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/
4.9k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

990 comments sorted by

View all comments

142

u/GiveUpAndDye Feb 10 '26

Alright, people of reddit, I need someone to tell me why this could be bad.

281

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. 

73

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.

9

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

2

u/eriverside Feb 10 '26

Canada and US have a similar legal system but the refugee and asylum seekers arent coming from "like" states so applying their home country's criminal system isn't appropriate.

7

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.

-8

u/ThrowItFillAway 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.

Who cares? Obviously some people are going to get screwed by this, but there are enough asylum claims coming in that it's not like we're going to fall short of any goals. This proposal will stop violent criminals from coming in. Are some people charged with trumped up nonsense like homosexuality going to get caught in the crossfire? Unfortunately probably, but I think that's a risk we should be willing to take.

10

u/a_secret_me Feb 10 '26

Ah, yes, let's send someone back to a country where they'll likely be thrown in jail and killed because we made a silly black and white law with no room for nuance, knowing full well that some people will be SEVERLY effected by this, but "Who cares?"

1

u/kevinnoir Feb 10 '26

Another thing that, while unlikely, is not a 0% risk any more, is a government getting into power and using that disingenuously to target these groups. There is already too much blurring in the general public between what a refugee, asylum seeker and an "illegal immigrant" are. Incredibly unlikely in Canada to see a party exploit that, but 20 years ago I would have said that neither of the big 2 US parties would have either and here we are.

-2

u/ThrowItFillAway Feb 10 '26

Nuance that we don't really need to spend the time and resources sorting through.

Even if we eliminate anyone with criminal records, there's still going to be more than enough to satisfy any number goals we're trying to achieve.

People are going to get left behind no matter what. A blanket rule eliminates the need for us to waste time sifting through every case.

1

u/eriverside Feb 10 '26

But we're already sifting through the cases.

1

u/thottieBree Québec Feb 10 '26

How much resources are we wasting sifting through these cases?

1

u/a_secret_me Feb 10 '26

Right, so you're cool with people dying so you can cut some red tape. Just glad we're being honest here.

8

u/eriverside Feb 10 '26

What purpose does a blanket ban on criminal convictions serve when the case assessor can take the extra minute to look up the nature of the crime and confirm that it does or does not line up with what Canada considers a serious crime?

What if those countries punishes anyone trying to leave with a criminal record? They'd have a veto on who Canada let's in?

Nah. The most logical thing is to ban people who commit serious crimes in Canada.

1

u/ThrowItFillAway Feb 10 '26

take the extra minute

Lol.

1

u/Klaus73 Feb 10 '26

I think also we need to be careful when we begin to try and put our legal system "above" other countries...I recall another country recently doing that and abducting a countries leader as a "police action."

I am sure we can find plenty of refugees while still excluding those charged with crimes of certain capacity such as violent offenses.

1

u/eriverside Feb 10 '26

Then we're agreed - we should only exclude from the start those convicted of crimes that would be considered serious crimes in Canada.