New proposed asylum rules

[canuck78]

I don’t think this proposal should be passed. Anything can happen anytime. Situation can change anytime . For someone declared wanted in home country more than a year living in canada , where does that person stands.

The asylum seeker changes are very likely to change. If only people applied who truly faced a change in country conditions like a war after a year there wouldn’t be a need for changes but most are not facing these major country changes when they apply after a year.

 

[GandiBaat]

Based on the last section, it looks like it's retroactive.

There is more interesting bits...

This is related to cancellation and amendment of immigration documents.

Obligation

87.‍304 (1) A person must answer truthfully all questions put to them by an officer that relate to the application of an order made under subsection 87.‍302(1) and must produce a visa and all relevant evidence and documents that the officer reasonably requires for the purpose of the application of such an order.

Obligation — appear for examination

(2) A person must, on request of an officer, appear for an examination — including a medical examination — that relates to the application of an order made under subsection 87.‍302(1).

This is troublesome... It means a person who is PR in Canada and falls sick or develops medical issue then IRCC can force him/her to appear for a medical exam persuant to a Governor in Council order and then cancel his/her PR Card. It is basically applying medical inadmissibility criteria in perpetuity on a PR unless he or she become a citizen... They can this way apply this medical exam anytime they want to. During PR card renewal, during citizenship application, during ... basically anytime.

There is a reason why this exam has been explicitly added to these obligations upon a PR...

Importantly, as these a Governor in Council order, they do not require ANY kind of legislation. This is a real devious move.

Since they recommend such kind of cancellation for persons in Canada be endorsed by minister of public safety, this can be a tool for "public interest" to show that how PRs are costing us X amount of money in health care so let us cut that money by kicking them out because we had their tax dollars anyways.

More interestingly, this is added as a "transitionary measure".... wonder why.

 

[forevermore76]

Thankfully PRs can't vote yet. Some crazy politicians did try it though.

 

[GandiBaat]

Thankfully PRs can't vote yet. Some crazy politicians did try it though.

To be honest, it wont take much for PRs to vote. About 6 months to citizenship.

 

[abff08f4813c]

Thankfully PRs can't vote yet. Some crazy politicians did try it though.

Not sure what the big deal is. As per https://www.capradio.org/news/npr/story?storyid=1248787453 the turnout is very low even when it's allowed.

From the sounds of it (and also see https://georgiarecorder.com/2023/03...e-local-elections-spurring-backlash-from-gop/ ) there's more people protesting against this than actually voting under such allowances...

 

[canuck78]

Not sure what the big deal is. As per https://www.capradio.org/news/npr/story?storyid=1248787453 the turnout is very low even when it's allowed.

From the sounds of it (and also see https://georgiarecorder.com/2023/03...e-local-elections-spurring-backlash-from-gop/ ) there's more people protesting against this than actually voting under such allowances...

People overestimate the vote turnout for previous protected people and refugees and new immigrants. The turnout in general is quite low in that group because many do not follow Canadian politics, are not used to voting, don’t feel informed enough to vote and are often just trying to survive daily challenges. In general our voting turnout is nothing to brag about as citizens. Many who were born in Canada or have lived in Canada for decades don’t vote and that should probably concern people a lot more.