TSCE #10(B): Sanctuary Cities, An End Run Around Having Borders

(Andrea Horwath ran to be Ontario Premier. She offered the entire Province of Ontario to become a “sanctuary” Province)

(Canadian Labour Congress supports sanctuary cities)

(HuffPo Author Defends Open Borders)

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

There is a lot already covered in the TSCE series. Many of the laws politicians pass absolutely ensure this obscenity will continue. Also, take a look at the Border Security topic for some extra background, and the NGOs who are supporting open borders.

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for 2004-2018 Immigration Reports to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for Canada’s immigration now at 1M/year.
CLICK HERE, for mass migration during high unemployment.
CLICK HERE, for remittances and brain drain.
CLICK HERE, for article on U.S. amnesties, illegal immigration.

CLICK HERE, for Andrea Horwath, Ontario NDP leader, supporting making Ontario a “Sanctuary Province”, but refusing to release cost estimates.
CLICK HERE, for Canadian Labour Congress.
CLICK HERE, for Toronto Sun article on costs of illegal immigration.

CLICK HERE, for Montreal becoming a sanctuary city.
CLICK HERE, for Huffington Post article defending sanctuary cities.

3. Horwath Supports Sanctuary Ontario

NDP Leader Andrea Horwath dodged questions Tuesday about how much her campaign promise to declare Ontario a “sanctuary province” for illegal migrants and refugee claimants will cost taxpayers.

Instead, she said providing public services without asking questions about anyone’s legal status in Ontario, or co-operating with federal authorities to determine it, is the humane thing to do.

During the 2018 Provincial election campaign in Ontario, NDP Leader Andrea Horwath campaigned on (among other things), turning Ontario into a sanctuary province. She claimed providing social services to people with no legal right to be in the country was “humane”. Unsurprisingly, she refused to tell the public how much it would cost, fearing a backlash.

To be fair however, Conservative leader Doug Ford supported Toronto becoming a sanctuary city. So did his brother, Rob Ford. Both men claimed to be “populists” yet supported giving illegal aliens (with no right to be in the country), the right to remain in Toronto and receive taxpayer funded services. It also needs to be said that John Tory, the current mayor of Toronto, supports sanctuary cities as well. He used to be the leader of the Conservative Party of Ontario.

Conservatives supporting sanctuary cities in Ontario? Guess they figure the economic growth will offset the erosion of borders and identity.

4. Canadian Labour Congress Supports Sanctuary Cities, 200-500K Illegals

There are an estimated 200,000 to 500,000 non-status migrants in Canada.

Non-status migrants of course is a euphemism for illegal alien/illegal immigrant. It would be interesting to get a source for that estimate. A Toronto Sun article also quoted the 200K to 500K estimate of illegals, but did not provide a source.

Non-status Migrants in Canadian Municipalities
In Canada, non-status migrants live and work in profound and constant fear.

No kidding. They are in the country illegally.

If they are detected, detained, and deported by immigration officers, their lives and families would be uprooted and their chance to be part of our communities and country destroyed. Social isolation and ever-present fear of detection and deportation makes them an “invisible” population in our communities and can take a very heavy toll on their physical and mental health.

So, should we turn a blind eye to this law breaking just because it would greatly inconvenience the people who are doing it?

Migrants also experience increased insecurity and violence as a result of the rise of racism, Islamophobia, and anti-immigrant sentiment. Having sanctuary city designations in municipalities from coast to coast to coast will not only place Canada on the map with respect to responding to a global crisis, it will also mean that Canadian municipalities are taking an active stand against racism and xenophobia.

Rise in anti-immigrant sentiment? Yes, because they are in the country illegally. Nice job of conflating legal and illegal. For a union that claims to represent 3 million people, it’s scary how little it thinks of existing laws.

5. HuffPo Author: Borders As Undemocratic

Sanctuary cities are more than a series of flawed municipal laws and administrative directives. They represent an opportunity to strengthen communities, foster democratic participation, and reframe political organization.

“Sanctuary cities” is a loose term that applies to cities refusing to cooperate with federal authorities to enforce national immigration law. In the U.S. and Canada, so-called don’t-ask-don’t-tell policies ban municipal service agencies from asking residents for immigration status and — if they happen to find out anyway — from providing this information to federal authorities. In this way, sanctuary cities aim to provide policing, health, housing and other municipal services to the residents who lack federal citizenship or immigration status. These cities are defining membership based on who lives in their urban community, and not who can be classified as worthy based on federal status.

This is what sanctuary cities are trying to achieve: they imagine the city as a democratic space where everyone is included and can politically participate. Sanctuary cities refuse to label some residents deserving and others unwanted because of federal status. All residents — independent of national status — belong in the city.

The current fight in the U.S. over sanctuary city policies reflects a wider struggle over democracy and political inclusion, with cities mitigating the effects of failing national policies. When national leaders such as Donald Trump are challenging the core values of democracy, sanctuary cities are stepping in to defend the principles of liberty and inclusion at the local scale. Cities are proving to be the last bastion of safety for the “huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

Even for Huffington post, this is nonsense. Apparently, being in the country illegally is nothing to be concerned about. Being treated differently for being here illegally is discrimination. Sanctuary cities are a way to redress this grievance.

Donald Trump is challenging the core values of democracy? So are illegal aliens entitled to voting rights? Are they entitled to weigh in on democratic affairs, despite being in the country illegally?

Residents belong in the city, regardless of immigration status? Okay, then why bother with borders at all? Is seems that borders are discriminatory.

Obvious question: sanctuary cities are the last vestige for people yearning to breathe free, then why go to these countries at all? They don’t seem very warm and welcoming.

6. 41,000 Illegals To Be Deported Vanish

“The agency’s working inventory contains 22,000 individuals with enforceable removal orders, whose whereabouts are known to the agency. The remaining 41,000 cases are individuals with immigration warrants for removal, whose whereabouts are unknown to the agency,” her report states.

Most of those who have disappeared are believed to be failed refugee claimants. In 2003, it was estimated that there were 36,000 missing illegal immigrants.

The article explains how Auditor General Sheila Fraser in 2008 found that 41,000 out of 63,000 (about 2/3) of those with pending deportation orders have simply disappeared. Nicely done. Wonder how many of them are now hiding in sanctuary cities. Guess we’ll never know.

7. Canucks, Put This In Perspective

As bad as this seems for us Canadians, our situation doesn’t hold a candle to the situation going on in the United States.

8. How Bad In The U.S.A.?

Cities and Counties
California
Alameda County
Berkley
Contra Costa County
Los Angeles County
Los Angeles
Monterey County
Napa County
Oakland
Riverside County
Sacramento County
San Bernardino County
San Diego County
San Francisco
San Francisco County
San Mateo County
Santa Ana
Santa Clara County
Santa Cruz County
Sonoma County
Watsonville

Colorado
Arapahoe County
Aurora
Boulder County
Denver
Denver County
Garfield County
Grand County
Jefferson County
Larimer County
Mesa County
Pitkin County
Pueblo County
Routt County
San Miguel County
Weld County

Connecticut
East Haven
Hartford

Florida
Alachua County
Clay County

Georgia
Clayton County
DeKalb County

Iowa
Benton County
Cass County
Franklin County
Fremont County
Greene County
Ida County
Iowa City
Iowa City, Johnson County
Jefferson County
Marion County
Monona County
Montgomery County
Pottawattamie County
Sioux County

Illinois
Chicago
Cook County

Kansas
Butler County
Harvey County

Louisiana
New Orleans

Massachusetts
Amherst
Boston
Cambridge
Concord
Lawrence
Newton
Northhampton
Somerville

Maryland
Baltimore
Montgomery County
Prince George’s County

Minnesota
Hennepin County

Mississippi
Jackson

Nebraska
Hall County
Sarpy County

New Jersey
Middlesex County
Newark
Ocean County
Union County

New Mexico
Bernalillo County
New Mexico County Jails
San Miguel

Nevada
Washoe County

New York
Albany
Franklin County
Ithaca
Nassau County
New York City
Omondaga County
St. Lawrence County
Wayne County

Oregon
Baker County
Clackamas County
Clatsop County
Coos County
Crook County
Curry County
Deschutes County
Douglas County
Gilliam County
Grant County
Hood River County
Jackson County
Jefferson County
Josephine County
Lane Countyn
Lincoln County
Linn County
Malheur County
Marion County
Marlon County
Multnomah County
Polk County
Sherman County
Springfield
Tillamok County
Umatilla County
Union County
Wallowa County
Wasco County
Washington County
Wheeler County
Yamhill County

Pennsylvania
Bradford County
Bucks County
Butler County
Chester County
Clarion County
Delaware County
Eerie County
Franklin County
Lebanon County
Lehigh County
Lycoming County
Montgomery County
Montour County
Perry County
Philadelphia
Pike County
Westmoreland County

Rhode Island
Providence, Rhode Island
Rhode Island Department of Corrections
Virginia
Arlington County
Chesterfield County
Fairfax County

Vermont
Burlington
Montpelier
Winooski

Washington
Chelan County
Clallam County
Clark County
Cowlitz County
Franklin County
Jefferson County
King County
Kitsap County
Pierce County
San Juan County
Skagit County
Snohomish County
Spokane County
Seattle
Thurston County
Walla Walla County
Wallowa County
Whatcom County
Yakima County

9. Various Legal Challenges

This is far from exhaustive, but here are a few court challenges regarding sanctuary cities.

A Judge has ruled that Tucson, AZ can in fact hold a referendum in making the city a sanctuary city. Opponents are considering an appeal.

A Texas law against sanctuary cities is being challenged in Federal Court. Lawyers claim a variety of constitutional issues.

A lawsuit against a Florida law against sanctuary cities is being challenged in a Federal Court lawsuit.

Efforts to block funding for sanctuary cities has been stopped by a San Francisco, CA, judge.

10. Sanctuary Cities Do End-Run On Borders

The Federal Government (regardless of country) should be the one setting its own border security policies. Certainly immigration is a topic to be openly discussed, but that is not the case here.

Sanctuary cities circumvent national governments by providing social services to people who aren’t even allowed to be the in country in the first place.

It is not “failing to be inclusive” by preventing such cities from happening. Rather, it is respecting the laws and the public.

Certainly the Canadian situation is not nearly as extreme as the American one. We have only a handful of “sanctuary cities”, at least for now. The U.S. has 7 sanctuary STATES, and countless cities and counties.

True Scale of Illegals in US: 22 Million? More Amnesty Coming?

(Research into scope of illegal immigration into US)

(Simpson-Mazzoli Act of 1986)

(George W. Bush’s “Comprehensive Immigration Reform”)

(From Wikipedia, States are flipping blue)

(Former supporter Ann Coulter sours on Trump’s failure to build the wall)

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for a 2018 PLOS study, est. 22.1M illegal aliens in US.
CLICK HERE, for a HILL article on research est. of 22.1M illegals.
CLICK HERE, for RealClearPolitics article on death of U.S. citizenship.
CLICK HERE, for 2019 Pew Research data on illegal aliens.
CLICK HERE, for 2016 Pew Research on methodology.
CLICK HERE, for 1996 to 2017 Department of Homeland Security “yearbook” on entry into the US.
CLICK HERE, for Forbes on health care costs of illegals.
CLICK HERE, for Daily Caller article on education costs.

CLICK HERE, for the Simpson-Mazzoli Act of 1986, amnesty for illegals.
CLICK HERE, for the 7 amnesties passed by U.S. Congress.
CLICK HERE, for George W. Bush’s “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” of 2007. In short, yet another amnesty program.

CLICK HERE, for Ann Coulter, costs of illegal immigration.
CLICK HERE, for MIT/Yale study (2018), estimating 22M illegals.
CLICK HERE, for Bear Stearns (2005) estimates 20M illegals.
CLICK HERE, for Barlett & Steele (2004), estimating 3M cross a year.

2. Context For Canadian Public

Why should Canadians care? After all, this is an American problem.

Selfishness aside, we should care. Illegal immigration is wrong, regardless of where it is happening. And what happens in the U.S. happens here. We share many of the same problems.

It should also make Canadians stop and wonder exactly how many illegal aliens are in Canada. Even beyond illegals, mass LEGAL migration also has the effect of changing the demographics, and altering elections. In fact, the ridings with the most immigration were pretty reliable Liberal voters.

It’s also worth wondering if conservatives in Canada would implement some form of amnesty for illegals already here. Even if the entire Canada/U.S. border is declared a port of entry, it does nothing to deport the illegals already here.

If any sort of amnesty were to be granted, wouldn’t that just provide more incentive to come to Canada or the U.S. by whatever means available?

3. Simpson-Mazzoli Act of 1986 (Reagan Amnesty)

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), Pub.L. 99–603, 100 Stat. 3445, enacted November 6, 1986, also known as the Simpson–Mazzoli Act or the Reagan Amnesty, signed into law by Ronald Reagan on November 6, 1986, is an Act of Congress which reformed United States immigration law. The Act
-required employers to attest to their employees’ immigration status;
-made it illegal to hire or recruit illegal immigrants knowingly;
legalized certain seasonal agricultural undocumented immigrants, and;
legalized undocumented immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and had resided there continuously with the penalty of a fine, back taxes due, and admission of guilt; candidates were required to prove that they were not guilty of crimes, that they were in the country before January 1, 1982, and that they possessed at least a minimal knowledge about U.S. history, government, and the English language.
At the time, the Immigration and Naturalization Service estimated that about four million illegal immigrants would apply for legal status through the act and that roughly half of them would be eligible.

Ronald Reagan, who identifies as a “conservative” gave amnesty to 3 million illegals (by some estimates).

Worth noting is that Reagan had overwhelming majorities in his 1984 landslide win. He was not pressured into doing this by Democrats.

Look at the above two U.S. maps. This is what replacement migration has done. It is what amnesty for illegals has done. Several U.S. States have “turned blue” permanently.

Ronald Reagan’s amnesty policies turned California blue (and started the trend). Yet conservatives don’t seem to care that he did nothing to conserve the Republican voting base.

4. Amnesty Measures Over The Years

The Seven Amnesties Passed by Congress
1. Immigration and Reform Control Act (IRCA), 1986: A blanket amnesty for some 2.7 million illegal aliens
2. Section 245(i) Amnesty, 1994: A temporary rolling amnesty for 578,000 illegal aliens
3. Section 245(i) Extension Amnesty, 1997: An extension of the rolling amnesty created in 1994
4. Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) Amnesty, 1997: An amnesty for close to one million illegal aliens from Central America
5. Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act Amnesty (HRIFA), 1998: An amnesty for 125,000 illegal aliens from Haiti
6. Late Amnesty, 2000: An amnesty for some illegal aliens who claim they should have been amnestied under the 1986 IRCA amnesty, an estimated 400,000 illegal aliens
7. LIFE Act Amnesty, 2000: A reinstatement of the rolling Section 245(i) amnesty, an estimated 900,000 illegal aliens

Source is here. As you can see, it never stopped at just one amnesty. There was always another group to be considered.

While items 2-7 in fact were signed into law by Bill Clinton (a Democrat), it’s worth pointing out that Reagan, a Republican, was the one who started the trend in 1986. Furthermore, Reagan wouldn’t be the last “conservative” to propose blanket amnesty policies for illegal aliens.

As with Reagan, Clinton seems to have no issue with granting mass amnesties, even while the border is still not secure. This surely means that

5. Bush’s “Comprehensive Immigration Reform”

3. To Secure Our Border, We Must Create A Temporary Worker Program
America’s Immigration Problem Will Not Be Solved With Security Measures Alone. There are many people on the other side of our borders who will do anything to come to America to work and build a better life. This dynamic creates tremendous pressure on our border that walls and patrols alone cannot stop.

As We Tighten Controls At The Border, We Must Also Address The Needs Of America’s Growing Economy. The rule of law cannot permit unlawful employment of millions of undocumented workers in the United States. Many American businesses, however, depend on hiring willing foreign workers for jobs that Americans are not doing.

If you read between the lines, Bush has a solution in mind: many or most of the illegal aliens in the U.S. can be put to work, and made to be productive.

But as long as they have economic value, I suppose. Ignore the demographic changes. Ignore the voting changes that will happen. Ignore the culture clash, and tension. Ignore the slap in the face that it causes to people who come to the U.S. legally.

4. We Must Bring Undocumented Workers Already In The Country Out Of The Shadows
Comprehensive Immigration Reform Must Account For The Millions Of Immigrants Already In The Country Illegally. Illegal immigration causes serious problems, putting pressure on public schools and hospitals and straining State and local budgets. People who have worked hard, supported their families, avoided crime, led responsible lives, and become a part of American life should be called in out of the shadows and under the rule of American law.

The President Opposes An Automatic Path To Citizenship Or Any Other Form Of Amnesty. Amnesty, as a reward for lawbreaking, would only invite further lawbreaking. Amnesty would also be unfair to those lawful immigrants who have patiently waited their turn for citizenship and to those who are still waiting to enter the country legally.

The President Supports A Rational Middle Ground Between A Program Of Mass Deportation And A Program Of Automatic Amnesty. It is neither wise nor realistic to round up and deport millions of illegal immigrants in the United States. But there should be no automatic path to citizenship. The President supports a rational middle ground founded on the following basic tenets:

Some quotes from the White House, on the subject. Despite the explicit denials, this “is” an amnesty program. Stating publicly that there will not be mass deportations means existing laws will not be enforced. Saying you can work for legalization in fact is the reward that people have crossed the border illegally to get in the first place.

It never seems to dawn on successive administrations that rewarding people for breaking the law only encourages more lawbreaking to happen.

Or more likely, they know but don’t care. There seems to be another agenda at play.

Thankfully, this “reform” eventually fell through. However, Bush also seemed to only pay lip service to the idea of real border security. As long as the U.S./Mexico border is porous, people will keep coming illegally. This reality is undeniable.

6. Donald Trump and “Build The Wall”

Donald Trump (narrowly) defeated Hillary Clinton in November 2016 to win the White House. One major campaign was to build a wall across the U.S./Mexico border. This pledge proved extremely popular, as American are tired of continued illegal immigration, and want a secure border.

However, even Trump’s most vocal supporters have had to face the reality that it wasn’t getting done. 2 years into his mandate, with Republican control of both Houses of Congress, nothing had been built. To be fair though, some Republicans were obstructionist.

While some new parts have been added since the 2018 Midterms, and some existing structures replaced, it seems to fall far short of what supporters were expecting.

7. Financial Costs Of Illegal Immigration

There is a lot of conflicting information of the actual costs to the American public. However, here is one statistic. Forbes estimates that the U.S. public subsidizes health care for illegals to the tune of $18.5 billion per year.

Another estimate comes from the Daily Caller, and suggests that it costs about $44 billion per year to educate children illegally in the country.

That doesn’t even include crime data, which can be tricky to find.

8. Voting Trends By Demographics

It foolish to ignore demographic patterns when it comes to voting. Leftist parties push for more immigration at least in part because they believe it will result in more voters. Hence this will result in better election results.

They aren’t wrong. These patterns absolutely do exist. Could be why leftists have little to no interest in securing the borders. Conservatives have little interest either, but that is economically driven.

In this sense, though, it seems to make no real difference if people have immigrated legally, or are illegals given amnesty. The result is still more voters.

In liberal states like New Jersey, illegals are eligible to obtain driver’s licenses. This is despite (by definition) being in the country illegally. And how do we know they aren’t voting illegally?

9. Illegal Immigration Hurts Everyone

Illegal aliens do access social services that they haven’t paid into. This limits resources for citizens who are in the nation illegally, and who have been paying in.

Undermining the borders is an assault on national sovereignty. Rewarding them with a pathway to citizenship only encourages more of it. Americans are sick and tired of politicians who have little to no interest in enforcing border security.

As for the argument that this generates extra tax revenue: How do you pay U.S. taxes without a Social Security Number? How do you get an SSN without legal status? Even if taxes were withheld, they most likely went into the employer’s pocket.

A possible 22 million people in the country illegally. A nice potential voting bloc, if only they could be given amnesty.

Canada, how many do we have?

10. Ann Coulter Estimates Much Higher

Author and political commentator Ann Coulter suggests that even the 22 million figure is lowballed. She gives various estimates, including that it could be 30-60 million all told. She makes 2 very valid points:

(1) Previous estimates based on self-reporting.
(2) Numbers haven’t changed much over the years, despite continued entries.

That will be the subject of a piece all its own.

TSCE #7: Abuse of S3CA & Coming To Canada Under False Pretenses

CLICK HERE, for previous article on the Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement (signed in 2002)

1. Interesting Cases

(1) CLICK HERE, for a marriage of convenience.
Liang v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, 2014 CanLII 90636 (CA IRB)

(2) CLICK HERE, for committing identity fraud in order to gain entry to Canada.
Shaikh v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2018 CanLII 89040 (CA IRB)

(3) CLICK HERE, for an actual terrorist wanting to stay in Canada.
Singh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1997 CanLII 5893 (FC)

(4) CLICK HERE, for a failed US asylum seeker, relying on falsified psychological documents.
X (Re), 2016 CanLII 152912 (CA IRB)

(5) CLICK HERE, for a failed US asylum seeker changing his story this time.
X (Re), 2013 CanLII 99499 (CA IRB)

(6) CLICK HERE, for an Indian man claiming to be from Tibet to gain asylum (Mariam Monself, take note).
X (Re), 2014 CanLII 100882 (CA IRB)

(7) CLICK HERE, for a “refugee” who lived illegally in the US for 14 years, then trying to claim asylum in Canada
X (Re), 2015 CanLII 44019 (CA IRB)

(8) CLICK HERE, for a wanted fugitive from China trying to get asylum in Canada.
X (Re), 2015 CanLII 107837 (CA IRB)

These 8 cases are just a small sample of the tidal wave of fraudulent “refugee” claims that have been made over the last several years. Although many get rejected, many still get through. This happens even when adjudicators admit that applicants have been deceptive.

2. UN Promotes Abuse Of S3CA

CLICK HERE, for the UN link.

Exceptions to the Safe Third Country Agreement with Canada

The U.S. and Canada have an agreement preventing people who first enter one country from applying for asylum or refugee status in the other. This means that if you entered the U.S. first and then try to apply for asylum in Canada, you may not be able to. However, there are exceptions to the agreement that may allow you to apply for asylum in Canada, even if you came to the U.S. first. For one thing, this agreement only applies to you if you are planning on arriving at entry ports on the U.S.-Canada land border. It does not apply if you plan on arriving in Canada at air or marine ports.

The following questions will determine whether you meet any of the exceptions that will allow you to apply for asylum in Canada at a U.S.-Canada land border even if you arrived in the U.S. first.

EXCEPTION # 1 Land Border Entry Ports Only

Are you going to arrive in Canada from a land border?

NO ==> You qualify under this exception!

YES ==> You do not qualify under this exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.

EXCEPTION # 2 Family Connections in Canada

Do you have any of the following family members in Canada?

  • A spouse
  • A common-law partner (a common law partner is person of the same or opposite sex with whom you are cohabiting in a conjugal relationship and have cohabited for at least a year.)
  • A legal guardian
  • A child
  • A father or mother
  • A brother or sister
  • A grandfather or grandmother
  • A grandchild
  • An uncle or aunt
  • A nephew or niece

NO ==> You do not qualify under this exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.

YES ==> Is your family member any of the following?

  • A Canadian citizen
  • A permanent resident
  • A protected person (i.e. determined to be a refugee or a person in need of protection)
  • Accepted in principle on humanitarian and compassionate grounds (removal order stayed under Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations 233)
  • 18 years of age or over and is a refugee claimant (and the claim has not been rejected, withdrawn, found abandoned or ineligible)
  • 18 years of age or over and is in Canada on a work permit or study permit (but check the exceptions)
  • YES ==> You qualify under this exception!
    NO ==> You do not qualify under this exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.

    EXCEPTION # 3 Unaccompanied Minor
    Are you under 18?
    NO ==> You do not qualify under the unaccompanied minor exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.
    YES ==> Were you accompanied here by your father, mother, or legal guardian? Are you married? Is your father, mother, or legal guardian in Canada or the United States?

    If NO to all these questions ==> You qualify under this exception!
    If YES to any of these questions ==> You do not qualify under this exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.

    EXCEPTION # 4 Countries to which Canada Does Not Remove

    Are you a national of any of the following countries?

    • Afghanistan
    • Burundi
    • Democratic Republic of Congo
    • Haiti
    • Iraq
    • Liberia
    • Rwanda
    • Zimbabwe

    NO ==> You do not qualify under this exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.

    YES ==> Have you been convicted of any crimes?

    NO ==> You qualify under this exception!

    YES ==> You may not qualify under this exception. Canada does not admit people who have been convicted of certain crimes. Whether you qualify under this exception depends on the type of crime(s) you were convicted of.

    EXCEPTION # 5 Death Penalty

    Have you been charged or convicted of an offence punishable with the death penalty in the country?

    YES ==> You MAY qualify under this exception. Canada does not admit people who have been convicted of certain crimes. Whether you qualify under this exception depends on the type of crime(s) you were convicted of.

    NO ==> You do not qualify under this exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.

    EXCEPTION # 6 Valid Visa Exception

    Do you have a valid visa to enter Canada, other than a transit visa?

    YES ==> You qualify under this exception!

    NO ==> You do not qualify under this exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.

    EXCEPTION # 7 Visa Required in U.S. But Not in Canada

    Are you a national of any of the following countries?

    • Antigua and Barbuda
    • Barbados
    • Botswana
    • Cyprus
    • Greece
    • Malta
    • Mexico
    • Namibia
    • Papua New Guinea
    • Republic of (South) Korea
    • St. Kitts and Nevis
    • St. Lucia
    • St. Vincent
    • Solomon Islands
    • Swaziland
    • Western Samoa

    NO ==> You do not qualify under this exception. Check to see if you qualify under any other exception.

    YES ==> You qualify under this exception!

    From Canadian Website

    CLICK HERE, for Canadian Government website.

    Where the Agreement is in effect
    The Safe Third Country Agreement applies only to refugee claimants who are seeking entry to Canada from the U.S.:
    at Canada-U.S. land border crossings
    by train or
    at airports, only if the person seeking refugee protection in Canada has been refused refugee status in the U.S. and is in transit through Canada after being deported from the U.S.

    Exceptions to the Agreement
    Exceptions to the Agreement consider the importance of family unity, the best interests of children and the public interest.
    There are four types of exceptions:

    1. Family member exceptions
    2. Unaccompanied minors exception
    3. Document holder exceptions
    4. Public interest exceptions

    Even if they qualify for one of these exceptions, refugee claimants must still meet all other eligibility criteria of Canada’s immigration legislation. For example, if a person seeking refugee protection has been found inadmissible in Canada on the grounds of security, for violating human or international rights, or for serious criminality, that person will not be eligible to make a refugee claim.

    Family member exceptions
    Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if they have a family member who:

    • is a Canadian citizen
    • is a permanent resident of Canada
    • is a protected person under Canadian immigration legislation
    • has made a claim for refugee status in Canada that has been accepted by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB)
    • has had his or her removal order stayed on humanitarian and compassionate grounds
    • holds a valid Canadian work permit
    • holds a valid Canadian study permit, or
    • is over 18 years old and has a claim for refugee protection that has been referred to the IRB for determination. (This claim must not have been withdrawn by the family member, declared abandoned or rejected by the IRB or found ineligible for referral to the IRB.)

    Unaccompanied minors exception
    Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if they are minors (under the age of 18) who:
    are not accompanied by their mother, father or legal guardian
    have neither a spouse nor a common-law partner, and
    do not have a mother, a father or a legal guardian in Canada or the United States.

    Document holder exceptions
    Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if they:
    hold a valid Canadian visa (other than a transit visa)
    hold a valid work permit
    hold a valid study permit
    hold a travel document (for permanent residents or refugees) or other valid admission document issued by Canada, or
    are not required (exempt) to get a temporary resident visa to enter Canada but require a U.S.–issued visa to enter the U.S.

    Public interest exceptions
    Refugee claimants may qualify under this category of exceptions if:
    they have been charged with or convicted of an offence that could subject them to the death penalty in the U.S. or in a third country. However, a refugee claimant is ineligible if he or she has been found inadmissible in Canada on the grounds of security, for violating human or international rights, or for serious criminality, or if the Minister finds the person to be a danger to the public.

    Making a refugee claim under the Safe Third Country Agreement
    For detailed information on making a refugee claim for protection in Canada at the Canada–U.S. border, please refer to the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA).

    There are so many exemptions in this agreement that it’s difficult to find someone who “doesn’t” qualify on one or more grounds.

    4. Canada Admits U.S. A Safe Country

    Factor 3: Human rights record of the United States
    The United States meets a high standard with respect to the protection of human rights. It is an open democracy with independent courts, separation of powers and constitutional guarantees of essential human rights and fundamental freedoms.

    Factor 4: Whether the United States is party to an agreement with Canada for the purpose of sharing responsibility with respect to claims for refugee protection

    The Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and the United States was signed on December 5, 2002, came into force on December 29, 2004, and remains in force.

    The US is a safe country. That “should” end the discussion on fake refugees coming here.

    After all, simply being in the country illegally isn’t a defense.

    TSCE #16: World Border Congress Meets In Morocco, March 19-21

    1. Important Links

    (1) http://world-border-congress.com/
    SPONSORS
    (2) https://www.biometricupdate.com
    (3) https://findbiometrics.com/
    (4) https://www.rapiscansystems.com/en/
    (5) https://www.rapiscan-ase.com
    (6) https://www.gemalto.com/
    (7) https://www.cellebrite.com/en/home/
    (8) https://www.sita.aero/

    2. Giving Some Context

    CLICK HERE, for the UN’s response to repatriating terrorists.
    CLICK HERE, for Border Security Report.

    As a bit of a side note: Morocco is also where the UN Global Migration Compact was signed on December 10, 2018.

    Also, I cannot be the only one who thinks such an organization is creepy as hell. Why is there a “global border management”? What happened to countries making their own decisions?

    3. Who Are These People?

    “The annual gathering of the international border management and protection community will take place in Casablanca, Morocco on 19th-21st March 2019.

    Co-hosted by the Ministry of Interior and General Secretariat for Migration and Border Surveillance of Morocco (Directeur de la Migration at de la Surveillance des Frontieres), the World Border Security Congress is delighted to be welcomed back to the North African country and economic hub of the region.

    The 2019 World Border Security Congress will see the largest international gathering of border security and management policymakers and practitioners from more than 50 countries gather for the 3 day meeting for some great discussions, meetings, workshops and networking with colleagues and peers from the global border security community.”

    Okay, this seems to be a globalist love-fest.

    From Their Main Page

    Current Border Security Challenges:
    – Migration Crisis Tests European Consensus and Governance (1)
    – Migrants and refugees streaming into Europe from Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia (2)
    – Big Business of Smuggling Enables Mass Movement of People for Enormous Profits (3)
    – Climate Change and Natural Disasters Displace Millions, Affect Migration Flows (4)
    – Europe and the United States Confront Significant Flows of Unaccompanied Child Migrants (5)
    – Tackling Southeast Asia’s Migration Challenge (6)
    – ISIS threatens to send 500,000 migrants to Europe (7)
    – Border Skirmishes Resonate in National Domestic Politics (8)
    – Women’s Labour Migration from Asia and the Pacific (9)

    As we see the continued escalation of the global migration crisis, with mass movements of people fleeing the war zones of the Middle East as well as illegal economic immigration from Africa and elsewhere, international terrorism(10) shows every sign of increasing, posing real threats to the free movement of people.

    The world is expected to see a continuation of the migration challenges for the border management and security community, as little sign of peace and security in the Middle East is apparent and porous borders in Africa continue to provide challenges.

    International organized criminal gangs and human and drug trafficking groups exploit opportunities and increasingly use the internet and technology to enhance their activities.

    Controlling and managing international borders in the 21st Century continues to challenge the border control and immigration agencies around the world. It is generally agreed that in a globalised world borders should be as open as possible, but threats continue to remain in ever evolving circumstances and situations.

    Advancements in technology are assisting in the battle to maintain safe and secure international travel. The border security professional still remains the front line against these threats.

    This reads like it was brought to you by the same people who pushed the UN Global Migration Compact. But let’s go through this list a bit. Starting with your points list:

    1/ Testing European consensus and governance? There “is” no European consensus, unless one argues that Europeans are unhappy with what their governments have brought them

    2/ Yes migrants ARE streaming into Europe from Africa, the Middle East and Asia. But you promote open borders, which makes this problem all that much worse.

    3/ True, smuggling people IS big business. However, you fail to mention that mass migration, and promoting mass migration is also big business, and it has much the same effect (legal or not).

    4/ Climate change: everyone’s favourite boogeyman. Mass migration has nothing to do with welfare and handouts that economic migrants can get by moving to the West and pretending to be refugees.

    5/ Regarding all of these “unaccompanied child migrants”, it would be interesting to know just how many of them are actually children. This seems to be a widespread scam.

    6/ Yes, Southeast Asia has a migrant crisis as well. However, mass migration to the west is not the solution. All it will do is drain Western nations and cause their collapse.

    7/ ISIS threaten to sends 100,000 fighters to Europe, but globalist organizations like the UN say that we must be compassionate. They also don’t want countries rejecting “citizens” who fight for ISIS.

    8/ If there are border skirmishes going on, all the more reason to shut down borders and heavily restrict, if not outright ban people from certain countries.

    9/ Of course, it wouldn’t be complete without the feminist card.

    10/ Strengthen borders to stop this from coming here.

    11/ Technological advancements? Now that sounds interesting. Seems these people don’t actually want to PREVENT bad things from happening, rather they wish to PROFIT from it happening. In fact, 2 major sponsors: FIND BIOMETRICS, and BIOMETRIC UPDATE, could see a huge surge in business caused by mass migration.

    Here is a quote from the report:

    “Governments around the world need to continue to invest in their border security, as a wide range of threats, such as combating terrorism, controlling the movement of goods and monitoring personnel across international borders, continue to pose challenges requiring round the clock monitoring.”

    What a coincidence: the sponsors of this conference are selling just the tools that governments will need to secure their borders.

    This conference is sponsored by companies that sell:
    A/ Biometric services
    B/ Security screening devices
    C/ Digital and mobile technology

    Is it much of a surprise that mass migration would be PROMOTED by a group and its sponsors who will end up PROFITTING from it? Not really.

    World Border Congress Has Sympathy For ISIS Fighters

    From THIS REPORT:
    “Despite the fact that it is illegal to make an individual stateless, there is strong public opinion in most countries that supports the idea of leaving them to fend for themselves, and it easy to understand why. Whatever prison sentences they receive and deradicalisation they undergo, they will have to be regarded as a potential threat for the remainder of their lives.

    And of course, it is certain that at least some of them will go on to attempt to commit an atrocity sometime in the future.

    So, for most people, stopping their return seems like plain common sense. But would it be the wisest choice? If you leave them stateless, what will happen to them and where will they go?

    It is fairly certain that the Kurds won’t want to be responsible for them for any prolonged period. And the Turkish authorities certainly won’t want to inherit the problem. The most likely outcome is that they will gradually be quietly released or abscond and use underground trafficking routes, new documents and new identities to either return to Europe or go elsewhere to carry on the fight.”

    This group glosses over legitimate security risks posed by mass migration. However, the risks that “do” exist can be managed by purchasing services from the conference’s many sponsors.

    This is disturbing. Want to know what is actually worse?

    4. UN Response To “Foreign Fighters”

    Again, the report is available here.

    3. The movement of people for the purposes of joining and supporting terrorist groups as well as their return to their countries of origin poses serious challenges to States in their efforts to prevent acts of terrorism. It is crucial that States adopt comprehensive long-term responses that deal with this threat and manage the return of fighters, and that in doing so they comply with their obligations under international human rights law. States have an obligation to protect the lives of individuals subject to their jurisdiction, and this includes the adoption of effective measures to counter the threat posed by foreign fighters.

    13. In a limited set of circumstances, States may also take measures to temporarily derogate from certain international human rights law provisions. As noted by the Human Rights Committee, measures derogating from the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights must be of an exceptional and temporary nature. Two fundamental conditions must be met: the situation must amount to a public emergency which threatens the life of the nation; and the State party must have officially proclaimed a state of emergency. The obligation to limit any derogations to those strictly required by the exigencies of the situation reflects the principle of proportionality which is common to derogation and limitation powers.

    16. International humanitarian law is also known as the law of war or the law of armed conflict and is applicable to both situations of international or non-international armed conflicts. These rules are enshrined in the four Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, as well as in customary rules of international humanitarian law. International humanitarian law is a set of rules which seek, for humanitarian reasons, to limit the effects of armed conflict. It protects persons, civilians, who are not or are no longer participating in the hostilities as well as fighters hors de combat and restricts the means and methods of warfare.

    18. States have used different measures, whether legislative, administrative or operational, to prevent the departure of foreign fighters to conflict areas as well as to prevent their return. These could include travel bans, the seizure, retention, withdrawal and non-renewal of passports or identity cards, the stripping of citizenship, restrictions on travel or entry to territory and various types of house arrests or preventive detention. All of these measures have a serious impact on a number of fundamental human rights, including the rights to personal liberty and freedom of movement. They also raise a number of serious due process concerns if, for example, decisions are taken following secretive proceedings, in absentia or on the basis of vaguely defined criteria without adequate safeguards to prevent statelessness.

    The World Borders Congress states that it believes that fighters who go abroad have rights. It implies that the safety of the host populations must be “balances” against the rights of terrorists themselves. From the above passages, the UN is clearly on board with this proposal.

    The UN is totally fine with mass migration and returning terrorists for IDEOLOGICAL reasons.

    Sponsors of World Borders Congress is fine with mass migration and returning terrorists for FINANCIAL reasons.

    A partnership made in hell.

    CBC Propaganda #2: Europe Should Have Open Borders

    (An extremely biased CBC “news” piece)

    (The U.N. admits it helps “migrants”, regardless of their legal status)

    (Mastercard and MercyCorps)

    CBC, a.k.a The “Communist Broadbasting Corporation”, or the “Caliphate Broadcasting Corporation”, is a government funded “news” organization. It receives about $1.5 billion annually to spew out anti-Canadian stories. Taxpayers don’t get a say in the matter.

    CLICK HERE, to reach the CBC Propaganda Masterlist. It is far from complete, but being added to regularly.

    Of course, CBC promoting globalism is nothing new. Here is a recent cover of a “non-profit” calling itself Century Initiative. Their goal was to boost Canada’s population to 100 million people by the year 2100. Of course, logistical details, or incompatibility of cultures is not discussed.

    On November 23, Jonathon Gatehouse of CBC released this article. It contained a story whining about how Europe enforcing its borders was putting migrant lives in danger.

    The present article is extremely biased and one sided. It takes issue with Europe protecting its own borders, and denying unending immigration from the third world. It is amazing how an article can both be factually accurate, yet so completely miss the point. CBC is being extremely selective in what information is presents.

    Throughout the article, Gatehouse repeatedly implies that these migrants have the right to reach Europe and live there. The right of European Nations to defend their borders is mention is looked down upon. Let’s go through the article:

    “Desperate migrants are choosing ever more dangerous sea routes to Europe and using smaller and less seaworthy boats, causing a sharp increase in drowning deaths, warns the International Organization for Migration.”

    What CBC leaves out is that these are “ILLEGAL” migrants, who do not have permission to enter Europe, let along live there. This point is omitted throughout the article.

    “The European Union’s success in cutting deals to close off the sea routes from Turkey to Greece, and from Libya to Italy, has resulted in an overall drop in the number of migrants arriving on the continent — 128,265 so far this year, compared to almost 187,000 in 2017, and 390,000 in 2016.
    .
    Some are now even arriving in the Canary Islands, a Spanish archipelago 100 kilometres off the Moroccan coast. At least 36 migrants have died trying to make that crossing in 2018, compared to one the year befoore”

    The European Union is not trying to cut off one route for the sake of being a jerk. They are genuinely trying to control their borders with this move. Migrants are trying circumvent this by finding other ways to get into Europe.

    “Yet despite the concerns over the rising death toll, many European nations seem focused on enacting even tougher anti-migrant policies.
    .
    This week, prosecutors in Sicily moved to seize a migrant rescue vessel operated by Medecins Sans Frontières and another aid organization, accusing the groups of illegally dumping of 24 tonnes of “potentially toxic waste” during stops in Italian ports.”

    Gatehouse seems to miss the point of this entirely. European nations are sick of mass illegal immigration and are trying to stop it. If migrants are endangering themselves by finding innovative ways to break immigration laws, then it is not the responsibility of said nations to provide assistance. There is no obligation to aid law-breakers.

    “And soon, Italy’s parliament will vote on a new immigration law proposed by the populist government that will remove humanitarian protections for migrants and block asylum seekers from accessing services. These are moves that UN human rights experts have said will “certainly” violate international law.”

    Gatehouse omits the key detail that these new laws are meant for ILLEGAL immigrants. He seems to think that just showing up against Italy’s will entitles people to free benefits.

    “Meanwhile in Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is ratcheting up his attacks on the European Union, calling it a “transport agency” for migrants that hands out funds and “anonymous bank cards” to “terrorists and criminals.”
    .
    “This is the kind of slippery slope which could again lead to a broken Europe,” Orbán declared today in an interview on Hungarian public radio.

    Actually, the EU and UN do provide financial assistance for migrants, regardless of their legal status. See this page, from the U.N. website, regarding the “caravan” demanding access to the U.S. See this previous article. Handing out prepaid credit cards to finance “migration” actually is happening.

    “Anti-immigrant sentiment is undeniably on the rise in Europe.
    .
    This week, the Guardian newspaper crunched the voting results from 31 European elections over the past 20 years. It found that populist parties have tripled their support and managed to put their leaders into positions of power within 11 different governments.”

    This is true, although Gatehouse bypasses the fact that mass, illegal and uncontrolled immigration directly leads to anti-immigrant sentiment and policies. Throughout the article, there is no mention of European nations having the right to decide for themselves who enters their borders.

    “”I [Hillary Clinton] admire the very generous and compassionate approaches that were taken, particularly by leaders like Angela Merkel, but I think it is fair to say Europe has done its part, and must send a very clear message — ‘We are not going to be able to continue to provide refuge and support’ — because if we don’t deal with the migration issue it will continue to roil the body politic.”
    .
    To date in 2018, 2,075 migrants have drowned or gone missing while crossing the Mediterranean.”

    This quote is accurate. However, the connection seems to be lost on the author. And while 2075 may have died, they were trying to get into Europe ILLEGALLY. This is a point Gatehouse avoids altogether. Why should Europe assist those trying to break their laws?

    This is a theme in the entire article: that these migrants have a “right” to enter Europe, and that Europe is causing a humanitarian crisis by not assisting them.

    However, Gatehouse does deserve credit for one thing: not once does he refer to them as “refugees”. he acknowledges that they are migrants looking for a better life.

    TSCE #2: ”Migrant Caravan” Lawyers Sue For Right to Legally Invade U.S.

    (Well organized and well funded economic migrants planning to invade the U.S. en masse. Original videos are here and here.)

    1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

    CLICK HERE, for TSCE #1: series intro and other listings.

    2. The Court Challenge

    Liberals tend to deflect legitimate questions as ”language”
    Liberals and open-border globalists do this regularly. When asked direct questions they usually deflect rather than give direct answers. They don’t challenge the facts, but rather play word games, calling it ”fearful and divisive language”.

    Now, to the obvious. These are not refugees at all. They are economic migrants, who are well organized, trying to get into the U.S. This is an invasion, one that has clearly been thought through. As you can see in the videos, they have supplies waiting for them at the end of each day, and for ”refugees”, they look like they have have a good life.

    Just when the story couldn’t get more absurd, thehill.com released this article, showing that a lawsuit had actually been filed on behalf of the so-called refugees. Being a class action lawsuit, it opens the door for many more plaintiffs. We will go through the main points.

    For this to make any sense, at least 5 completely wrong assertions must be correct:

    (1) That everyone in the world has the right to come to the United States and claim asylum. Not to the first safe country available, but to the U.S. specifically.

    (2) That the protections of U.S. law, such as the 5th amendment apply to everyone, everywhere. You don’t have to be a citizen, or legal resident, or even on U.S. soil.

    (3) That obviously fraudulent claims for asylum must be taken seriously.

    (4) That so-called ”refugees” can send their kids ahead and demand the U.S. provide for them. Or even more generally that the U.S. must financially provide for anyone who enters.

    (5) That the U.S. does not have the right to have sovereign borders, regardless of security threats.

    As an aside, it cannot be overstated that the overwhelming majority are not refugees. Many openly admit they are coming for a better life, and better employment prospects. Further, given the amount of support they have on the journey, and a legal team filing suit in the U.S., the claims are absurd.

    3. Claim: Anyone Can Enter U.S.

    Lawyers for the invading economic migrants submit that:

    Trump’s professed and enacted policy towards thousands of caravanners seeking asylum in the United States is shockingly unconstitutional. President Trump continues to abuse the law, including constitutional rights, to deter Central Americans from exercising their lawful right to seek asylum in the United States, and the fact that innocent children are involved matters none to President Trump.

    See the U.S./Canadian safe country agreement as an example. Refugees are expected to apply for asylum in the first safe country they reach.

    This ”caravan” originated in Honduras. The migrants then travelled through Guatemala, making it the country they should have filed for asylum in. But they never did. They then forced their way into Mexico, which would be the second country they arrived in. Mexico in fact offered asylum and work permits, but the offer was rejected.

    This group is not seeking a safe country. They are ”shopping” for a richer one, one with more handouts and benefits. They are not refugees, but economic migrants.

    As an aside, the same thing is happening in Canada. Our ”Paper Canadian” and FGM apologist of an Immigration Minister, gets offended when people point out that ”refugees” from the U.S. are just economic migrants.

    4. Claim: 5th Amendment Applies

    Lawyers for the invading economic migrants submit that:

    This case arises under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), and the Declaratory Judgment Act,
    inter alia
    .
    . The court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 7. Personal Jurisdiction is proper because Defendants transact business in this District and thus are subject to personal jurisdiction in this Court.
    Case 1:18-cv-02534 Document 1 Filed 11/01/18 Page 7 of 32
    VENUE
    8. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because at least one of the Defendants is subject to personal jurisdiction in this district with regards to this action.

    Information on the 5th Amendment is given here, but in laymen’s terms, it provides many legal protections to people.

    But here, the lawyers claim that the group, who isn’t even on U.S. soil. It says that they ”transact business” and at least ”one person is subject to personal jurisdiction.” This is incredibly vague, and again, being a class action suit allows for many more plaintiffs to join in.

    The U.S. Constitution is meant to provide legal protection to people inside the U.S., preferably there legally. But this argument suggests that anyone wanting to go to the U.S. should get the same protections.

    5. Claim: Must Take All Seriously

    Lawyers for the invading economic migrants submit that:

    Immigrants who indicate an intention to apply for asylum or indicates a fear of persecution must be referred for a “credible fear interview”:
    .
    If an immigration officer determines that an alien (other than an alien described in subparagraph (F)) who is arriving in the United States or is described in clause (iii) is inadmissible under section 1182(a)(6)(C) or 1182(a)(7) of this title and the alien indicates either an intention to apply for asylum under section 1158 of this title or a fear of persecution, the officer shall refer the alien for an interview by an asylum officer under subparagraph (B). 8 U.S.C. § 1225 (b)(1)(A)(ii).
    .
    Following a credible fear interview, if an asylum officer determines that an asylum seeker has a “credible fear of persecution,” then there is a significant possibility that the asylum seeker will be granted asylum

    Many videos of these ”refugees” are available on YouTube. They openly admit that they are going to the United States for economic reasons, such as work and social services. Not having a job, or poor living conditions are not valid grounds for claiming asylum.

    Interesting to note: If all these migrants were going to the U.S. for a better life, doesn’t it refute this claim, that so-called refugees coming to Canada from New York or Minnesota are doing so fraudulently?

    6. Claim: U.S. Is Obligated To Pay For The Children Of The Invaders

    Lawyers for the invading economic migrants submit that:

    The care and custody of minors in Immigration Custody is controlled by the Flores Agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. That agreement applies to all minors, including those who are taken into custody with their parents. Flores v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2016). That agreement provides that minors must be held in facilities run by licensed programs and that are “safe and sanitary and are consistent with [Defendants’] concern for the particular vulnerability of minors.” Ex. 1, ¶¶ 12.A, 14. These facilities must “provide access to toilets and sinks, drinking water … adequate temperature control and ventilation adequate supervision to protect minors from others, and contact with family.”

    While the Flores Agreement does set out certain conditions to be met, it seems that the invading migrants are taking full advantage of it. Arguably the children are being used as weapons, as ways for arm twisting to get more benefits. The adults will of course, demand to be locked up with their children.

    The Flores Agreement was never meant to be used as a tool to facilitate mass illegal immigration, but that is exactly what the lawyers are trying to do.

    7. Claim: U.S. Has No Border Rights

    Lawyers for the invading economic migrants submit that:

    On top of the above, Trump has repeatedly professed that the caravan people will not get into this county, and just as significant, Trump has taken meaningful steps to ensure the world that this is his policy position/initiative, meaningful steps such as deploying thousands of active military troops to the border, waiting on caravan persons to arrive. The legal problem with Trump’s plan to stop caravan persons from entering this country is that Plaintiffs are seeking asylum, and Trump simply cannot stop them from legally doing so by using military, or anyone.

    Interesting claim. The U.S. apparently has no right to defend its own border by this logic. Anyone can come into the country. Anyone can take children and demand free food and accomodation. And it doesn’t matter how many people come, and if it completely overwhelms the immigration system. The rights of America to defend itself don’t seem to matter.

    8. How Does This Play Out?

    Unclear, at least to me. The lawsuit seems bogus on its face, makes bizarre claims, and is openly contradicted by the ”refugees” themselves.

    The invaders’ lawyers repeatedly conflate laws meant to protect people inside the U.S. with those wanting to enter the U.S.

    One additional detail, the suit seems to want to cover anyone who will attempt to cross at a later date:

    Plaintiffs seek to represent the following class:
    All persons (1) who are Mexican, Central American, or South American citizens (2) who are travelling to the United States or have attempted entry into the United States, whether at a designated port of entry or not, since October 31, 2018, and (3) who are seeking asylum or intending to seek asylum within the United States

    To be clear, not only will this not be the last ”caravan” to try to enter the U.S., but at least 2 more are up already.

    Trump’s best move would be to send as many troops to the border as needed and repel this invasion at all costs. Open fire if need be.

    Update to the Story:
    By it’s own admission, the United Nations is actually helping the “caravan”. In essence, it is helping the economic migrants INVADE the United States.

    The United Nations Migration Agency, IOM, is providing support and assistance to migrants crossing Central America in several self-styled caravans, while expressing concern over “the stress and demands” they are placing on host countries.

    All migrants must be respected, regardless of their migratory status – IOM Chief of Mission in Mexico

    The U.N. needs to go entirely. More on that in an upcoming article.