[Northern Light]

The judge pretty much is deciding which country is safe or unsafe for a person to send a refugee from.

A decision like that should remain a political based decision from politicians.

Huh?

No, that's not what the judge is doing.

The judge is doing their job.

They are asked by a litigant to consider whether or not the agreement is constitutional; whether it violates the Charter.

That's exactly the job of judges.

The judge wasn't asked to rule broadly on the safety of the United States; nor any other country.

Nor were they asked to make policy on who a legal immigrant or refugee is..........

Canada has a Charter which includes multiple rights.

Once your at Canada's door; Canada may owe a Charter obligation in how we handle your case.

We are not obliged to take you in as a refugee or an immigrant, and the judgement didn't change that.

What the judgement did was strike down a treaty that, in effect unilaterally says 'The U.S. will give you a fair hearing, so you're not our problem'.

The judge concluded, that in light of current U.S. policies and actions concerning immigrants and refugees it was not reasonable to Automatically assume someone would get a fair hearing.

Therefore, you can't automatically refuse entry/application here.

The judgement only says you have the right to ask to stay here; without being summarily dismissed.

This is not radical law.

It also may or may not be upheld, subject to appeal.

The decision was also stayed (delayed from going into effect) for six months to avoid causing chaos, and to give the government time to address the issue.

That seems fairly moderate and responsible.

Not extreme or political.

The decision as to what the criteria are for admission remains political.

The judge has only granted people access to that process.

The July 22 ruling stated that the act of sending people back to the U.S., where they were at risk of imprisonment, violated their rights to life, liberty, and security. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to anyone who physically enters Canada, including people who are coming to make a refugee claim.

From: https://www.cicnews.com/2020/07/u-s...try-canada-court-rules-0715120.html#gs.by90zw

 

[Jasmine18]

Huh?

No, that's not what the judge is doing.

The judge is doing their job.

They are asked by a litigant to consider whether or not the agreement is constitutional; whether it violates the Charter.

That's exactly the job of judges.

The judge wasn't asked to rule broadly on the safety of the United States; nor any other country.

Nor were they asked to make policy on who a legal immigrant or refugee is..........

Canada has a Charter which includes multiple rights.

Once your at Canada's door; Canada may owe a Charter obligation in how we handle your case.

We are not obliged to take you in as a refugee or an immigrant, and the judgement didn't change that.

What the judgement did was strike down a treaty that, in effect unilaterally says 'The U.S. will give you a fair hearing, so you're not our problem'.

The judge concluded, that in light of current U.S. policies and actions concerning immigrants and refugees it was not reasonable to Automatically assume someone would get a fair hearing.

Therefore, you can't automatically refuse entry/application here.

The judgement only says you have the right to ask to stay here; without being summarily dismissed.

This is not radical law.

It also may or may not be upheld, subject to appeal.

The decision was also stayed (delayed from going into effect) for six months to avoid causing chaos, and to give the government time to address the issue.

That seems fairly moderate and responsible.

Not extreme or political.

The decision as to what the criteria are for admission remains political.

The judge has only granted people access to that process.

But the judge tossed out an agreement made by politicians on her own.


Also how can a canadian judge rule her opinion about USA law ?


Like I have a feeling another judge would think "this is not my problem " and toss it lol

 

[Northern Light]

But the judge tossed out an agreement made by politicians on her own.


Also how can a canadian judge rule her opinion about USA law ?

That's the job of judges...............

OMG, my head is going to explode.

This is exactly Black-letter law what judges are charged with doing.

There's no over-reach.

She's not evaluating a U.S. law.

She's evaluating an agreement between the U.S. and Canada; and whether or not it conflicts with the Charter.

 

[Jasmine18]

That's the job of judges...............

OMG, my head is going to explode.

This is exactly Black-letter law what judges are charged with doing.

There's no over-reach.

She's not evaluating a U.S. law.

She's evaluating an agreement between the U.S. and Canada; and whether or not it conflicts with the Charter.

But her opinion is based on no facts just on trump bad though to change a law. Like I am sure by November this judgment would rule the other way as the orange man not there.

It's a political decision to me and I hope its overturn..


Dont want a flood of people crossing overwhelming our system oof

 

[Northern Light]

But her opinion is based on no facts just on trump bad though. Like I am sure by nov this judgment would rule the other way.

It's a political decision to me and I hope its overturn..


Dont want a flood of people crossing overwhelming our system oof

Holy Crap.

You won't stop.

You're wrong; and you don't know why because you won't take the time to learn.

You're exhausting.

This is the legal decision below:

Canadian Council for Refugees v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship) - Federal Court

decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca

Read it! All of it! Every last word and clause!

Come back when you have done so and we can discuss further.

Its 164 paragraphs.

 

[Jasmine18]

Holy Crap.

You won't stop.

You're wrong; and you don't know why because you won't take the time to learn.

You're exhausting.

This is the legal decision below:

Canadian Council for Refugees v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship) - Federal Court

decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca

Read it! All of it! Every last word and clause!

Come back when you have done so and we can discuss further.

I read the conclusion


Seems the judge wanted to use the charter to push her political agenda

 

[Northern Light]

I read the conclusion


Seems the judge wanted to use the charter to push her political agenda

I told you expressly to read all of it.

You are now officially a troll and wasting my time.

You do not read the last paragraph and draw a conclusion without having looked at the evidence.

You're a lost cause. Sigh.

 

[Jasmine18]

I told you expressly to read all of it.

You are now officially a troll and wasting my time.

You do not read the last paragraph and draw a conclusion without having looked at the evidence.

You're a lost cause. Sigh.

So you agree anyone can cross from America and claim refugee status?


Like if trump wins again oh God its gonna be bad ...

Covid infected people and our resources overwhelmed.


Oof

 

[Northern Light]

So you agree anyone can cross from America and claim refugee status?

OMG

Anyone, right now, who flies from the U.S. (or anywhere else), prior to this decision was not subject to this limit.

Nor was anyone who arrived by ship.

Only those arrived by Land, Port-of-Entry.

We already give hearings to anyone who sneaks across the border illegally.

This decision has a very narrow application, at this time.

But yes, they can file a claim.

That doesn't mean they get to stay.

Regardless, what does my 'agreement' have to do with anything?

This was a legitimate court decision which clearly followed the law, if you read the evidence and the precedents.

 

[Jasmine18]

Issue is if you have to have legal papers to fly to canada.

Visa pr or something

 

[picard102]

Covid infected people and our resources overwhelmed.

The sky is far from falling, and this ruling does little to cause it to do so.

 

[Jasmine18]

The issue is if people think again it's open season down south to cross.

As long we dont send out wrong messaging.

 

[picard102]

Let them cross. Who cares? If they don't meet the requirements for asylum they'll be sent off.

 

[urbannorth]

This WE testimony today makes it impossible to vote for Trudeau. Will they ditch him or rely once again on the apathy of the voters and the Media to rally around their Liberal friends.
So Trudeau paid $23M to WE, but when pressed, they admitted it was over $40M.
They paid Maggie T. $300k, but when pressed in committee, it was almost $500k. Nothing the Liberals say is truth.

 

[Towered]

This WE testimony today makes it impossible to vote for Trudeau. Will they ditch him or rely once again on the apathy of the voters and the Media to rally around their Liberal friends.
So Trudeau paid $23M to WE, but when pressed, they admitted it was over $40M.
They paid Maggie T. $300k, but when pressed in committee, it was almost $500k. Nothing the Liberals say is truth.

Why would they ditch him when the opposition is in such disarray?