Visa Restriction Introduced for Czech Rep and Mexico

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

How does that work? Visa is no threat to Canadian tourism industry, just a mere inconvenience for tourists but Mexico wont retaliate because visa for Canadians will hurt tourism in Mexico?

If Mexico were to put a purely administrative Visa on Canadians that doesn't impose significant fees it wouldn't be a big deal, but if there are fees associated (like Brazil) it would be a huge issue.

You also have to consider the impact of the respective nations travelers on each other. If Canadian tourism to Mexico is reduced by 25% it's a crippling blow, if Mexican tourism to Canada is reduced by 25% it's a relatively minor issue.

[Zarathustra]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

How does that work? Visa is no threat to Canadian tourism industry, just a mere inconvenience for tourists but Mexico wont retaliate because visa for Canadians will hurt tourism in Mexico?

I agree this doesn't make logical sense. For every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction!

[RW99]

Originally Posted by jtfrogger

Do you really think there are enough Mexican or Czech tourists coming to Canada that this would make much of a difference?

Not sure about the Czech market, but with Mexico I think it will. I admit that I've only been involved in this particular market on a project/product assistance basis though, so my knowledge is somewhat limited based on one employer.

This was an emerging market for western Canada with the new direct flights coming in to Calgary. There was a lot of advertising in the Mexican market for packages over the past six months or so. So while it was a fairly new market, it had the potential to do up to 1-2 million a year in revenue for western Canada in a few years once word of mouth caught on. Overall, not that much of a dent. But with the economy and all, it was already going to be a slow year so this doesn't help.

[hockeycop]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

How does that work? Visa is no threat to Canadian tourism industry, just a mere inconvenience for tourists but Mexico wont retaliate because visa for Canadians will hurt tourism in Mexico?

If Mexico imposed a fee for Canadians visiting Mexico, Canadians would look to alternate sunny desitnations (Jamaica, Cuba, etc.). This would have a major impact on their tourism industry.

Mexico represents a small portion of tourists coming to Canada. We may have less Mexican tourists coming to Canada, but this can be offset by the savings from having to pay to process refugee claims from economic migrants.

The majority of legitimate Mexican travellers to Canada are workers on permits, business visitors, and students on permits. These people will not be affected significantly and will get visas.

[hockeycop]

It would appear that the Mexican government understands why this is happening. The Czechs are not pleased.

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

[jtfrogger]

I tried to find numbers to back me up, but couldn't find anything easily. I am assuming that when you look at the money brought into Mexico from Canadian tourists vs. the amount of money brought into Canada from Mexican tourists that there would be substantially more money going to Mexico. I can't back this up easily, but I believe that it is true.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Given that we don't share a huge border with Mexico, I'm pretty doubtful that this will make any difference whatsoever. However, if it gets Jason Kenney's face into the news, then.... all the power to him I guess. Sometimes you have to do what you can to mask your own mediocrity.

Iowa, did you read the stats posted by hockey cop? 10,000 ref caimants a year? There is no need for that. It is costing the tax payers of Canada an arm and a leg and backloging the refugee system for the real refugees.

You may doubt that this will not make a difference but I can tell you 100% that it WILL make a huge difference.

This is about time and congrats Jason Kenny for having the balls to do this.

[Methanolic]

Why in the world would Canada have a problem with Mexicans using Vista?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Iowa, did you read the stats posted by hockey cop? 10,000 ref caimants a year? There is no need for that. It is costing the tax payers of Canada an arm and a leg and backloging the refugee system for the real refugees.

You may doubt that this will not make a difference but I can tell you 100% that it WILL make a huge difference.

This is about time and congrats Jason Kenny for having the balls to do this.

Yeah, I read them. TBQH, 10,000 (and I notice you added the Czech and Mexican ones) doesn't seem like a whole lot. In any case, that number is only people seeking asylum, and doesn't reflect total immigration numbers, which are much larger. To put this into perspective for you: over the last 5 years, 1.1 million new Canadians have entered this country from somewhere else. You might think it's too many--I don't.

But even if you do (and that's really a separate discussion) adding an extra layer of bureaucracy to deal with a tiny sub-group of people is exactly what makes governments so stupid and inefficient. Tell me who's paying for this new administrative process? Is it happening by itself? Are volunteers running it out of the goodness of their hearts?

So... let me ask this again. Other than solving a bureaucratic headaches by creating another level of bureacracy, what pressing social issue does this solve? I'm not seeing it. I'm seeing a lot of veiled nativist rhetoric, but as usual there's not a lot of substance. Flame of Liberty actually made a great point: there's nothing that makes these two countries special other than the fact that Jason Kenney threw a couple of darts at a map on his wall. The man does not "have balls." He's a mental midget.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Yeah, I read them. TBQH, 10,000 (and I notice you added the Czech and Mexican ones) doesn't seem like a whole lot. In any case, that number is only people seeking asylum, and doesn't reflect total immigration numbers, which are much larger. To put this into perspective for you: over the last 5 years, 1.1 million new Canadians have entered this country from somewhere else. You might think it's too many--I don't.

10,000 refugee claimants does not seem like a lot to you from one country? A democratic country that is part of NAFTA I might add. More than 85% of those claims are not recognized by the IRB as legitimate refugee claims. I have heard that every refugee claim can typically cost the government anywhere in the range of $50,000 to $100,000 per refugee claims after all the expenses are calculated, including healthcare, legal fees, appeal fees, relocation costs, welfare and ultimately removal costs. Sorry I don't have a link for you on those costs, I have tried to find estimates on the web in the past and it is hard to find any hard numbers. If someone really wants to make a story, submit a FOIP request on those numbers and you will have one. But I will tell you this, I know many people who work in overseas consulates and policy advisors and all those numbers are usually pretty close to what everyone is saying. So lets say the average cost of a refugee claimant is $75,000 (and remember, it takes well over a year just to have the first IRB hearing done, not to mention Federal Court appeals). If we just went with the 10,000 claims from Mexico, it is costing the tax payers around $750,000,000. THAT IS CRAZY MONEY. Even if we went with a tax payer cost of $10,000 per claimant we are talking $100,000,000. Do these numbers still seem small to you?

As for your last comment about total immigrants and me thinking it is to many. This has absolutly nothing to do with legitimate foreign nationals seeking to become permanent residents of Canada. We need LEGITIMATE permanent residents, quite frankly we need more than we have been getting in the last 10 years. What we don't need are 10,000 people a year making false refugee claims to access Canada, its welfare system, its healthcare system and jumping the line of other foreign nationals who have applied the proper way.

But even if you do (and that's really a separate discussion) adding an extra layer of bureaucracy to deal with a tiny sub-group of people is exactly what makes governments so stupid and inefficient. Tell me who's paying for this new administrative process? Is it happening by itself? Are volunteers running it out of the goodness of their hearts?

Extra layer of bureaucracy? How so? We currently have a full service Embassy in Mexico City. Currently is processes permanent resident applications, temporary resident applications (including work permits, study permits and visitor permits), medicals and any other service a Embassy provides. Yes, they will need more staff, 30 to be exact. So lets compare the numbers. 30 full time foreign service staff. Typical salary is around $65,000 per year. Add transportation costs (Flight to mexico and back as well as one trip home per year paid for) housing costs and other employee costs. Lets be generous and say the total cost of one employee is about $200,000. Multiple that by 30 employees and you are looking at a cost of around $6,000,000. Not chump change, but lets say these officers cut down the number of refugee claims from Mexico by 8,000 (will probably be even more). That will save the government up to $500,000,000 a year. I think that is a policy most Canadian tax payers could agree on. Then we also have a more effective refugee determination system that can deal with the REAL refugees. Maybe we can drop the hearing time from over a year to a few months. That alone is well worth the $6,000,000 spent on this program.

So... let me ask this again. Other than solving a bureaucratic headaches by creating another level of bureacracy, what pressing social issue does this solve? I'm not seeing it. I'm seeing a lot of veiled nativist rhetoric, but as usual there's not a lot of substance. Flame of Liberty actually made a great point: there's nothing that makes these two countries special other than the fact that Jason Kenney threw a couple of darts at a map on his wall. The man does not "have balls." He's a mental midget.

There is nothing else I can add to this that I haven't already. But let me sum it up for you. It saves millions of dollars for the government. It prevents the fraudulent use of our refugee system (A system designed to help REAL refugees). It saves resources within the welfare system. It saves resources in the healthcare system. It saves resources in the refugee system. It will allow for faster and more efficent refugee determination process. It will allow us to meet our international obligations for bringing in REAL refugees from countries like Sudan, Iraq, Iran, Zimbabwe and other countries where there is a real threat from the government in power. It will tell these people that Canada is not a country that one can come and abuse at one's whim.

As far as your comment about Mexico being no different than any other country and Jason Kenny just throwing a dart at a map. What is with you? Mexico is Canada's largest source country of refugee claimants. That alone makes its stand out from all other countries in the world as far as Canada is concerned. I would venture to guess that most Canadians can easily see this, but, for some reason, you cannot.

Again, Jason Kenny is anything but a "mental midget". We need more politicians like him. People who are willing to make the hard decisions (although, to me this was anything but a hard decision). Canadians should be thanking him.

Moderators, could you please put a poll on this thread with some options like:

Yes, I agree with the Government of Canada imposing VISA requirements on Mexico, it is time we stop fraudulent refugees from abusing Canada.

No, I do not agree with the Government of Canada imposing VISA requirements on Mexico, there is no real problem with refugees from Mexico, they deserve our help.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

How does that work? Visa is no threat to Canadian tourism industry, just a mere inconvenience for tourists but Mexico wont retaliate because visa for Canadians will hurt tourism in Mexico?

Exactly.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by hockeycop

It would appear that the Mexican government understands why this is happening. The Czechs are not pleased.

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

According to a czech newspaper, Canada officialy informed the Czech government about the visa several hours later after the info was released in Canada. So much for diplomacy.

Another thing there no note is that Czech cannot obtain visa in their country:

It said visitors from the Czech Republic will need to submit their applications to the Canadian visa office in Vienna, Austria, which currently serves citizens from several European countries.

Not to mention the visa will be required from June 15, so if someone already bought a trip to Canada and doesn't get visa issued in time, he's screwed.

I'd say that is pretty inconvenient for tourists...

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

According to a czech newspaper, Canada officialy informed the Czech government about the visa several hours later after the info was released in Canada. So much for diplomacy.

Another thing there no note is that Czech cannot obtain visa in their country:

It said visitors from the Czech Republic will need to submit their applications to the Canadian visa office in Vienna, Austria, which currently serves citizens from several European countries.

Not to mention the visa will be required from June 15, so if someone already bought a trip to Canada and doesn't get visa issued in time, he's screwed.

I'd say that is pretty inconvenient for tourists...

Not sure why the Czechs would play the 'we just found out card', I mean there's a thread about this issue from a while ago on CP, this isn't breaking news.

I also don't really see the issue with having to use the mail as opposed to doing things in person, is that really a complaint? I don't get the chance to stand in line at a consulate in order to hand someone my papers is a complaint?

The final point would be tough on tourists, but I'm not sure what you expect Canada to do about it. This visa wasn't thrown up overnight, if people didn't look into the visas they required what's Canada supposed to do? Setup a guy with a sandwich board sign in downtown Prague?

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by valo403

Not sure why the Czechs would play the 'we just found out card', I mean there's a thread about this issue from a while ago on CP, this isn't breaking news.

Right, because a CP thread equates to proper diplomatic channels. C'mon mate.

Originally Posted by valo403

I also don't really see the issue with having to use the mail as opposed to doing things in person, is that really a complaint? I don't get the chance to stand in line at a consulate in order to hand someone my papers is a complaint?

As opposed to mailing it within your country (there's a consulate/embassy in Prague) and in the case there's a problem you have a chance to sort it out in your own language? Sorting out bureaucratic stuff in a foreign language can be tough even for people who speak the language well, nevermind if they don't.

Originally Posted by valo403

The final point would be tough on tourists, but I'm not sure what you expect Canada to do about it. This visa wasn't thrown up overnight, if people didn't look into the visas they required what's Canada supposed to do? Setup a guy with a sandwich board sign in downtown Prague?

The visa was thrown up yesterday, no? And even if the "talks" started a week ago, can you apply for a visa before they are officialy imposed? I am not sure but I think you can not. So if someone has a flight booked in the next couple of days/weeks I'd think he just got hosed.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Right, because a CP thread equates to proper diplomatic channels. C'mon mate.



As opposed to mailing it within your country (there's a consulate/embassy in Prague) and in the case there's a problem you have a chance to sort it out in your own language? Sorting out bureaucratic stuff in a foreign language can be tough even for people who speak the language well, nevermind if they don't.



The visa was thrown up yesterday, no? And even if the "talks" started a week ago, can you apply for a visa before they are officialy imposed? I am not sure but I think you can not. So if someone has a flight booked in the next couple of days/weeks I'd think he just got hosed.

Where did I say that CP = 'proper diplomatic channels'??? The point is that this isn't breaking news, to play the 'we just found out' card is insincere.

How does the address you put on the envelope matter? Right, it doesn't. There's no need to send applications to Prague only to have them forwarded to Vienna, you're not so naive to believe that applications don't get forwarded to centralized agencies all the time are you? The language issue could be a problem, but as you said there's a consulate in Prague that is able to act as a liaison.

I have no idea about the application process, but as I said above this isn't breaking news. Part of international travel is being aware of visa restrictions, you can't put that responsibility on anyone else.

What's the alternative here? A handshake and a smile? The rationale for the visa is sound and if you're going to impose one you have to enforce it.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

10,000 refugee claimants does not seem like a lot to you from one country? A democratic country that is part of NAFTA I might add.

Some very impressive math--except for two things:

1. By your own admission, you made all the numbers up.
2. It's not 10,000. It's 5500. Weren't you accusing me of not reading the numbers a while ago? Apparently you're the one who didn't read them. So, even if your numbers are correct (And they look pretty outlandish to me...) go ahead and cut them in half.
3. All the ######y comments like "what is with you?" are pretty unhelpful. I don't agree with you--it doesn't make me a moron. At least I'm not making up imaginary costs on the basis of my billion friends in the foreign service.
4. Have you met Jason Kenney? Let's just say this: Kenney's lucky Rob Anders is in the same caucus with him--it means he can be guaranteed that at all caucus meetings there will be a dumber person in the room.
5. If you don't think adding a visa requirement for a nation that didn't have one before (keeping in mind that this will apply not only to asylum seekers but all travelers with Mexican citizenship) adds a layer of bureaucracy, then you have no idea how government works. There's a very simple principle that you should keep in mind: programs with simple, universal application cost very little money. Programs that identify and target subgroups, or apply rules unevenly on the basis of complex regulations are generally very expensive.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Some very impressive math--except for two things:

1. By your own admission, you made all the numbers up.
2. It's not 10,000. It's 5500. Weren't you accusing me of not reading the numbers a while ago? Apparently you're the one who didn't read them. So, even if your numbers are correct (And they look pretty outlandish to me...) go ahead and cut them in half.
3. All the ######y comments like "what is with you?" are pretty unhelpful. I don't agree with you--it doesn't make me a moron. At least I'm not making up imaginary costs on the basis of my billion friends in the foreign service.
4. Have you met Jason Kenney? Let's just say this: Kenney's lucky Rob Anders is in the same caucus with him--it means he can be guaranteed that at all caucus meetings there will be a dumber person in the room.
5. If you don't think adding a visa requirement for a nation that didn't have one before (keeping in mind that this will apply not only to asylum seekers but all travelers with Mexican citizenship) adds a layer of bureaucracy, then you have no idea how government works. There's a very simple principle that you should keep in mind: programs with simple, universal application cost very little money. Programs that identify and target subgroups, or apply rules unevenly on the basis of complex regulations are generally very expensive.

I still don't understand what the basis for your objection is.

2 nations are presenting an extraordinary high number of individuals seeking to enter Canada on dubious grounds, as opposed to using the proper channels. What's the problem with preventing the system from being overrun by those looking to skirt the requirements? Why should we keep any system in place if we're going to sit by and watch it people side-step it?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by valo403

I still don't understand what the basis for your objection is.

2 nations are presenting an extraordinary high number of individuals seeking to enter Canada on dubious grounds, as opposed to using the proper channels. What's the problem with preventing the system from being overrun by those looking to skirt the requirements? Why should we keep any system in place if we're going to sit by and watch it people side-step it?

It's not even that I object in principle to a visa requirement. I just think it's a little silly.

Not to mention ironic that the party which ran on a platform of less government is now hiring new foreign service staff and creating new, time-consuming bureaucratic processes to deal with what in relative terms is a tiny, tiny number of people.

But more to the point, I'm not seeing the pressing social problem that this addresses. Are Mexican gangs taking over our schools? Is our welfare system inundated with undocumented workers seeking EI? (I rather doubt it--for one thing, undocumenteds tend to stay under the radar, and for another--this is by Kenney's own admission a very small number of people)

The United States much more clearly has a pressing requirement to address Mexican undocumented workers attempting to enter the country--and yet for them, requiring Mexicans to have a visa would seem a little silly. How does it help to make another rule for people who are trying to break the rules anyway?

Anyway, if Kenney wants to do this, I say fine. Its negative effect on tourism will (I suspect) be minimal. It may have a chilling effect on relations with Mexico and the Czech Republic (and I note no-one seems to care much about that--but trust me, these things matter) but at the end of the day, our day-to-day lives are unlikely to change very much.

But you know, Kenney got his name in the paper. So it's all good. It's approximately as smart as his notion that marriage laws don't discriminate against homosexuals because they can still enter straight marriages. Or making public comments about the asylum applications of people whose cases are still being reviewed.

The guy doesn't know what he's doing--but it is entertaining to watch.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by valo403

I still don't understand what the basis for your objection is.

2 nations are presenting an extraordinary high number of individuals seeking to enter Canada on dubious grounds, as opposed to using the proper channels. What's the problem with preventing the system from being overrun by those looking to skirt the requirements? Why should we keep any system in place if we're going to sit by and watch it people side-step it?

Please. You can mail in a visa application, show them a bank statement that you have enough money (the money can be gone the next day to whoever borrowed you the money just to get a nice looking statement), you say that you'll stay in Canada just for a little while and that you pose no threat to Canadian citizens. Then first thing you do in Toronto when you step off a plane you say "refugee." What's stopping you?

As IFF said this does nothing but create a new layer of bureacracy and piss off 121 mil people.

Update:

The Czech government now decided that visa will be required for Canadian diplomats. They need to wait for the EU decision (whether or not the whole EU imposes visa for Canada) before they can impose visa requirements for regular canadian travellers.

[Aeneas]

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

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

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

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

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