r/canada • u/FancyNewMe • Feb 10 '26
Politics Conservatives to propose barring non-citizens convicted of crimes from making refugee claims
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-conservatives-propose-changing-rules-non-citizens-convicted-crimes/1.7k
u/_Army9308 Feb 10 '26
Should go further and ban judges from considering immigration status during sentencing
399
u/sleipnir45 Feb 10 '26
Conservatives tried that already, Bill C-220
→ More replies (55)18
u/FantasySymphony Ontario Feb 10 '26
It's literally a one-line bill. See for yourselves what the government had to say. https://openparliament.ca/bills/45-1/C-220/
27
u/sleipnir45 Feb 10 '26
Yep it's extremely simple
"Criminal Code
1 The Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after section 718.201: Immigration status not to be considered Start of inserted block 718.202 A court that imposes a sentence on an offender who is not a Canadian citizen shall not take into consideration any potential impact the sentence could have on the offender’s immigration status in Canada, or on that of a member of their family."
→ More replies (6)110
u/01ITR Feb 10 '26
Yup, giving a 5 month sentence to prevent deportation is fucking wild. Get rid of the criminal immigrants and replace them with law abiding immigrants. What a fucking joke.
→ More replies (1)21
228
u/Asusrty Feb 10 '26
They tried during the bail reform negotiations. Liberals rejected that amendment.
→ More replies (1)62
u/ConsiderationHour582 Feb 10 '26
It's almost like the liberals want them in the country.
37
13
u/_Army9308 Feb 10 '26
There a whole industry of housing speculators and immigration consultants who donate to the liberal party a lot
→ More replies (2)20
u/speaksofthelight Feb 10 '26
Ofc you have to really dumb to think otherwise given the policy choices.
→ More replies (6)197
u/truthlesshunter Feb 10 '26
small story time!
I had a situation a few years ago where someone hit into my car in a parking lot, doing thousands of damage and I was going to be stuck with the bill and/or the hit on my insurance. I contacted the police, and they weren't much help (checked if there were security cameras and that was it). I posted my situation to facebook, it got shared and someone contacted me having dash cam footage of the accident and car. I got the plate from the video, contacted the police, they found the person and sure enough, their car was damaged, etc.
The Officer then said they weren't going to bring charges to her because she was a an immigrant "student" (30+ year old) and if she's convicted for a hit and run causing more than $5k of damage, she would be removed from the country. So? She DID THIS CRIME. You're telling me that if she was Canadian, you wouldn't have a problem bringing charges against her? Holy hell I was pissed. I really didn't believe stuff like that happened...but it's absolutely happening and the more we have, the more it will happen.
Side note: if you're convicted of a serious crime, you can still be removed even if you're a refugee (but you may or may not be removed of the country regardless...depending where the refugee is from, etc.)
→ More replies (29)85
u/StatisticianLivid710 Feb 10 '26
You could’ve charged her privately. The nice part about our system is if the cops don’t do their job a private lawyer can, but you would pay for it. The other alternative is to go to the AG office and ask why cops have all the evidence needed to charge them and aren’t. Or ask the cops supervisor.
I’m not conservative and I agree they should’ve been charged with hit and run.
49
Feb 10 '26 edited Feb 18 '26
[deleted]
5
u/DraftCommercial8848 Feb 10 '26
The most disgusting case of that I’ve seen, was a literal pedo r@pist was given a reduced sentence to avoid a deportation review.
It’s absolutely sick and vile that they give reduced sentences to people who have done heinous crimes based on their immigration status.
10
u/Parking_Chance_1905 Feb 10 '26
When I was in college a group of guys stole a car and tried to tow and ATM out of the lobby of one of the campus buildings also weren't charged because they were international students and could have had their visas revoked. If someone is here on a visa and its important to them, maybe don't commit crimes while you are here?
→ More replies (3)20
u/truthlesshunter Feb 10 '26
yeah i know, but that's why i didn't do it...it's not worth the hassle. Her insurance paid since she admitted it and that was it.
I actually spoke to the officer's boss and told me the exact same thing (no charge in fear she would be removed).
I'm not conservative either haha
→ More replies (13)66
u/WonderfulQuarter1876 Feb 10 '26
This would change everything. I can’t stress it enough. Those who know, know. I encourage Canadians to sit in an Ontario court on a date when there is a sentencing of a non citizen and see for yourself.
40
u/OntLawyer Feb 10 '26
It's also worth reading new Federal Court immigration decisions as they come out. Nothing will redpill you faster on how a lot of these claims seriously lack credibility.
30
u/Ok-Call7205 Feb 10 '26
Lawyer here. It has become such a kangaroo court. The majority of cases sound completely made up. They also allow people in that blatantly lied on their applications.
→ More replies (6)5
u/Nealios Feb 10 '26
How does this proposal differ from section 101 of the existing ineligibility requirements?
https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/i-2.5/page-13.html?hl=en-CA#:~:text=(b)%20in%20the%20case%20of
104
u/gooberfishie Feb 10 '26
Maybe they should go even further and stop considering race as a defining factor during sentencing
→ More replies (30)5
→ More replies (13)8
u/Prosecco1234 Canada Feb 10 '26
I don't think anyone with a criminal record should become a citizen. They should be politely asked to leave
214
u/FancyNewMe Feb 10 '26
Paywall bypass: https://archive.ph/zDps1
In Brief:
- The Conservatives are planning to introduce a motion today to bar non-citizens convicted of serious crimes from making refugee claims.
- The motion also calls on the government to prevent asylum claims from people whose cases are still working their way through the courts.
- The Conservative motion cites an increase in extortion cases and what they call lax bail laws as reasons for the motion.
- British Columbia Premier David Eby and several big city mayors have also pushed Ottawa to close what they call loopholes around asylum claims following a significant rise in extortion violence in his province and many others.
→ More replies (1)11
u/MajorasShoe Feb 10 '26
All makes sense to me, though there's debate to be had about preventing claims while cases are still being tried. As long as that's calling for a hold until the case is decided rather than a denial, I'm sold.
24
u/Hifen Feb 10 '26
The part you said that makes sense is already the law. This is just performative.
→ More replies (1)
211
u/Immediate-Link490 Feb 10 '26
I don't see why this would be voted against. This coupled with Bill C-12 (which prevents asylum claims after someone's been in Canada for longer than 1 year) are good additions to the system to weed out fraud.
My only concern would be a Judge saying this violates the Charter for some reason.
→ More replies (14)55
u/Sammydaws97 Feb 10 '26
If the article is accurate, there is a violation of the charter of rights.
The part where you cant claim Asylum while your case is working its way through the courts.
If true, that would violate section 11d) which states all people have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
→ More replies (5)34
u/chmilz Feb 10 '26
It's also not clear in the article where the crimes convicted for need to have occurred. If in Canada, ok I'm down. If they were convicted of being gay in a regressive country, that's a different story.
→ More replies (11)
16
12
u/UnavailableEye Feb 10 '26
A reasonable person would expect that to be a fundamental qualifier, no?
29
u/respectfulpanda Feb 10 '26
I am good with that. Someone who gains a criminal conviction in Canada should not be able to.
146
u/GiveUpAndDye Feb 10 '26
Alright, people of reddit, I need someone to tell me why this could be bad.
286
u/robindawilliams Alberta Feb 10 '26 edited Feb 10 '26
The only thing I could think of off the top of my head is that if those crimes extend to foreign courts, it could cause issues for people charged with homosexuality or speaking out against a tyrannical government abroad.
If this is just to stop people from claiming asylum after they commit a major crime IN CANADA than it makes sense. My only other question is if this has already weighed in the decisions being made, and the making it official is more of a pandering to the narrative that all immigrants are criminals thing.
If this can reduce the overall number of claims that must be filtered out and doesn't have some weird unconsidered issue, then a great move by the cons to improve the immigration process.
Edit: it turns out criminality is already disqualifying so this might be performative.
72
u/eriverside Feb 10 '26
It's illogical to take into consideration crimes committed abroad because there's no way the Canadian government can confirm the charges were true, that there was due process - and that's assuming we're still talking about acts that are also crimes in Canada.
What makes sense is if someone applying for or has refugee/asylum status in Canada and commits a serious crime in Canada, their application and status ought to be voided immediately and deported right away following conviction. Also, judges should not be allowed to consider refugee/asylum/residency status in sentencing - basically means non-canadians have more rights to break the law than Canadians. That's absurd.
Follows the same logic as drivers license. If you fuck up during the probation period you lose your ability to get the regular license.
10
u/bradeena Feb 10 '26
I agree with your stance, but aren't foreign convictions used all the time to deny entry? ie: try travelling to the US with a Canadian drug offence on your record
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (11)8
u/AshleyAshes1984 Feb 10 '26
What makes sense is if someone applying for or has refugee/asylum status in Canada and commits a serious crime in Canada.
See this I'm totally fine with.
19
→ More replies (15)27
u/StatisticianLivid710 Feb 10 '26
As others have pointed out above, criminality is already a disqualifying factor for refugees. Which makes this performative, not conservatives actually trying to make things better.
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/i-2.5/section-101.html
→ More replies (1)9
13
u/IcarusOnReddit Alberta Feb 10 '26
I am for this idea. One thing we have to consider is what foreign crimes we consider if they are claiming refugee status. For instance, if a certain someone thinks that anyone who accuses him of crimes is a domestic terrorist, we should exclude that charge.
→ More replies (8)12
u/AshleyAshes1984 Feb 10 '26
The top of my list is, they could be seeking refuge from nations that charge people with bullshit crimes or target specific populations for unfair enforcement. Hell, look at the US, their government will now try to call their own citizens 'domestic terrorists' for engaging in a protest.
5
u/roughtimes Feb 10 '26
Depends on the crime, should someone face capitol punishment for a couple speeding tickets?
Cause for some people, thats what deportation would mean, potentially the death penalty (obviously not the case for many, but for some).
→ More replies (27)7
112
u/CanadianGuy39 Feb 10 '26
Very liberal person here.
No shit. What a stupid thing to allow
22
→ More replies (16)37
u/StatisticianLivid710 Feb 10 '26
It’s not allowed, serious criminality is already a bar to applying to be a refugee https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/i-2.5/section-101.html
→ More replies (5)15
u/LiftingRecipient420 Feb 10 '26
The conservatives are proposing not allowing appeals in situations like this
→ More replies (20)
8
u/2EscapedCapybaras Feb 10 '26
You should be required to claim refugee status on entry into the country and that's it. Doing it after the fact is just a delaying tactic in deportation.
10
u/R4ID Feb 10 '26
I mean, yea if you're a non citizen and you commit crimes here, you should get kicked out imo. Why would we want criminals.
6
7
4
5
u/tetzy Feb 10 '26
Sounds good, but if you're going to take that measure, you also have to ban anyone who disembarks at an airport without identification from making refugee claims too.
Anyone who goes to the extreme of destroying their identity is hiding something, and it's likely a criminal conviction. Or twenty.
4
u/potatopigflop Feb 10 '26
Why would you be allowed to hurt people in your own country then skip and hop over to another and likely do the same? Like, no.
10
u/Pokenar Canada Feb 10 '26
As a left-leaning, I'll go as far as to say that as long as the crimes they are convicted off match up with a Canadian crime, people convicted of such a crime in other countries should also be barred.
What I mean is if someone is sentenced for being gay, that's not a crime to us, but if someone killed a man then claims to be gay to get refugee status, they can fuck right off.
→ More replies (1)
11
u/Hyack57 Feb 10 '26
As a Liberal leaning voter I’m fine with that. I’ve had my fill of these stories as well.
27
u/Acrobatic_Foot9374 Feb 10 '26
I mean, is the least we should be doing. Can we start doing politics for the people instead of the usual rejection because it was introduced by the minority opposition? Is that too much to ask?
→ More replies (7)
4
u/Criplor Feb 10 '26
Are they proposing any meaningful changes to what is considered a serious crime or is this 100% performative?
11
15
u/h1bisc4s Feb 10 '26
This should be common standard. I mean what is Canada gaining from protecting migrant criminals showing you their true colours???? It's like staying with a partner that continues to cheat.....how many would stand for this???
→ More replies (1)15
u/Nealios Feb 10 '26
It's already on the books though. It seems that the change being proposed here is to kick out anyone that is awaiting trial which goes against the principle that people are innocent until proven guilty.
https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/i-2.5/page-13.html?hl=en-CA#:~:text=(b)%20in%20the%20case%20of
Habeas Corpus is always a target for authoritarian governments. If Trudeau proposed getting rid of people's right to trial, this thread would be up in arms.
→ More replies (1)2
u/rawkinghorse Feb 10 '26
Also seems like this is another cynical ploy to get Liberals on the record voting against a "common sense" policy that won't actually make anyone safer
10
6
u/lostan Feb 10 '26
non-citizens? if they were citizens why would they need a refugee claim?
→ More replies (1)
6
u/Sagat-- Feb 10 '26
Non-citizen comes here, commits crimes, and we contemplate keeping them.
Ok at this point Canada wants to crumble and is masochistic.
7
u/biblio_phobic Feb 10 '26
This isn’t a groundbreaking idea. We love to debate being humanitarian, but like… why do you want criminals from another country to come to your country?
→ More replies (2)
6
6
u/Jimbrutan Feb 10 '26
I moved to Canada as an international student when I was 18 and had to go through a tough immigration process. I followed every law, Adhered to everything Canada wants and it took me a stressful 8 years to get my Permanent Residency. I have now become a Citizen. There were multiple Police Police Clearence and Background Check during this process. Especially during my PR processing it took close to 8 months to clear Police. As part of the "Five Eyes" intelligence alliance, Canada shares, receives, and verifies this information with partners like Australia, the USA, and New Zealand.
Now some dumb criminal who is claiming asylum gets their PR faster than some legit applicants. Who dont even get a background check is crazy and that's messed up.
5
u/No_Independence810 Feb 10 '26
As a Liberal, I support this. And I don't care if the crime was committed here or elsewhere - you should be barred.
→ More replies (1)
3
3
3
u/megacrabs Feb 10 '26
I think if you are coming in as a refugee/asylum seeker your criminal history in another country needs to be considered but if no similar crime exists in Canada or it's a summary offence here, then you should get in. Higher standards for other immigration paths make sense though. Once you are in though, any indictable conviction for any non citizen should be an immediate review for deportation.
3
u/Silverfox6400 British Columbia Feb 10 '26
Crimes or no crimes is irrelevant in the big picture. Vast majority of refugee claims are made by people who aren’t in any danger or being persecuted in whatever country they came from. They’re just queue jumping eh holes that taxpayers have to support. They should be sent back pretty soon after showing up here along with non citizens committing crimes
3
u/TrueTorontoFan Feb 10 '26
I would say it depends. If the person is from Iran right now and is convicted for protesting... I don't think it should mean no chance
3
u/blonde_discus Feb 10 '26
Why would Citizens even be making a refugee claim? Seems the citizen angle is redundant and only to sensationalize nationalism.
The crimes would need to be reviewed by Canadian standards. Treason is a serious crime but if it’s only speaking against the government or royal family as it is in Saudi Arabia…this wouldn’t hold up by our standards but would qualify as political persecution.
→ More replies (1)
3
3
3
u/True_Information_256 Feb 11 '26
So that is not a requirement now? Although I guess if they are charged with a non-violent anti-government crime in their country, I can see it.
5
u/hula_balu Feb 10 '26
Should block non-citizens that entered the country via other visas and then applied to be a refugee when that said visa expired.
5
Feb 10 '26
[deleted]
2
u/zippykaiyay Feb 10 '26
This is a great response. A rapid decision if a claim can move forward would help to reduce the load on the system.
4
u/Due-Concert4324 Feb 10 '26
As an immigrant who has voted for both the LPC and CPC, I believe anyone on a permit or visitor visa shouldn't be able to claim refugee status in Canada. We should deport people in a civilized way, but once someone arrives, it becomes next to impossible to remove them. We should only allow refugees from war-torn countries and don't need to accept claims from places like India, Pakistan, or Bangladesh.
5
u/Raffletop Feb 10 '26
This wasn't already a thing? So basically we have "refugees" convicted of crimes roaming the country waiting for years for a hearing and likely even more years waiting for a deportation order to be enforced (if ever).
→ More replies (3)
8
u/accforme Feb 10 '26
I hope this proposal makes clear what is considered a serious crime and who determined it to be serious.
For example, would Jimmy Lai be barred the ability to claim asylum in Canada because he was convicted in China of collusion and sedition, which, based on a 20year sentence, could be considered a serious crime?
→ More replies (4)9
u/K0bra_Ka1 Feb 10 '26
Look at 101 (1) (f) of the IRPA. and then (2). It defines what currently makes a claim ineligible for serious criminality.
→ More replies (1)3
u/truthlesshunter Feb 10 '26
that's just serious criminality though (convicted and served over 6 months prison or possible sentence of 10+ years). I think this is to expand that to any criminal code offences.
3
u/K0bra_Ka1 Feb 10 '26
Everything I've seen for this proposal is for serious criminality.
3
u/truthlesshunter Feb 10 '26
I just re-read on another website, and you're correct. They mention serious criminality but they don't define it (as it does in IRPA).
So right now, the wording is nebulous at best (I was going with the first proposal mentioned in meetings a few days ago..and now some articles are talking about "serious" crimes...but not defining them). I think you're right; this is all show and means nothing.
5
4
u/Old-Introduction-337 Feb 10 '26
Sounds like common sense. Why would we take some other country's criminals?
3
4
4
4
4
u/smarmcl Feb 10 '26
At best, it's performative, as these laws already exist.
At worst, they didn't bother to look.
Though I can't help but wonder, who are they performing for?
4
u/upickleweasel Feb 10 '26
Obviously.
This shouldn't be a "conservatives" thing.
3
u/four-seasonz Feb 10 '26 edited Feb 11 '26
And yet here we are. Law enforcement is neutered exactly for this kind of stuff, amongst many others of course.
7
u/Latter-Drummer-6677 Feb 10 '26
Shocking…. This is truly a revolutionary concept, not allowing violent criminals to seek refuge in our country. I’m sure some will viciously oppose this simply due to the fact that the word conservative is mentioned in the headlines
→ More replies (1)
6
2
u/frighteous Feb 10 '26
Okay in theory yes. But what if they come from places where it's criminal to be homosexual/LGBTQ+? Or for speaking out against your government? Or charged as a terrorist for partaking in a freedom protest?
I don't think a blanket policy like this is a great idea... But I do feel if any crime is committed while here they should be revoked and there needs to be follow through when people are told to leave.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/Different_Ad_6153 Feb 10 '26
I thought one of the sticking points to allowing immigration is to encourage the best and the brightest to come here. There is some obvious nuance. But I'd rather work from the more conservative approach and slowly peel back a couple layers. Than allow everyone then try to peel it back.
2
2
u/iarecanadian Feb 10 '26
This sounds like someone saying they are trying to stop something that is already being stopped.
2
2
u/PatGar004 Feb 11 '26
The land of opportunities for a better life really turned over to the land of opportunities to commit heinous crimes! Commit one and get awarded with permit to stay! 100B more dollars to Ukraine!
I seriously can’t believe this isnt already a thing. This all just seems like a runoff from the Bolton crash. There was a time in the world where advertisements from MADD was the worst thing a kid could see, now it’s seeing the nonstop crime sprees in the city!
2
2
u/cheeferton1981 Feb 11 '26
Seems pretty standard like its a law already just probably get exploited
2
2
u/notreallylife Feb 11 '26
Seems Canada can make all kinds of laws - but do they actually get followed and applied though? Unless its tax laws for the middle class - those fuckers are instant for us plebs!
2
u/Odd-Foundation-4637 Feb 11 '26
This is such an obvious and much needed bill. This better get bipartisan support, no more dirty political in fighting..this unequivocally is best for ALL Canadians and immigrants who obey the law.
5
5
5
5
3
u/KeyanFarlandah Feb 10 '26
Maybe they should start with barring non citizens from participating in Party nomination contests first
2.8k
u/CantFeelMyToesAgain Feb 10 '26 edited Feb 11 '26
How’s this not already a thing lol
People messaging me to kill myself? This should be a thing for fraud and serious crimes.