mean to sound like I was exonerating them, it just tends to come out that way when discussing it with others. When I speak with them one on one I'm actually the first to stomp out the "Well, this is the way it is for us" and pressure them to be better and make their immigration to Canada a success.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

To me it comes down to mistakes (or ignorance) made by the Canadian government in distributing immigrant diasporas. Putting them geographically so close and in homegeneous communities only serves to breed suspicion, isolation and prevents full integration into Canadian society as a whole. For example, why does the low-income neighbourhood across from Westbrook Mall exist with, from what appears to me, to be at least an 80% Somalian community? This is esepcially critical now that immigrants have more communication tools than ever before to connect with the communities of their ethnic origins (e.g. social media).

I have never been a fan of things like "Little Italy" or "Chinatown" communities, or even more non-descript places such as Toronto's Jewish neighbourhoods or Woodbridge (where a ton of Italians live). While they are cultural calling points and can be good for cities, they can also serve as silos within towns and cities that, I think, do prevent communities from being the "mosiac" we strive for. There was a time in Calgary a few years ago when the City (rightfully) said no to a Muslim-only gated community (as far as I recall).

Much harder said than done though, especially in a society that believes in free speech, the right to assemble and all other personal freedoms of a democracy like ours.

Yeah, it's kind of a catch 22, hey? I'm with you, but it's tough from their perspective and like you said, a really difficult trend to reverse once it starts.

If you're in one of those minorities and you've just arrived in Canada and have the choice of forest lawn with 2000 other Sudanese/Somalis or Somerset with 5, you're most likely going to go for the comfort pick.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

To me it comes down to mistakes (or ignorance) made by the Canadian government in distributing immigrant diasporas. Putting them geographically so close and in homegeneous communities only serves to breed suspicion, isolation and prevents full integration into Canadian society as a whole. For example, why does the low-income neighbourhood across from Westbrook Mall exist with, from what appears to me, to be at least an 80% Somalian community? This is esepcially critical now that immigrants have more communication tools than ever before to connect with the communities of their ethnic origins (e.g. social media).

I have never been a fan of things like "Little Italy" or "Chinatown" communities, or even more non-descript places such as Toronto's Jewish neighbourhoods or Woodbridge (where a ton of Italians live). While they are cultural calling points and can be good for cities, they can also serve as silos within towns and cities that, I think, do prevent communities from being the "mosiac" we strive for. There was a time in Calgary a few years ago when the City (rightfully) said no to a Muslim-only gated community (as far as I recall).

Much harder said than done though, especially in a society that believes in free speech, the right to assemble and all other personal freedoms of a democracy like ours.

It's the problem that France laid the seeds to in the 60's and 70's which is now becoming a serious problem.

[blueski]

I think Slava's idea has some merit. Similar to a young driver, new citizens could have a probationary period of 2-3 years where they gradually ease in to full citizenship and all of it's benefits and rights. Lawful conduct and employment could speed up the process. Breaking the law could extend the period of probation.

[driveway]

Jesus tap-dancing Christ ... are people seriously arguing for a system of 'tiered' Citizenship in Canada? Do you not see how unimaginably bad an idea that is? I think it might be the worst idea I've ever heard and I once heard someone describe a restaurant idea where the customers would bring their own plates from home.

The incredibly obvious problems with this insanely stupid idea:

1. It violates section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in such a profound way that we might as well throw out the whole document.

2. The staggering racism that would be involved in its application. "Oh, you're from a Commonwealth country, or a NAFTA nation? Well, you get right in, you have a 'Reasonable Nation-of-Origin Exception' wait... it's not Mexico or Swaziland is it? ...oh, okay, you're good."

3.The monstrous cost of the appeals process that would result if someone were identified for forfeiture of Citizenship.

4. The potential for this to result in forfeiture of Citizenship for dual-citizens. "Oh, you went and fought against the Asad regime in Syria ... yeah... they're kinda on our side now against ISIS.. so... yeah... if you could just stay there that would be great."

5. The massive disincentive this would cause for desirable immigration into Canada. "Oh, I would come to Canada with my two PhD's and my husband who has a Masters in Engineering, but our teenage son is 17 and kind of a moron, we're worried about him doing something stupid and losing Citizenship; New Zealand it is!"

And finally, to reiterate my first point, IT VIOLATES THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS.

This idea is worse than Edmonton.

[rubecube]

Wasn't this country basically founded on immigrants coming over and committing horrible, unspeakable acts?

[chedder]

Easy solution. Don't give out citizenship so easily. Make it a system of education, dare I say indoctrination, into what it means to be Canadian. Can't get citizenship for 5 years or so. Won't be perfect but there's got to be a way to make it better