Visa Restriction Introduced for Czech Rep and Mexico

[ernie]

Originally Posted by Knalus

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.

etc

Your number make a poor assumption. That assumption is that all 266,000 Mexican tourists decide to not to come to Canada because of the Visa requirement. I doubt that is the case. Just as I doubt all the bogus refugee claims will be eliminated. As you say the number will be 10,000 refugee claims year after years because that is what the system can provess. The difference is if you eliminate a good chunk of the bogus claims a larger percentage of those 10,000 claims are VALID claims...and isn't the valid what the system is supposed to be considering in the first place? Claims from people who actually are being persecuted not the claim of someone who simply wants to move.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by ernie

Your number make a poor assumption. That assumption is that all 266,000 Mexican tourists decide to not to come to Canada because of the Visa requirement. I doubt that is the case. Just as I doubt all the bogus refugee claims will be eliminated. As you say the number will be 10,000 refugee claims year after years because that is what the system can provess. The difference is if you eliminate a good chunk of the bogus claims a larger percentage of those 10,000 claims are VALID claims...and isn't the valid what the system is supposed to be considering in the first place?

I believe I was going for half of all tourists, not all. I just halved the numbers in the cash portion, not at the beginning.

266,000*$2000=532,000,000
$532,000,000/2=$266,000,000

266,000/2=133,000
133,000*$2000=$266,000,000

Same number

[valo403]

Originally Posted by ernie

Your number make a poor assumption. That assumption is that all 266,000 Mexican tourists decide to not to come to Canada because of the Visa requirement. I doubt that is the case. Just as I doubt all the bogus refugee claims will be eliminated. As you say the number will be 10,000 refugee claims year after years because that is what the system can provess. The difference is if you eliminate a good chunk of the bogus claims a larger percentage of those 10,000 claims are VALID claims...and isn't the valid what the system is supposed to be considering in the first place?

I agree, that's a pretty major assumption without any basis. A visa requirement may deter some tourists, but 50% is a pretty massive conclusion to jump to.

I also agree with the second point. My major reason for backing something that cuts down on bogus claims isn't the savings, it's the fact that credible applicants are being pushed down the chain by cheats who have no business making a claim. If you want to get into talk of 'unfairness' and 'right thing to do' I'd say that something allowing those in actual need better access is completely fair and without a doubt the right thing to do.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by Knalus

I believe I was going for half of all tourists, not all. I just halved the numbers in the cash portion, not at the beginning.

That is still a HUGE and likely erroneous assumption

Regardless, I see no problem with imposing restrictions that may be necessary for the system to provide the service for the people they intend to serve. If Canada is going to (righfully IMO) take in refugees that are being persecuted the system needs to be run with the intent of serving those people with Valid claims first and foremost. You don't want to be dealing with the bogus claims of family #1 at the expense of family #2's LIVES.

And that's the key IMO. When people start playing with the numbers a bit like you did you can lose sight of what the underlying reason for the system is (and when I say you I mena this as a global you type of thing). And that underlying reason is to save peoples lives. I'll not put a number on that.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by ernie

If Canada is going to (righfully IMO) take in refugees that are being persecuted the system needs to be run with the intent of serving those people with Valid claims first and foremost. You don't want to be dealing with the bogus claims of family #1 at the expense of family #2's LIVES.

And that's the key IMO. When people start playing with the numbers a bit like you did you can lose sight of what the underlying reason for the system is (and when I say you I mena this as a global you type of thing). And that underlying reason is to save peoples lives. I'll not put a number on that.

That is a fair and good statement, I agree. I was refuting the claims made earlier that the refugee claimants were a massive drag on the system due to cost, and that the Visa method was a correct and virtuous method of doing so. I attempted to do this using a method previously used to argue for the Visas. Those assumptions were off significantly, yet it was claimed that the numbers that came out recently were justifications of his math. If the true numbers for Mexican tourists no longer coming here are also only 40% of the total I made up here, well, what can I say?


As for the TRUE refugee claimants that are bogged down due to fraudulent claims,I would hope that the system has a triage system to deal with the proper claims first (although I doubt it, it is the government). I agree that the system is not well run, and needs changing - perhaps even a major overhaul. What I am not in agreement with is that the Visa restrictions that have been put into place are the right way of doing it. One poster put it right (to paraphrase) - it's like using a shotgun to get at an itch. A lot of innocent travelers are being unfairly treated because of this. It's not the right way to go.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by troutman

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?

From everything I am reading, troutman, this is an unexpected rise in applications. From the Czech front it was due to the easing of visa requirements in October of 2007 while in the Mexican front it was due to the States imposing one (so the Mexicans are now coming here).

Neither were expected, nor budgetted for.

And I will get to Knalus' post once I down a bottle of Pepto-Bismol.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Knalus

That is a fair and good statement, I agree. I was refuting the claims made earlier that the refugee claimants were a massive drag on the system due to cost, and that the Visa method was a correct and virtuous method of doing so. I attempted to do this using a method previously used to argue for the Visas. Those assumptions were off significantly, yet it was claimed that the numbers that came out recently were justifications of his math. If the true numbers for Mexican tourists no longer coming here are also only 40% of the total I made up here, well, what can I say?


As for the TRUE refugee claimants that are bogged down due to fraudulent claims,I would hope that the system has a triage system to deal with the proper claims first (although I doubt it, it is the government). I agree that the system is not well run, and needs changing - perhaps even a major overhaul. What I am not in agreement with is that the Visa restrictions that have been put into place are the right way of doing it. One poster put it right (to paraphrase) - it's like using a shotgun to get at an itch. A lot of innocent travelers are being unfairly treated because of this. It's not the right way to go.

This argument only holds water if the visa application is overly difficult or expensive. Do you have any info on what the actual process entails? I've been through visa processes a number of times, and so long as you have the ability to show eligibility it's not difficult at all.

Without knowing anything about the actual requirements I think this may be a case of making a mountain out of a mole hill. I also think it's served as a convenient excuse for the Czech government to shift the focus off the reasons behind the number of claims coming from its nationals.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by Knalus

That still doesn't stop the Visa restrictions on these people from being a hamhanded way of dealing with this.

Here we go again. Read back through the thread.... the Canadian government is only RE-INSTATING the requirement that was already in place up to October 2007.

Patient: "It hurts when I do this"
Doctor: "Don't do that"

Originally Posted by Knalus

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)

I think those are the same numbers I have read as well. Just an FYI, to link a "long" link, highlight a word then hit the "insert link" button. You can paste the URL into it and it will be shorter.

Originally Posted by Knalus

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.

OK, your math sucks. You took the FIRST THREE MONTHS of 2009 to compare to the previous FULL YEAR. Oooopss, eh? And looking at that rate in the first three months, the claimant rate is still escalating.... rapidly. Go back and do the actual math and find that out for yourself if you don't believe me. If 3648 is the "going rate" quarterly, we are now on target for 14592 claimants this year alone.

Secondly, nothing has EASED about travel here from Mexico. It is the same as it has been. The ONLY reason we have seen an increase in Mexican tourists (and the included refugee claimants) is due to the States now requiring visas from Mexicans. Again, get your information straight.

Originally Posted by Knalus

I'll make up a few numbers, too. <snip>

And that is about all you did. Since your initial math was wrong, so was this.

Originally Posted by Knalus

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.

As Darryl Sutter would say, "anyone with Grade 10 math could do this". Apparently you don't have Grade 10 math.

Originally Posted by Knalus

To think (or suggest) that Visas will cut these claims to zero is laughable.

WHERE has anyone stated that is the case or the desire?

Originally Posted by Knalus

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.

OK, so on one hand you are saying that there are definitely fraudulent activity occurring and that Canada can only accept 10K cases, yet your "math" fails to show that there will be almost 15K FROM MEXICO ALONE. There is a whole planet to consider. And not only do we foot the costs for fraudulent activity but more importantly it clogs up the system so that those that truly need to claim asylum are not being helped quickly enough. Is THAT what you want?

Originally Posted by Knalus

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?

More hogwash. Your whole post is based on poor math and complete misunderstanding of the issues and facts at hand.

[Bagor]

So who exactly is going to be enforcing this at the point of departure port? The airlines?

Given that there are numerous ports of departure in the EU for Canada does immigration Canada intend having an officer at each port to check for visas?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by troutman

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?

Sure, some money is most certainly budgeted into the system to hear claims. Two things though. 1 they cannot predict the amount of claims that will happen in the next fiscal year when the budget is made. 2, even if they budgeted for 50,000 ref claims and CIC was given the money for it, doesn't mean it is good government and money well spent.

So the anwer to your question is both. It is money budgeted in as well as money additionally spent.

The I guess that should be asked is; is this the kind of program Canadian taxpayers want funded?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Bagor

So who exactly is going to be enforcing this at the point of departure port? The airlines?

Given that there are numerous ports of departure in the EU for Canada does immigration Canada intend having an officer at each port to check for visas?

Although I have no idea if this is correct, I would assume that the airlines would be able to ask for proof of a visa from any Czech national boarding a plane bound to Canada. Travelers already have to show a passport, it wouldn't be hard to make sure the Czech ones contain a visa.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

Here we go again. Read back through the thread.... the Canadian government is only RE-INSTATING the requirement that was already in place up to October 2007.

Patient: "It hurts when I do this"
Doctor: "Don't do that"



I think those are the same numbers I have read as well. Just an FYI, to link a "long" link, highlight a word then hit the "insert link" button. You can paste the URL into it and it will be shorter.




OK, your math sucks. You took the FIRST THREE MONTHS of 2009 to compare to the previous FULL YEAR. Oooopss, eh? And looking at that rate in the first three months, the claimant rate is still escalating.... rapidly. Go back and do the actual math and find that out for yourself if you don't believe me. If 3648 is the "going rate" quarterly, we are now on target for 14592 claimants this year alone.

Secondly, nothing has EASED about travel here from Mexico. It is the same as it has been. The ONLY reason we have seen an increase in Mexican tourists (and the included refugee claimants) is due to the States now requiring visas from Mexicans. Again, get your information straight.



And that is about all you did. Since your initial math was wrong, so was this.



As Darryl Sutter would say, "anyone with Grade 10 math could do this". Apparently you don't have Grade 10 math.



WHERE has anyone stated that is the case or the desire?



OK, so on one hand you are saying that there are definitely fraudulent activity occurring and that Canada can only accept 10K cases, yet your "math" fails to show that there will be almost 15K FROM MEXICO ALONE. There is a whole planet to consider. And not only do we foot the costs for fraudulent activity but more importantly it clogs up the system so that those that truly need to claim asylum are not being helped quickly enough. Is THAT what you want?



More hogwash. Your whole post is based on poor math and complete misunderstanding of the issues and facts at hand.

Excellent post shawnski, you have saved me considerable time having to type out a counter to his post which was lacking in the math department.

You seemed to be a very informed citizen or someone who has some personal experience with these issues.

Anyone who suggests that imposing a VISA is the wrong thing to do should call any Immigration officer either at a POE (employed with CBSA) or inland (employed by CIC) and ask what their opinion is and if this is the right move. I would be willing to be a lot of money that more than 95% of the officers would agree that this is the right move.

[Knalus]

nm

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

Here we go again. Read back through the thread.... the Canadian government is only RE-INSTATING the requirement that was already in place up to October 2007.

You keep saying this--but surely you can see a difference between leaving an existing visa requirement in place, and putting one back after first lifting it.

If there were currently a visa requirement in place, it wouldn't be hamhanded. In fact, this is precisely why it's hamhanded.

As I said before, the Czechs, the Mexicans and now the Swedes clearly see a huge difference--or they wouldn't have taken retaliatory action. This is turning into a major fiasco--and all because Jason Kenney lacked the ability to predict how other nations would react to unilateral actions by Canada.

THAT is the issue here. As I've said repeatedly--I have no issue in principle with a visa requirement for any of these nations. I would, however, prefer to have an immigration minister who handles these situations with grace and common sense rather than blundering headlong into a situation where other nations, some of whom are in the EU, are taking retaliatory action against our country.

Heck, in this thread alone, about five different posters have suggested better ideas for dealing with the problem. You're one of them--so I feel like I'm preaching to the choir, but I'll suggest a few right now:

1. Why not triage asylum claims differently, based on country of origin? (this was your idea)
2. Why not crack down on third-party agencies in Canada that are facilitating fraudulent asylum claims?
3. Why not work with the governments of those nations to spread accurate information in the home countries of these claimants about asylum eligibility?
4. Why not streamline the claims process so that the "pre-hearing" stay time is short enough to not make fraudulent claims worthwhile?

If the CP braintrust can come up with these four off the tops of our heads, surely the immigration minister can come up with something that avoids retaliatory action and doesn't make a mountain out of a molehill. Instead, he went for cheap political points by going after easy targets, and now he gets to sleep in the bed that he made for himself.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Bagor

So who exactly is going to be enforcing this at the point of departure port? The airlines?

Given that there are numerous ports of departure in the EU for Canada does immigration Canada intend having an officer at each port to check for visas?

There airlines are liable for who they bring into the country. They need to know who does and who doesn't require a VISA to enter Canada. If they allow someone onto their plane that is destine for Canada and that person requires a VISA but does not have one, then they are liable to fines and all costs associated to that persons removal from Canada.

Although I cannot say for certain, I believe many countries have a similar system.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

You keep saying this--but surely you can see a difference between leaving an existing visa requirement in place, and putting one back after first lifting it.

Although I feel that you will not respond to this because you either have me on ignore or you just can't debate with me, who know. Regardless, can you not see that there is really no difference?

Why do we have to re-invent the wheel? To change our immigration laws would take months if not years. The Canadian government told the Czechs in 2007, lets see if we can lift the VISA requirement and have meaningful travel between our two countries without a large increase in refugee claimants. They tried it and it didn't work, so it reverts back to the old system. What did they expect? Honestly? We went from 5 refugees a year to thousands?

It's no different than the government saying it will reduce the driving age from 16 to 14 because they believe that with the change in times and all the education 14 year olds are now mature enough to drive. They try it out for a year and half. All of a sudden there is a huge increase in accidents, speeding and what not. So they decide, you know what, we tried it and we just aren't ready. We are going to change it back to 16 years.

A VISA requirement is not that big of a hurtle for legitimate visitors to overcome. Yes, it will be an inconvenience to start with and I could see a small reduction in tourism for the first few months until it becomes the norm. But once the tourists become aware of the requirement, no big deal.

Australia requires a VISA for everyone that visits their country except New Zealand. Where is the big up roar? Does it hurt their tourism? No. Once people are aware of the requirement than no big deal.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Although I feel that you will not respond to this because you either have me on ignore or you just can't debate with me, who know. Regardless, can you not see that there is really no difference?

AHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAAA!!!!!


Sigh. Thanks for that. That is awesome. I almost feel bad for stealing your extension cord.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

As I said before, the Czechs, the Mexicans and now the Swedes clearly see a huge difference--or they wouldn't have taken retaliatory action. This is turning into a major fiasco--and all because Jason Kenney lacked the ability to predict how other nations would react to unilateral actions by Canada.

Since when did Canada have to ask permission from the EU on how to run its immigration system.

THAT is the issue here. As I've said repeatedly--I have no issue in principle with a visa requirement for any of these nations. I would, however, prefer to have an immigration minister who handles these situations with grace and common sense rather than blundering headlong into a situation where other nations, some of whom are in the EU, are taking retaliatory action against our country.

Retaliatory action? Requiring VISA's for government diplomats? And if you are worried about Canadians requiring VISA's to enter the EU, like many have already said, it is not going to happen.

Heck, in this thread alone, about five different posters have suggested better ideas for dealing with the problem. You're one of them--so I feel like I'm preaching to the choir, but I'll suggest a few right now:

And like I have said before (and if you didn't have me on ignore you would have read it), it requires changes to the Immigration Act which is unlikely to happen in a minority government. So, until that time, we have to deal with the problem with the tools that we have, in this case it is a change to the regulations, specifically 190 of IRPA (excuse me 190 of the regulations) which only requires an order in council.

1. Why not triage asylum claims differently, based on country of origin? (this was your idea)

I could never see this happening in Canada. Basically discrimination? Maybe it would get through but there would be a complete up roar. Then, what happens with the people that have to wait years for their claim to be heard? Are you wanting to hear the fraudulent claims first or deal with the more legitimate claims first? How would that work? Right now we have 60,000 outstanding refugee claims (it was in one of the links I provided earlier).

2. Why not crack down on third-party agencies in Canada that are facilitating fraudulent asylum claims?

That is happening now, however, many of these groups are acting outside of Canada. How would we deal with these groups?

3. Why not work with the governments of those nations to spread accurate information in the home countries of these claimants about asylum eligibility?

Like what? Here is a list of who is really a refugee? Well, good start, but then what about the rest? If you feel you are at risk, you can come to Canada and make an application. While your claim is heard over the next year you get free healthcare, welfare, workpermit, studypermit and everything else. A lot of these people already know the system. What are they coing to pick? 10% at a better life and atleast some fee social programs while they wait and a chance to work somewhere for a year. Or "you know what, we really aren't refugee's, lets not waste Canada's resources and lets save it for the real refugees". Do you think that is really going to happen?

4. Why not streamline the claims process so that the "pre-hearing" stay time is short enough to not make fraudulent claims worthwhile?

I agree, but that would require a massive infussion of cash and resources. More facilities, more decision makers. One problem is once they are in Canada, they are hard to find if they decide they are just not going to show up. If they know that they have a unlikely chance to become a refugee, a lot just go under ground and work. No we have to go find them. Maybe we could put ankle gps systems on them so we know where they are at all time? I would be in favour of that, but I am sure you wont be along with many other Canadians.

If the CP braintrust can come up with these four off the tops of our heads, surely the immigration minister can come up with something that avoids retaliatory action and doesn't make a mountain out of a molehill. Instead, he went for cheap political points by going after easy targets, and now he gets to sleep in the bed that he made for himself.

How do you know they are not coming up with these ideas? Myself, as well as other posters have suggested that there is immigration reform in the works. BUT IT TAKES TIME and cooperation with the other political parties in Canada. Meanwhile we let the system collapse in on itself while we await these changes?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

AHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAAA!!!!!


Sigh. Thanks for that. That is awesome. I almost feel bad for stealing your extension cord.

So you don't have me on ignore. Nice to see you are at least able to read the stats and links I have posted.

You kind of proved my point. I make some good points and all you come up with is internet laugh and a joke that really is not funny one bit. Maybe you could address some of the points I made and more people would take your position seriously.

Obviously this issue means a lot to you. I am not sure why you are unwilling to accept some of the facts. I most certainly agree with you that change needs to take place within the Immigration system, but I also most certainly disagree with you on your stance against the VISA and your issue with Minister Kenny.

[Shawnski]

You know IFF, I understand that you are concerned about the optics. I am not as concerned in this case. To me, the more important a decision is, the less the optics are even considered. I won't go into my background, but suffice it to say that I disagree with the current political model of decision making, primary due to the need to be either politically correct or to have good "optics". Perhaps I too am just hamhanded, but I believe in making change work. This "change" with the Czechs didn't work. And the decision with the Mexicans was forced upon us by change in the States.

Good post though, I think we both are looking at a long term solution.