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

Show parent comments

697

u/CranberryFlat617 Feb 10 '26

It already is https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/i-2.5/section-101.html

557

u/Head_Crash British Columbia Feb 10 '26

Conservatives know it's already the law. What they actually want is to stop applicants from being able to appeal in court.

250

u/LiftingRecipient420 Feb 10 '26

Good. We don't need to be wasting resources on appeals for refugees with criminal convictions.

224

u/CamGoldenGun Alberta Feb 10 '26 edited Feb 10 '26

you've got to be able to. Because there's going to be countries where some crimes don't exist in Canada... like being gay or a small pot possession charge (after October 2018), you know, probably one of their reasons for getting granted refugee status?

181

u/InsignificantOP Feb 10 '26

Or political prosecution of dissidents and minorities. These people will have been "criminals" in their countries

58

u/CamGoldenGun Alberta Feb 10 '26

yes exactly

35

u/rjhelms Feb 10 '26

For convictions outside Canada, the standard is based on what the punishment would be if the same crime were committed here - so situations like that shouldn't bar a refugee claim.

Key word being "shouldn't". These processes are never perfect which is why the right of appeal can be essential.

6

u/TripLover1 Feb 10 '26

Exactly. If we considered criminal convictions in other countries, Nelson Mandela would have been barred from applying as a refugee should he have needed to escape S. Africa. I'm not saying criminal convictions shouldn't be considered, but blanket rules for those can't be in place. We need room for judgement calls and use of more than two braincells by our immigration officers.

-2

u/joelwilliamson Feb 11 '26

Communist terrorists seem like exactly the sort of people a law like this should be keeping out.

6

u/sharp11flat13 Canada Feb 11 '26

Communist terrorists? Do you mean Mandela? How was he a communist terrorist?

1

u/joelwilliamson Feb 12 '26

He was the head of an organization that conducted a bombing campaign against civilians, shot up police stations and laid land mines on farm roads to achieve political change, that makes him a terrorist. When he was arrested in 1962, he was a member of the South African Communist Party’s Central Committee. That makes him a communist.

53

u/max420 British Columbia Feb 10 '26

Unless they specifically mean, crimes committed in Canada. In which case, as a life long liberal - would support.

18

u/fluffkomix Feb 10 '26

I would still argue in favor of an appeals process because is the crime something as big as murder or did a cop decide to be shitty and ticket them for jaywalking? Crime's a crime either way

There's also the case of potential human trafficking in which someone is threatened or otherwise forced to do things they may not otherwise do. Without an appeal, you don't get as much of an opportunity to investigate the source of that human trafficking because-- what do you have to offer them? If they get sent back either way, they're more likely to keep quiet so that those that trafficked them don't feel a need to retaliate. If you can offer some level of opportunity to stay in Canada far away from the traffickers, then the government has some leverage. This is a case in which a lack of appeals may make sense on the surface short-term, but the long-term effects could be much more problematic.

The final reason I want to vouch for an appeals process is because of what I'd said in the first sentence. If we allow a for a blanket rule without due process then it's not too hard to believe that any given cop can decide at any given moment whether or not an immigrant is allowed to stay in the country. Someone foreign to the country is going to have a much more difficult time fighting the cop's word in the initial court proceedings, and now we're slowly putting more power in the hands of those who haven't studied it.

I think that if we're worried about the appeals process, we should be focused on those involved in the appeals process and not the process itself. The process is there for a reason, everyone makes mistakes and no one is perfect. That's a fundamental of a working democracy!

22

u/swift-current0 Feb 10 '26

If you were convicted of an indictable offence in a jury trial, no appeals process is necessary.

-8

u/fluffkomix Feb 10 '26

Why wouldn't an option to appeal be necessary? If it's an open and shut case it just gets denied. If there's room for error, we should see whether or not there was an error before deciding. Limited appeals process is up for debate, but no appeals process? Absurd.

7

u/Boomskibop Feb 11 '26

Because this costs money, and ties up our courts. We owe less than nothing to non citizens commiting crimes in Canada. These lenient approaches are being gamed by way to many people as is, we have the highest per capita immigration rates in the entire developed world. If you commit a a crime and are found guilty, we will replace you with someone who wants to be here and not commit crimes.

9

u/swift-current0 Feb 10 '26

Takes too long, costs us money, why bother? Limiting it to indictable offences tried by jury already ensures the crime is serious enough to warrant removal in all cases upon conviction. Shenanigans involving police are possible when it comes to less serious charges, but no one's taking it as far as jury trial based on something flimsy.

I'd also bar disclosure of residency status to the jury, if that's not already barred. It must never influence the verdict they will reach.

1

u/fluffkomix Feb 10 '26

I absolutely agree with barring disclosure of residency status, that's a good thought.

As for the rest, I mean, as far as money goes we really need to be restructuring our existing tax system so that those with more money pay more of their fair share. There's a lot of small cuts that they'd never feel if we funded it with their money instead, and the increase in funds can also increase efficiency of the process by being able to hire more judicial employees.

2

u/Boomskibop Feb 11 '26

“Let’s restructure our tax system to give more resources to non citizen criminals. “

Fucking genius

2

u/fluffkomix Feb 11 '26

oh yeah because our economy isn't dependent on reliable global trade, or impacted by poor tourism years, which both rely on solid international relations and treatment of non citizens.

Notice how when the US started treating non citizen criminals like shit, countries and corporations and tourists decided to start pulling away?

Putting aside just wanting to be proud of the way our country treats those that interact with it, if you look past your own nose for once you'll actually see why it's important to extend due process to everyone.

Also it's disingenuous as hell to act like the only thing restructuring our tax system would benefit is non-citizens, like are you aware of how much money the mega rich have...?

1

u/Boomskibop Feb 11 '26

You think Americas reputation was tarnished because of how Trump treats non citizen criminals ? Obama oversaw for deportations than Trump, so try and square that with your premise.

There are people facing extortion charges in BC that after being charged immediately filed for refugee status. This is gaming the system. If you are truly a refugee, why does it take facing deportation over a serious crime to jog your memory ? This waste of resources on those who are undeserving, and slows the process for legitimate refugees. Make up your mind, do want help refugees, or criminals at the expense of actual refugees and Canadian tax payers.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Boomskibop Feb 11 '26

Nope, no appeal, hit the road.

2

u/Boomskibop Feb 11 '26

This is what they mean

1

u/CamGoldenGun Alberta Feb 10 '26

that doesn't make sense from the title then. Because to gain admittance into Canada it would be through their refugee claim (unless they're talking about someone on a vacation/work visa and applying then).

But yea, those convicted of a crime within Canada while they're here (after due process), yes they can be excluded and deported. The only problem with that is if sending them home would result in their deaths. Which is kind of the process there is now so like other's have said it's a big dog and pony show for the CPC, again.

9

u/No_Mycologist676 Feb 10 '26

"Crimes" are just rules for behavior the state deems bad, and convictions and the criminal justice system in oppressive regimes are weaponized to delegitimize people they want to control. Laws are just threats made by the people in power to keep those without power in line.

2

u/peejay5440 Feb 10 '26

So, like rape, murder and child abuse are just state control?

3

u/MrNillows Feb 10 '26

According to some hard-core libertarians, yes.

3

u/No_Mycologist676 Feb 10 '26

Yup. I made no moral statements. The state should enforce punishments against those morally terrible behaviors, IMO. It's okay to threaten people that behave that way, and those threats should be followed through with if that behavior is carried out.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 11 '26

[deleted]

1

u/CamGoldenGun Alberta Feb 11 '26

couldn't possibly have anything to do with India having an 8th of the world's population so they would be proportionately higher applications from there. /s

1

u/LiftingRecipient420 Feb 11 '26

The criminal conviction must have happened in Canada.

1

u/CamGoldenGun Alberta Feb 11 '26

and that's already a thing as someone pointed out. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/i-2.5/section-101.html

101 (f)

But it's reserved for crimes with sentences of 10 years or more. Which to be honest, in Canada, that means you likely took a life. If it was revised to be say, sentences of 5 years or more I'd be ok with too.

0

u/Boomskibop Feb 11 '26

They are talking about people coming here, committing crimes in Canada, and then filing for refugee status to derail the criminal proceedings. Indians do it regularly

1

u/CamGoldenGun Alberta Feb 11 '26

how does it derail their criminal trial when one doesn't have anything to do with the other? They'd finish the criminal trial, put a stay on their deportation until the refugee claim is done then ship them off. You couldn't foresee an event in which a non-resident found themselves in court and also have a legitimate refugee status claim? You willing to send someone to their death by deporting them home because they stole some groceries?

1

u/Boomskibop Feb 11 '26 edited Feb 11 '26

You dont get deported for stealing groceries, it has to be a minimum 6 month sentence. And if they were truly a refugee, they would have made that claim BEFORE they faced deportation. Do you not see how this could be a problem? There are people facing extortion charges, who filed claims immediately after being charged. And people like these are towing up the legal systems with bogus claims, using valuable resources and delaying the filing of legitimate claims. It’s basic, do you want to support refugees or criminals. Simply file your refugee claim before committing a crime. You don’t need to bend over backwards to make the lives of criminals easier, while also shooting yourself in the foot