Every Canadian's nightmare

Thank you, thank you, thank you!! There's nothing more I can say. I too am angry beyond words! I've hardly slept or eaten since this latest heinous injustice came to my attention a week ago, and have been busy helping the tireless law student Matthew Pizzo, with whom I'm in constant contact.

Please keep up the pressure on MacKay!! He must get away from hobnobbing around town with Condi and do some REAL, beneficial, constructive work to wright the wrongs our government has/is perpetrating/allowing to happen to OUR CITIZENS!!

Sorry, I'm too upset to make much sense, but you know where I'm coming from... Thanks again for your response. Truly appreciated! I will let Matt know that many of us here are trying to help, and that he is not struggling alone with the system.

in solidarity,

Annamarie - Verbena19

My letter's sent.

What a horrible situation. But one thing that is equally horrible--how could the Canadian government have sent these people back to Iran to be tortured in the first place? And yet this is not unusual. It seems that the dept. of immigration has tacitly adopted a policy of blanket denial that anybody is actually a refugee who could face danger where they come from, and simply shipping everyone back to be tortured or killed. It's vile; our authorities might as well be collaborating with death squads.

On the one hand, the very existence of this prison in Texas is outrageous and awful. It angers me that any child should face incarceration for their parents' (unproven, non-violent) wrongdoing.

On the other hand, what else is going on here that we don't know about? If the family were not refugees according to the Geneva Convention ten years ago, they have been made refugees by spending ten years in Canada, only to be sent back to Iran. I want to know what the grounds were to deport them in the first place. Contrary to Purple Library Guy's assertion, it is actually really hard to get deported from Canada. Why did it happen in a case where there were clear compassionate grounds for staying - that is, the existence of a Canadian-born child? I think we're missing some crucial information here.

If the family has already been deported once, chances are Canada Immigration would not have let them in. But the choice should have been made here. The Americans' only role in this case should have been to make sure that anyone who got off that plane in Puerto Rico got right back on it. We don't need them to do our dirty work for us.

Apparently few folks are actually reading the transcript of the telephone conversation with the family in Puerto Rico, and bear in mind that their "story" stated in the call is completely unverified at this time. If I understand the situation correctly:

1. The Iranian husband and wife got into Canada illegally many, many years ago, and sought asylum but were ordered deported.

2. During their stay in Canada their son Kevin was born. He is now 7 and is claimed to be a Canadian citizen; somone might want to confirm this. Frankly, I think THIS is a travesty against Canadians if it is true.

3. The family lost their hearings and were deported back to Iran.

4. Somehow, the family was trying to get back into Canada again, with no visas or pre-authorization. There is no evidence in the dialogue that their son had a Canadian birth certificate, passport, or any other form of Canadian identification. The fact they were flying through Guyana (Costa Rica also mentioned) on their way here suggests a very round-about approach to getting into Canada.

5. They say their plane made an unplanned landing in Puerto Rico (US possesion) due to an on-board flight emergency. This can not be verified, and it is just as possible that the family was trying to get into the US. Note: Puerto Rico one time during the phone call, Costa Rica another time --- very confusing.

6. The US authorities have detained the family in PR. Presumably the lack of a Canadian or US visa for the family made them undesirables, which is understandable. They sure can't send them on their way to Canada ... this isn't anything remotely resembling the Arar case that some commenters are trying to insinuate in the blogsphere.

7. The storyline really is told in one sentence (probably unthinkingly) by the father in the call: "If Canada give us a visa, we go there; we go to US, if here, we’ll stay here."

So, as a Canadian, I have zero sympathy or tolerance for a family which has already entered Canada illegally before, been ordered deported, have gone through the appeal and hearing process, have been deported finally, and wo are trying to sneak back into Canada again.

It is not like the father and mother are uninformed. They are fully informed and experienced with our immigration process. Moreover, their escapades have resulted in the expenditures of huge sums of taxpayer money already.

As far as I am concerned, Canada does not have one iota of responsibility for this family, and we shouldn't waste our breath on them. If a "do-gooder" wants to spend his/her own money and time on this, including erroneous "petitions" to Minister McKay, then fine. Just don't ask Canadian taxpayers or out government to support the escapades of this family any more.

Of course, if the family has a responsible relative in Canada willing to assume responsibility (including financial) to take care of their son in Canada, and if the boy actually has Canadian citizenship and papers to prove it, and if they have the means to get the son to Canada on their own (or friends) financial hook, then let them do it.

That's the only (possibly) legal part of their illegal, repetitive scheme.

As usual, there's more than meets the eye when the "It's a travesty Crowd" come out of the woodwork and start screaming.

"...It is not like the father and mother are uninformed. They are fully informed and experienced with our immigration process..."

Gosh, don't you think being tortured could affect the memory? And what crime has that nine-year old boy committed to be imprisoned without any chance of redress?

HollyStick:
1. What PROOF is there that anyone was tortured? You are relying on the statement of a father who has lied to Canada before, and subverted the immigration process. Let's wait for proof before we quote it as "you can take it to the bank" truth.

2. And as for the 9 year old boy, take that subject up with his parents. I'm getting a little sick of people foisting responsibility on me and other Canadians for action taken purely by others.

I have no responsibility for the boy. And until someone proves the boy is a Canadian citizen, neither should Canada be the slightest bit interested.

Take it up with the parents. They consciously took the risks. I didn't and neither did Canada. It's time people started taking responsibility for their own actions.

You want to help them? Fine. Do it on your own dime and time. Your direct action (your $'s, your time) to help them will get further than this erroneous and abortive effort to get the Canadian taxpayer on the hook for these deadbeats again.

Erik, I will write back to you more fully tomorrow. I can't do the evisceration properly right now -- too tired, no time. But for now:

Kevin was born in Canada. He is every bit as much a Canadian as you or I.

I come from literature. A century ago, the greatest writers in the West were bopping all over the globe with almost no restrictions at all. They were able to do that, of course, because they were middle-class (at least) Westerners and almost no one else had enough money to bop anywhere. So that was all ok, yes? As long as it was just us doing it?

A century later, the world has turned. Everyone is on the move, and I'd like to know why you think that is a bad thing?

I'll be back.

The Iranian husband and wife got into Canada illegally many, many years ago...

Where in the interview transcript (or in this Toronto Star piece) does it say that they were originally in Canada illegally? All we know is that they arrived here in 1995 seeking asylum.

But that false premise allows you to quickly jump to judging them as undesirables — "understandably" — and "deadbeats" without knowing anything about them. Nice drive-by smear. And actually it reminds me quite a bit of what happened to Arar in the media before we knew better.

this erroneous and abortive effort to get the Canadian taxpayer on the hook for these deadbeats again.

You have a problem with people contacting their elected representatives to make their opinions known? Suck it up. The rest of us pay taxes, too.

Erin: It may be hard to get deported from Canada if you're a crook. Certainly if you're a crook with enough money for a good lawyer, and/or expertise at disappearing into the woodwork. But I hear case after case of Canadian authorities deciding that people who very clearly are refugees who will be in danger if they return, aren't. Being poor but honest and genuinely in danger seems to be about your worst option when dealing with the Canadian authorities.

Sorenson: I've noticed that every time it becomes public that someone was tortured, certain kinds of people (specifically, assholes) go on and on about how we have only their word about it. But I don't know just why, because I've never heard of a case where there was a row over someone who said they'd been tortured but then it turned out they hadn't. Doesn't seem to happen. So unless you were the CSIS agent shadowing the family in Iran and so you can testify that they *weren't* imprisoned or tortured, I'll take their word, thanks.

Meanwhile, as has been pointed out repeatedly, the kid is a Canadian citizen, a Canadian citizen one year younger than my daughter who has lived most of his life in Canada. It is the job of the Canadian embassy and Canadian diplomats to be getting him out of trouble, not to be inventing excuses not to take action. I think we had enough of this crap with Arar.

More than meets the eye, my ass. They were flying while brown.

Erik, your comments are really misleading. when you say these things are unconfirmed, do you mean you yourself haven't been presented with physical evidence, because you are disputing things no one else, anywhere are calling into question. The Boy is Canadian, he was born here, he is a Canadian citizen. No one disputes that. the parents were here in Canada at the time of his birth, our own immigration dept confirms that they were here, and they had a child during the time that their refugee status was being processed.
For whatever reason, they lost and were told to go back to Iran. They left, following the rules, with the hope that perhaps they could try again, if they followed the rules the first time.

Iran tortures people. Iran denies it tortures people. Both of these are known facts, (kazemi) if you deny this, I don't see the point of talking to you, you would be a loon.
So when they claim torture, either Iran is lying again, or, the Iranians treated these people who insulted their leadership, Islam and the prophet, by trying to escape and live with the Great Satan in the West with a big welcome home, all is forgiven. Not bloody likely.

Refugees take whatever flights are available, they don't wait for the next chance, which they might never get. They were travelling with false ID's, - the only way to get out of Iran, and not unusual for refugees coming from anywhere.
The plane made an unschedualed stop in american territory. This has been confirmed in just about avery major media source I have looked at. They don't want to go to the US, because as Iranians, they rightly feared unfair treatment.

"they can't just send them on their way to Canada." Is just fucking insane. Yes they can. They don't want them, their not suppose to be there, they didn't want to be there, let them go were they were headed in the first place. If they want to escort them to Canada and give us a head's up, that would be great. If someone shows up at your door and says, "I don't want to be here, i'm going to you neighbours house," a sane response would be "good we don't want you here, off you go." The American response is "I'm arresting you and your family and putting them in my basement for the rest of your natural life, because you used to live somewhere I don't like."

The only difference between this and Arar is they havn't been sent to a third country...yet. This is a Canadian citizen coming home, (the boy) flys through American territory, and gets arrested for the heinous crime of being an Arab and a muslim.

Yes they are informed - they know Canada is at once both the country they are most likely to gain entrance to, and the one they are most likely to be able to succeed in. It's a free, democratic country, with a sizable Iranian population already. Where else would they go? In the end, they'll settle for anywhere that's not Iran. ( the us visa vs Canadian visa question)

I can't make you feel sympathy for them (ass), but we are responsible - under international law we have a resposiblity to all genuine refugees, to provide a safe place for them to live, until either their home becomes safe enough to return, or they successfully immigrate either here, or to a third country, making a new home for themselves. And most importantly, the boy is CANADIAN, a minor held in a foriegn prison, without charge, whose only hope for release is those of us who know a tragedy when we see one.

I just had a eureka moment. You challenge given facts, demanding proofs of statements that are publically available, and continously blame victims for their predicaments. Eric, can I call you IrC?

just shipped my letter to mackay. my post on the issue is here. erik, you're a fool.

Lotsa words, no "proof" other than the boy is allegedly a Canadian citizen. Fine. That does not entitle his parents to enter Canada, nor would I want them to again. Nor does it change the conclusion I made in my post re: options available to the boy.

And of course all people seeking asylum claim torture and hardships. I have no doubt that a portion of the claimants are truthful. But a portion, maybe the majority, isn't. There were no comments, in the accounts I read, about body evidence, appearance, etc., concerning torture, so we can probably rule out anything recent on that front

The Iranians certainly didn't kill the father, mother or boy when they were returned the first time. So you folks don't know, and I don't know, and I would imagine the onus is on the claimant to reasonably prove torture occurred. So, unknown right now.

The boy appears to be eligible to come to Canada if support can be found in Canada. The parents are not, and there's nothing wrong with that in my mind. They knew the chances, and they were prepared to have another shot at Canada at taxpayer expense.

So, as I said, if everyone is so "compassionate" for this family, why aren't you doing something on your own dime, rather than foisting this on taxpayers? You seem to be quite compassionate when you can get others (taxpayers of Canada) to pay for your feel-goodness.

No one is obligated to hold your view. I choose to hold mine which is obviously different than yours. And as far as I know, being 66 and having seen a whole lot more people killed and the results of (real) torture than (collectively) you have, that isn't "foolish", or being an "ass", or seeing only "brown" --- which I consider to be YOUR prejudice, not mine.

I'll say it again. It's easy to be "compassionate" when it's somebody else's money. And neither Canada, nor I, have one iota of blame here. That rests with the parents totally and completely. So go blame and vent your anger on someone else. And if you are really on a guilt trip, use your money to pay their lawyer, and to provide their airfare back to Iran. Now THAT'S compassion, rather than writing about it.

"...And of course all people seeking asylum claim torture and hardships. I have no doubt that a portion of the claimants are truthful. But a portion, maybe the majority, isn't..."

Based on what? What evidence do you have to support this claim? It looks like a bigotted lie to me. Show us some proof.

So, basically, Erik is assuming they're guilty and/or liars until proven innocent (which is of course nearly impossible). Awfully convenient if you want to keep the non-white and/or Muslim refugee riffraff out. But hardly a basis for justice.

Peter MacKay is very much worse than I even supposed.

For Shame!

HollyStick: Now you are just getting silly and hysterical. Read what you have quoted carefully. And if you think 100% of claimants are truthful, then you are naive. Deal with the provable facts of this case.

Purple: In our immigration system, the onus is generally on applicants to prove their claims or statements. So, yes, the onus is on claimants to prove they are eligible for admission to Canada. That's not a "guilty/liar" bias, it's fact. And if you can't deal with that, get another myopic dream that fits.

Secondly, Purple, your attempt at tarring me with your race brush is beneath contempt. Keep your own prejudices out of it.

Erik, you will not call other posters names. Got it?

Otherwise, I'm still on my way.

Skdadl: Well, it's your blog and you can make the rules. But I would have thought that you would apply them equally, rather than singling out the ONLY person holding a contrarian view to the assembled masses here, e.g"

"It looks like a bigotted lie to me";

"I can't make you feel sympathy for them (ass)"; and

"certain kinds of people (specifically, assholes)"

These are out-and-out slurs. Mine was chiding. But I will understand and not be surprised if you wish to cut off dissenting posts by singling me out. But say so outright, please, not use subterfuge.

And of course all people seeking asylum claim torture and hardships. I have no doubt that a portion of the claimants are truthful. But a portion, maybe the majority, isn't.

And you base on that on ... what?

There were no comments, in the accounts I read, about body evidence, appearance, etc., concerning torture, so we can probably rule out anything recent on that front

So on nothing more than supposition on your part, you've once again managed to conclude that the guy is a liar.

The reason you're being treated with contempt here is because you keep pulling your facts out of your butt in an effort to smear someone you don't even know. That isn't contrarian, it's dishonest.

Pogge, which supposedly stands for Peace, Order and Good Government, should know that transparency is paramount in achieving good government, and in protecting our freedoms ... among the most precious of which is freedom of speech. But it seems that it's only POGGE's and Skdadl's version of free speech which is acceptable here. Fine. But please don't attempt the high road if all you are offering is a cut-rate, cheap and shoddy version of the low road of free speech, eh?

It also seems that the first thing "progressives" and self-appointed "protectors of our freedoms" do when confronted with a view contrary to their own, is villify the writer and his/her opinions. That's fine, but do you also listen and actually comprehend what the dissenter is saying? I think not. Examples below.

I've given the focused references above, but POGGE has added another: "pulling your facts out of your butt". I have made no such claims, if you take the time to actually read my posts, rather than read only what you want to see in them.

- The husband wife were "illegals", because the Canadian immigration system, not me, said they were when they deported them in Dec 2005, 10 years after their arrival on Canada's doorstep asking for refugee/asylum status. If you can't accept that fact, I can't do anything more to convince you.

- Above, you say, "And you base on that on ... what?". The simple fact that a percentage of claims are denied and the claimants deported. I don't have statistics to say whether these are in the minority or majority of claimants, which is why I worded it like I did. So what's wrong with the wording? If it is inaccurate I will change it. But you know that the wording is correct, but just not acceptable to you. That's your problem, not mine.

- I have read, and re-read, my posts above. And there's no "mis-spokes" in there. If you think that I "pulled something out ..." as you say, why not be specific? I'll deal with specifics. The problem is, you don't have ONE specific to quote, do you? Just your "view" of the story. Well, that's what I have too and, in general, it's concluding that all the facts are not known. If that's "erroneous" in you view, fine

- And, of course, Purple's famed attempt to tar me with a racist brush. That's usually the desperate last step of an individual when they have lost an argument or debating points.

And thanks for finally using the word "comtempt". That really says a lot about tolerance, fair-mindedness, and prejudices, doesn't it? And "smear"? Please. We are all interpreting an incomplete set of facts. Sorry that mine doesn't coincide with yours.

Dissent really is inconvenient some times, isn't it?

"But a portion, maybe the majority, isn't."

Nice dodge Erik, but on what do you base this part of you statement? What evidence that 'maybe a majority' of claims aren't true? Present it and we can debate the veracity and accuracy of the information on which you base that assumption. No one, as far as I can see, is claiming 100% of the claims are true, but its a long way from 'not 100%' to 'maybe a majority'. That kind of allegation needs something to back it up.

Funny, a year ago when some Belgian and his family were trying to avoid deportation, you Conservatives were all over it, claiming how unfair it is because his shoplifting charge was 25 years old. Turns out of course it was way ore than that. Now why would you be ready to so easily let a Belgian family come here illegally and stay, but not an Iranian one? I wonder what the differences between the two are?

BTW, its pretty laughable to write that you don't think these people were tortured in Iran. That would be funny if it weren't so sad and dishonest.

"I don't have statistics to say whether these are in the minority or majority of claimants, which is why I worded it like I did."

So you admit that you have no stats or evidence backing your claim but still try to imply that the majority of torture claims are not true? That sounds dishonest to me, because the wording is in fact, incorrect.

"And, of course, Purple's famed attempt to tar me with a racist brush. That's usually the desperate last step of an individual when they have lost an argument or debating points."

Or they are in fact, debating a racist. I mean, you are using the same old tired arguments against immigration that the Heritage Front and the Klan used too back in the 80's, what other conclusion would you expect people to draw? Especially when you make things up ('maybe the majority') to bolster your case. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and all that....

The husband wife were "illegals", because the Canadian immigration system, not me, said they were when they deported them in Dec 2005, 10 years after their arrival on Canada's doorstep asking for refugee/asylum status.

That isn't what you wrote. You said they entered the country illegally in the first place. And deporting them wouldn't make them "illegal" if they actually, you know, got on the plane and went back to Iran, which apparently they did.

You're giving us a typical display of internet trolling here, Erik. You swagger into the thread making assertions without proof and drawing conclusions without substance so you can lecture everyone else in the room. When you're called on your crap, you pretend to be the wounded party and claim that the problem is our intolerance for someone else's freedom of speech. And I can't help but note the irony here — you're standing up for your freedom of speech at the same time that you're condemning people who want to express themselves to their elected representatives. So who's trying to stifle free expression again?

You've acknowledged that all the facts aren't known but it hasn't kept you from claiming that this family has been some kind of band of outlaws since 1995. That's how you justify labeling them as "deadbeats."

The problem here isn't your differing opinion and it isn't about freedom of speech. It's about you blowing a lot of hot air in an effort to disrupt a conversation you don't want others to have.

Mike: "Maybe a majority". If not, then it's 100%, 0%, or a minority or whatnot. The problem is that you folks can't bring yourself to admit that the wording I used was correct. While it may have been more palatable to all if you if I have said, "Maybe a minority", you would not have had a problem. I can't help it if you folks have trouble understanding English (grin). "Dodge" or not, the words I originally wrote ARE correct. It needs nada to back it up.

"The Belgian". Predictable. When you have zip examples of my "out of my a.." transgressions, you try to change the channel. Typical when you've admitted defeat and are desperately searching for another agrument to launch and win. Tough.

"Tortured in Iran". Do you know for certain? I don't and I suspect that you don't either. We may have our suspicions but, with those wonderfully humane administration over there in Iran, no one ever knows what annoys them and what doesn't, eh? So if neither of us can prove our point, let's just say that the father "claims" to have been tortured. Which is pretty well the truth and what I essentially said in my original post.

And if y'all can't come up with better than these sterling "examples" of my "erroneous" statements, I suggest that you give up the effort. And just admit that we hold contrarian views, either or both of which might be correct, in whole or part. We just don't know, though.

You all are doing very well, however, in dispelling the myth that freedom of speech and dissent are what you are fighting for.

To complete the dissenting opinion, let's talk about the facts, shall we? So let's refer to the "Maher Arar" simile, and the "Every Canadian's Nightmare" lead, and other emotional insinuations against "Them" in the original post by Skdahl at the top of this page.

Facilities:
Much has been made of the horrible conditions that the detainees are located in. I do not pretend that the detention facilities are beautiful. But they do have light, running water, detainees are fed three square meals a day, will be medically treated if this is required, and have functioning toilets that are exactly the same type as facilities used to house America's crimninal citizens. These toilets apparently don't have lids; that doesn't make them "hellholes to live in". So it's not as if detainees are getting sub-standard facilities. In many cases, these facilities are light years better than what they came from less, of course, the freedom to go anywhere.

Quotes about the detention facility from surfing the web, including "progressive" and "freedom-fighting" sites: "At the T. Don Hutto Residential Center in Taylor, Texas, there's a playground for children and murals painted on the walls. There's carpet on the floors of detention cells but no locks on the doors ... It looks like a maximum-security day care. Razor wire, strung high atop security fences, surrounds a "Backyard Adventures" swing set. Fake trees soften entrances to sunless cellblocks. And Sony PlayStations entertain immigrant children where Texas criminals once served hard time.

Only the second detention facility in the nation designed to house families, the center is part of a new push by U.S. immigration authorities ... ending a "catch-and-release" approach under which people ... who are caught trying illegally to cross the border are released and asked to return for a deportation hearing at a later date. Only 10 percent to 20 percent return. Under the new initiative, they would be detained until an expedited hearing, at which the government seeks to return them to their own countries. The average stay is about 55 days for asylum seekers, 40 for others, officials said."

This is not a rat-infested hellhole. It isn't an apartment or the Hilton, but rather a facility that would meet or exceed most other similar facilitiues in the world. Also, you take the risks, and you get the consequences.

America's Security:
When flights land on American soil, emergency or not, authorities are within their rights to examine passenger documentation. After all, it's their country, and it doesn't matter what you or I think is "fair". It was not lack of an American or Canadian visa that derailed the Iranian family's passage, it was the detected presence of their two (admittedly purchased fake) Greek passports that they were travelling on. After 9/11, America takes a very dim and suspicious view of false documentation, and I can't blame them.

So should the nine year old boy have been put on the plane to resume his flight to Canada without his parents, who were being detained by American authorites for good reason, in their view? Remember, it's not our country, it's theirs.

Airlines have clamped down on unaccompanied minors in the last few years. That's one issue. The second is, "what would happen to the boy if he did resume his journey alone, and landed in Canada"? I don't know for sure, but it would seem logical that without parents or authorized guardians in Canada to care for the boy, Canadian authorities would be obligated to send the boy to his parents. Which means back where he is now.

It's Arar All Over Again
No it isn't, not even faintly. Just on the major level, there are no similarities:
- Arar was a Canadian citizen; the boy's mother and father aren't.
- Arar was returning to Canada lawfully; the boy's father and mother were going to Canada to claim refugee status again.
- Arar was deported to a third country; the family was detained by the country that had detected their false, purchased passports.

So while it's convenient to use the Arar simile as an attention-grabber, it really isn't very honest, is it?

Every Canadian's Nightmare
The hysterical and totally erroneous headline practically disqualifies itself. Apart from the boy, who is involved in this sorry tale purely because of the actions of his mother and father (who knew the risks), this is a story about the US accidentally discovering two people with forged third-country passports, and detaining those people. The boy is where he is because of his parents, not because of Canada, you or I, or a race or colour-based plot by "Them". See the last paragraph of "America's Security" above.

Folks travelling on legal passports and visas are still 99.999999999% fine, thank you, despite the hysterical "nightmare" assertion.

Thank you for the opportunity to write these points.

I have to say, I agree more with Erik than with the rest of you, here. The family were deported. A bunch of different people in immigration law in this country made the decision that they were not refugees according to the Geneva Convention definition, as of 1995. They may be now, but now they've blown it. Once you've been deported from Canada, you are inadmissible without a Minister's Permit. As best I can figure out, they didn't even have a visitor's visa, either for the States or for Canada. The kid - yeah, he's admissible. But without anyone to take care of him here, he goes with his parents.

I think the torture probably did happen. Unfortunately, it happened AFTER he had already made a refugee claim that was denied. He might be a convention refugee now; he wasn't then, and the lack of any kind of visa is damning. Canadian law says that refugees should go to the Canadian embassy in the first safe place they reach. I believe that would be Guyana, in this case. Of course, practically nobody does that, because it's a lot easier to conclude that someone isn't, in fact, a refugee, when they're not collecting Canadian welfare in Toronto.

I'm starting to understand why many nations don't hand out birth certificates to anyone who happens to have been born there. What do you do when the parents have no right to be here, but the kid does? It's impossible to apply our laws fairly in this case.

POGGE: Reduced to nit-picking, I see. With reference to "illegally", I can only save time and repeat what I said before. Plus, of course, neither view changes the materiality of the issue, which is why it is only a semantical nit-pick.

"making assertions without proof and drawing conclusions without substance". I await correction. Not on interpretations and feeling and opinion, but inaccuracies. Otherwise all I can assume is that you really can't stand an opinion or view that is contrary to yours. The original post at the top of the page is hardly rationale, and I've just taken the time recently to refute or balance those views, and it you think that is "trolling", then perhaps you might think of operating a comment-less blog.

"When you're called on your crap, you pretend to be the wounded party". No, not wounded ... because I can take of myself and, right now, have you folks on the run on substance. Because you folks refuse to deal with the known facts of the matter. You are angry about someone who dares to take time to refute your OPINIONS, sanely, in decent English, and rationally. Hardly "wounded", although that seems to represent the feelings of everyone else here.

"condemning people who want to express themselves to their elected representatives". Do you really read what you write? I have "condemned" no one. I'm sorry that all your prides are wounded because the mutual admiration society here was disrupted. But condemn or prevent you writing your MP, McKay or whoever? No. Show me one place I even came close to that. Heck, even remotely close. Darn, even insinuated what you allege. One place. You can't find it and, once again, you are inventing issues because you're losing and thrashing out, refusing to deal with the issues here. Wounded pride, most likely. Not my problem.

"claiming that this family has been some kind of band of outlaws since 1995. That's how you justify labeling them as "deadbeats"". Yes, and what's your point? Any?

"The problem here isn't your differing opinion and it isn't about freedom of speech. It's about you blowing a lot of hot air in an effort to disrupt a conversation you don't want others to have." If you will pardon the phraseology, that's a load of bullplops, and you know it. Show me one example, just one, where I have disrupted a conversation"? Then look at the posts designed to get me to winp out of what I wrote, even this latest insinuation you have just made. PPLLEEAASSEE! Try misdirection tactics on a rube or somebody else that you think that you can browbeat, not me

Mike: "Or they are in fact, debating a racist. I mean, you are using the same old tired arguments against immigration that the Heritage Front and the Klan used too back in the 80's, what other conclusion would you expect people to draw? Especially when you make things up ('maybe the majority') to bolster your case. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and all that...."

Using your same twisted, flawed and self-serving logic, YOU must be a racist because you are dissenting against a white, Canadian senior citizen, eh? Three-in-one. What a load of bullplops. Pull the other one, Mike. Surely you can do better than that?

I have to say, I agree more with Erik than with the rest of you, here.

No one is denying that this family's original request for refugee status was turned down and they were deported, though we don't have much in the way of specifics. And no one is denying that their current status is complicated by the fact that their son was born in Canada, a country where the parents currently have no legal status. Some people feel that the boy's Canadian birth and the circumstances surrounding their detention are enough to merit intervention on their behalf by Canadian authorities.

Obviously some disagree with that last statement, but that's fine. That would be a difference of opinion. Unfortunately, Erik wasn't content with expressing a different opinion. He had to manufacture reasons why the parents could be considered criminals without charges or trial. That's why we've all jumped on him.

I await correction. Not on interpretations and feeling and opinion, but inaccuracies.

There's no point in continuing this. When your previous statements are challenged you either re-interpret them to mean nothing at all — and of course a statement that means nothing requires no backup — or you pretend that you said something other than what you originally said or that's it just a disagreement about semantics, which would mean you expressed yourself poorly to begin with. And somehow this means you're winning.

Banned. This isn't the first time you've swaggered into a thread here with a trumped up story so you can sneer at the whole place. But it's the last.

He had to manufacture reasons why the parents could be considered criminals without charges or trial. That's why we've all jumped on him.

Well, in terms of Canadian law, I believe that a fraudulent refugee claim is, in fact, a crime. By that token, the argument could be made that deportation is what happens to people who are convicted of immigration offenses, and that, as such, they ARE criminals.

"A fraudulent refugee claim"?

As I understand the process, one makes a refugee claim and one is either accepted or rejected. Rejection does not equate with fraud, or at least not automatically. It means that our immigration boards have said no, for any one of a number of reasons. (And it would be nice to have an immigration lawyer here to describe some of those decisions.)

Neither is rejection of a refugee claim necessarily constitutive of a crime. You're just making stuff up, Erin.

a fraudulent refugee claim

What skdadl said. Unless you have a source that no one else has brought forward, there is no basis to assume that the original claim was "fraudulent", only that it was refused.

Pogge and Skdadl, you are both right! Persons whose refugee claims were rejected by our government, are NOT criminals. They have committed no crime. The refugee claims system is not a golden rule engraved in stone. I've heard of cases where people's claims were rejected, but then, upon another review, they were accepted. I know this from an acquaintance of mine who is an Immigration Specialist with a well-known Toronto law firm.

Thank you for standing up for what is right, and for your support. As for Erik, he's been on my site too, spouting the same vitriol. Erin does not seem to be much better. These people make me feel ashamed to be a Canadian. It is useless to present logic to these people, for they have none but their own small, narrow, tunnel vision. They see things as black/white, with no shades in between. Best to simply ignore their trolling here, as they contribute nothing worthwhile, but merely try to spread discord and fallacy.

Keep up the good work! Catnip and I will keep you posted on our blogs as soon as we get more news from down south.

btw, when Erik actually self-rightously makes idiotic statements like he did about how Hutto is not that bad, well, let him send his grandchild to stay there for awhile. People like Erik and his ilk are examples of the nasty underbelly of our society. They feel that they are the only people paying taxes, and only their voices should be heard. How utterly wrong they are! We are taxpayers too, and I for one, have no problems with my tax dollars being used to help someone less fortunate. This includes those seeking asylum here for a chance at a better life. They are far more deserving than those government fat cats who keep voting themselves hefty raises while quibbling about raising the minimum wage!

Hideous irony #...I've lost track.

IOKIYD. D as in dead.

"A US lawmaker has submitted a bill seeking honorary citizenship for Anne Frank, whose family sought in vain to secure refuge in the United States during World War II."

Dead girl you refused sanctuary to while she was alive? Citizenship.
Living 9 year old boy? Not so much.

Link

Erik tried pulling the same kind of troll crap at my site. I see he's now moved on to try to debate this story here. "Try" being the operative word. He's already made up his mind. I'm certainly not going to waste any more of my time with him.

Anyway, to everyone who's trying to help out, just know you're not alone and keep spreading the word. This situation really is unconscionable.

Some activities: blog by liberal catnip

blog by the galloping beaver

Globe & Mail article

As It Happens Feb 28 talking to the father.

As It Happens Feb 27 talking to the lawyer.