Man charged after ‘multiple sexual assaults’ at West Edmonton Mall waterpark

[Krovikan]

Originally Posted by Weitz

IMO he has lost any right he had to be in our Country. Thats why you deport him. If you let his home country know what he did here, I wouldn't care. But I would hate having our tax dollars pay for him serve time in our jails then stay in our country.

That isn't how our country works the crown has the prove that he committed a crime first. Accusation and charges do not mean he is guilty. Then border security has to prove that he violated his refugee status in the country by commiting the crime "if" he is found guilty by the court. They will also take into consideration impact to his family, risk of successful appeal, and risk to his person when the deportation court looks at making a judgement.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by Krovikan

That isn't how our country works the crown has the prove that he committed a crime first. Accusation and charges do not mean he is guilty. Then border security has to prove that he violated his refugee status in the country by commiting the crime "if" he is found guilty by the court. They will also take into consideration impact to his family, risk of successful appeal, and risk to his person when the deportation court looks at making a judgement.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

The potential risk to Canadians should be the deciding factor. He chose to put his family's future at risk. He chose to put his privilege of being here at risk. Clearly there isn't enough of a threat in his home country to discourage him from committing a dozen (possibly more according to police) sex offenses a year after getting here.

If you are in this country through the generosity of Canadians, that privilege should be revoked once you are convicted of a crime since it is clear that you think little to nothing of the people or the country where you are asking to be allowed to be.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

We can spin the whataboutism line of thought in many different directions, blame Trump, etc - but when you have polls like this that come out in Europe where the majority of people are in favor of banning immigration from Muslim majority countries, that is highly disturbing. It should never have even arrived at a point like this. I'm upset that it has gotten to this point and where people can't even discuss these types of issues freely, openly and honestly.

I hope that we can have civil conversations around integration and issues surrounding mass immigration - these need to happen sooner than later, because we are heading down a similar path. That also means that many Canadians, including those on this forum, need to stop slandering people like Kellie Leitch who want to have a conversation about it.

The refugee issue in Europe - and the resulting attitude towards refugees - is a completely different discussion that whether Canada (or the USA) should allow more immigration from Muslim countries.

Europe received something in the order of 1.2 million refugees in 2015 alone. This flood of refugees naturally put a strain on infrastructure and budgets. With the majority of refugees placed in temporary housing, integration of those refugees was difficult to say the least.

I think it is fair to say there is a fatigue in Europe from dealing with this refugee crisis.

Canada has the luxury to be selective in the number and demographics of any refugees it accepts and is in a position to ensure refugees that arrive have adequate housing and can be placed where they have an opportunity to integrate. I believe most people would consider the settlement of refugees in Canada in 2016 to be a success.

tl:dr

Europe was forced to received too many refugees in too short a time period which created a backlash against refugees.

That is not the case in Canada and there is no reason to have a national debate in Canada over whether we should continue to allow similar numbers of refugees, in a controlled manner.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Krovikan

That isn't how our country works the crown has the prove that he committed a crime first. Accusation and charges do not mean he is guilty. Then border security has to prove that he violated his refugee status in the country by commiting the crime "if" he is found guilty by the court. They will also take into consideration impact to his family, risk of successful appeal, and risk to his person when the deportation court looks at making a judgement.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Doesn't make any of that right.

Conviction of a crime should be auto-deport.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Doesn't make any of that right.

Conviction of a crime should be auto-deport.

Sounds like you're struggling with the difference between "charged" and "convicted"

[nik-]

I mean he said conviction right in his post. The post you quoted.

[CaptainCrunch]

I think what has to be looked at is if this person had any prior incidents or complaints before he was bought over.

[Krovikan]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Doesn't make any of that right.

Conviction of a crime should be auto-deport.

A reasoned approach to deportation isn't right? What if a refugee fell through the cracks was and family was starving and stole food for his family. A reasoned system could catch these exceptions. Or what if a rebellious team refugee gets overwhelmed by our free society and get a drug usage conviction. Should that teen be separated from their family and sent back to certain death? No.

Also, there is no conviction yet, only charges and accusations.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by nik-

I mean he said conviction right in his post. The post you quoted.

Right.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Sounds like you're struggling with the difference between "charged" and "convicted"

Right. He has been charged. If convicted he should be deported.

[Locke]

Its not even remotely a similar number, its a vastly, vastly smaller number.

30,000? Chump change.

People were vilifying Turkey's brutal methods regarding immigration of these refugees without seeming to realize that there were 3-5 Million people on their doorstep.

Thats staggeringly larger than an invading Army and...well, you cant just kill them. Feeding, housing, cleaning and clothing a mass of that magnitude is a HUGE order, wildly more difficult than an invading army.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Right. He has been charged. If convicted he should be deported.

That's fair. You went very quickly from "deport him now" to "deport him after due process and a conviction is reached"

[Krovikan]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

The potential risk to Canadians should be the deciding factor. He chose to put his family's future at risk. He chose to put his privilege of being here at risk. Clearly there isn't enough of a threat in his home country to discourage him from committing a dozen (possibly more according to police) sex offenses a year after getting here.

If you are in this country through the generosity of Canadians, that privilege should be revoked once you are convicted of a crime since it is clear that you think little to nothing of the people or the country where you are asking to be allowed to be.

Deciding factor maybe, it is a factor; however if he is convicted he faces lengthy prison sentence so that may mitigate the risk, I'm not a judge nor have I been so I can only speculate on the factors they would take into consideration.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

That's fair. You went very quickly from "deport him now" to "deport him after due process and a conviction is reached"

I can sort of see it.

I mean, he isnt a citizen of this country so why is he entitled to our due process?

But at the same time, it seems only reasonable that we should spend the time and resources to determine his guilt before just kicking his ass out the door.

At least that way when the time comes that we do kick his ass out the door, our boot on his ass shall have that satisfying feeling of righteousness without potential guilt.

Its really a good feeling.

[CaptainCrunch]

I still believe that within the next 5 years the refugee systems will collapse and be closed.

When you have refugees flooding into countries that are ill prepared or can't afford them in the numbers that are coming, all your doing is pushing them into poorly thought out ghetto's with no real future prospects, and they simmer and a wall goes up between refugees and the native population of those countries. Then you see those crazed parties or Donald Trumps being elected.

Even with Caanda, iirc correctly Justin put up the tweet basically saying come to Canada, and his immigration minister, went hey wait, no, we have to be prepared to take them on.

Even watching the news this week with I think the Italian Navy picking up refugees in boats, at some point those governments are going to basically state that they can't take them and turn them around. Or bring them in for medical treatment but refuse to let them off of the boat.

I wouldn't be surprised if more of these right wing no immigration parties either take power in Europe or become more powerful within coalitions we'll see gates slamming shut.

[troutman]

As a father of six (and husband presumably) he must have known his behavior was wrong by any moral or legal standards.

[Krovikan]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I think what has to be looked at is if this person had any prior incidents or complaints before he was bought over.

I would imagine they do; however since Syria is a giant hell hole with little to no law, it's hard to be absolutely sure. Also, how many sexual assaults go unreported in Canada, let alone in the absolute disaster that Syria is right now.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Krovikan

I would imagine they do; however since Syria is a giant hell hole with little to no law, it's hard to be absolutely sure. Also, how many sexual assaults go unreported in Canada, let alone in the absolute disaster that Syria is right now.

Sure, i agree but screening is always going to have to be looked at in incidents like this, especially one that's fairly high profile now.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I still believe that within the next 5 years the refugee systems will collapse and be closed.

When you have refugees flooding into countries that are ill prepared or can't afford them in the numbers that are coming, all your doing is pushing them into poorly thought out ghetto's with no real future prospects, and they simmer and a wall goes up between refugees and the native population of those countries. Then you see those crazed parties or Donald Trumps being elected.

Even with Caanda, iirc correctly Justin put up the tweet basically saying come to Canada, and his immigration minister, went hey wait, no, we have to be prepared to take them on.

Even watching the news this week with I think the Italian Navy picking up refugees in boats, at some point those governments are going to basically state that they can't take them and turn them around. Or bring them in for medical treatment but refuse to let them off of the boat.

I wouldn't be surprised if more of these right wing no immigration parties either take power in Europe or become more powerful within coalitions we'll see gates slamming shut.

This is the part that always astounds me.

We should be open for immigration, but massive, unanticipated floods of people we arent prepared for? It isnt Xenophobia, its basic logistics!

The US made it Xenophobic, but the fact of the matter is that very few places, probably no places, can accommodate that kind of...it isnt even immigration, I dont know what to call it.

If 3 Million people showed up on Vancouver's door-step right now it would be pandemonium.

People like to say that first world countries in Europe and places like Canada or the US should be able to handle it, and they're not wrong, we can handle it, eventually, but until then its going to suck and the media are going to whine.

But it isnt even that. Its not a 'national thing.' We have the luxury of boating over the 30K that we chose and approved, European countries have huge masses of people flooding over their borders. Thats a problem.

And again, its not as if they're just running into a country at a controlled checkpoint so they can be fed, clothed, medical checks, etc, its just overload.

Every system has weaknesses, bottlenecks and breaking points.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

The refugee issue in Europe - and the resulting attitude towards refugees - is a completely different discussion that whether Canada (or the USA) should allow more immigration from Muslim countries.

One of the reasons Europe is having issues with integration is because the immigrants and refugees they take in have much lower education levels and much higher religiosity than Muslim immigrants to Canada. Our points system means we tend to get well-off, educated, cosmopolitan Muslim immigrants. That isn't the case in Europe, where many Muslim immigrants are highly religious, highly conservative, and poorly educated. Unsurprisingly, there are often cultural frictions between those immigrants and the native populations in highly liberal countries like Germany, France, and the Netherlands.

In this case, we're dealing with a refugee who hasn't had to meet any of Canada's immigration standards on education and income. He may well come from a region of Syria that is conservative and uneducated, and in many respects like the Canada of 60 or 80 years ago.