Category: Constitutional

Posted on

Michelle Rempel Lies: CPC Still Supports U.N. Global Migration Compact

(Michelle Rempel video November 21, contradicts October 20 video)

(The U.N. Global Migration Compact)

Summary of Michelle Rempel’s November 21 video:
[0:00 Complaining about Trudeau and New York border jumpers]
[1:00 Finally gets to UN Global migration compact]
[1:23 Clip in House of Commons, complaining about 38,000 border jumpers
[2:00 Trudeau responding]
[2:45 Rempel mentions objective #17, propaganda]
[3:00 Trudeau evading again]
[3:45 Rempel again goes on about 38,000 New York border jumpers]
[4:30 Praise for Harper, taxes, balanced budgets]
[5:10 Rempel again criticises Trudeau’s credibility]
[5:45 Rempel calls Trudeau a bully]
[6:00 Rempel says Trudeau calls names]
[6:15 Rempel says CPC opposes compact because of language (and other reasons)]
[6:30 Rempel says CPC would withdraw and gets its own house in order]
[6:45 Again criticises Trudeau]
[7:08 Rempel says CPC has been consistent, says offering general solutions]
[7:30 Rempel again goes on about refugees being put in hotels]
[8:00 Rempel again says we need a change, and working for Canadians]

YouTuber CanadaPoli released this response video on Rempel’s update, but I believe he was far too kind.

To make this clear: I don’t believe Rempel at all when she says the CPC opposes the UN Global Migration Compact. This seems like going through the motions.

To Rempel’s credit, she does reference the “Propaganda Provisions” embedded in Objective 17 of the UN Global Compact. See here

OBJECTIVE 17: Eliminate all forms of discrimination and promote evidence-based public discourse to shape perceptions of migration

33. We commit to eliminate all forms of discrimination, condemn and counter expressions, acts and manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, violence, xenophobia and related intolerance against all migrants in conformity with international human rights law. We further commit to promote an open and evidence-based public discourse on migration and migrants in partnership with all parts of society, that generates a more realistic, humane and constructive perception in this regard. We also commit to protect freedom of expression in accordance with international law, recognizing that an open and free debate contributes to a comprehensive understanding of all aspects of migration.

Although this is mentioned by Rempel, she still seems rather indifferent towards it in the YouTube video.

However, I believe Rempel is lying in the video when she talks about the CPC opposing this deal with the UN. Here are the reasons (in no particular order)

(1) Rempel Lies About Conservatives Being Consistent
This is probably the easiest to debunk. Here is Rempel’s previous video, starting at 4:50. Rempel talks in circles and doesn’t actually say CPC opposes it.

Further, my own CPC MP confirmed the party was just going to study the Compact, and that Maxime Bernier’s petition was populist grandstanding. There is the article summary.

Here is the audio of that meeting:

(2) Rempel Shows No Urgency In Trying To Stop Compact
If Michelle Rempel actually had any concern over this, she would be a lot more active, and doing a lot more to stop this. Further, she wouldn’t be ignoring emails and phone calls, and blocking people on Twitter

(3) Rempel Spends More Time on Trudeau and Roxham Rd Than Compact
In the 8 minute video above, Rempel goes on and on about Trudeau, about fake refugees being put in hotels, and the achievements of the last government. Very little is actually spent on addressing the UN Compact itself. This is true in many of her videos: talking in circles and repeating herself without ever making a clear point. This is deliberate obfuscation.

(4) CPC Shows No Interest In Promoting Petition E-1906
Surely there are hard feelings over Maxime Bernier leaving the CPC the way he did. But if Conservatives actually opposed this global compact, then they would support this petition, or at least start one of their own.

(5) Rempel’s Video Is Extremely Light On Content
While Rempel did acknowledge the propaganda the UN promotes with regard to language, there is so much more that could be cited, that is simply not. Anyone could make an extemely compelling case against this simply by reading the document?

Serious question: Has Michelle Rempel ever read the UN Global Migration Compact?

Serious question: If these people are “refugees”, then why are we signing the “migration” compact?
Here are the 2 separate agreements.

Again the full document is available here.

OBJECTIVE 1: Collect and utilize accurate and disaggregated data as a basis for evidence based policies

  1. We commit to strengthen the global evidence base on international migration by improving and investing in the collection, analysis and dissemination of accurate, reliable, comparable data, disaggregated by sex, age, migration status and other characteristics relevant in national contexts, while upholding the right to privacy under international human rights law and protecting personal data. We further commit to ensure this data fosters research, guides coherent and evidence-based policy-making and well-informed public discourse, and allows for effective monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of commitments over time.

This sounds eerily like the StatsCan type mentality, see here, and see here. Privacy is non essential, as long as it is done for statistical purposes.

OBJECTIVE 2: Minimize the adverse drivers and structural factors that compel people to leave their country of origin

  1. We commit to create conducive political, economic, social and environmental conditions for people to lead peaceful, productive and sustainable lives in their own country and to fulfil their personal aspirations, while ensuring that desperation and deteriorating environments do not compel them to seek a livelihood elsewhere through irregular migration. We further commit to ensure timely and full implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, as well as to build upon and invest in the implementation of other existing frameworks, in order to enhance the overall impact of the Global Compact to facilitate safe, orderly and regular migration.

This word-salad sounds nice, except when one realises that it goes directly against the purpose of the Global Migration Compact. The U.N. wants to promote mass migration, so spending huge amounts of resources improving conditions in home countries wouldn’t exactly help.

OBJECTIVE 3: Provide accurate and timely information at all stages of migration

  1. We commit to strengthen our efforts to provide, make available and disseminate accurate, timely, accessible, and transparent information on migration-related aspects for and between States, communities and migrants at all stages of migration. We further commit to use this information to develop migration policies that provide a high degree of predictability and certainty for all actors involved.

This directly contradicts objective #2. Here, the U.N. speaks of coordinating mass movement of people. Indeed, the objective is quite clear: MASS MIGRATION.

OBJECTIVE 4: Ensure that all migrants have proof of legal identity and adequate documentation

  1. We commit to fulfil the right of all individuals to a legal identity by providing all our nationals with proof of nationality and relevant documentation, allowing national and local authorities to ascertain a migrant’s legal identity upon entry, during stay, and for return, as well as to ensure effective migration procedures, efficient service provision, and improved public safety. We further commit to ensure, through appropriate measures, that migrants are issued adequate documentation and civil registry documents, such as birth, marriage and death certificates, at all stages of migration, as a means to empower migrants to effectively exercise their human rights.

On the surface this sounds great, but think about it. The U.N. is going to obtain identity documents for people. What is to stop people from just claiming they don’t have any documents, and using the U.N. as a proxy to obtain false identification? That is not addressed here.

OBJECTIVE 5: Enhance availability and flexibility of pathways for regular migration

  1. We commit to adapt options and pathways for regular migration in a manner that facilitates labour mobility and decent work reflecting demographic and labour market realities, optimizes education opportunities, upholds the right to family life, and responds to the needs of migrants in a situation of vulnerability, with a view to expanding and diversifying availability of pathways for safe, orderly and regular migration

What is sounds like. Wanting to streamline mass migration. Do the host countries ever get a say in the matter? Their rights don’t seem important.

OBJECTIVE 6: Facilitate fair and ethical recruitment and safeguard conditions that ensure decent work

  1. We commit to review existing recruitment mechanisms to guarantee that they are fair and ethical, and to protect all migrant workers against all forms of exploitation and abuse in order to guarantee decent work and maximize the socioeconomic contributions of migrants in both their countries of origin and destination.

No concerns for the unemployment issues that may exist within the host countries. Flood the market with cheap labour. What could go wrong?

OBJECTIVE 7: Address and reduce vulnerabilities in migration

  1. We commit to respond to the needs of migrants who face situations of vulnerability, which may arise from the circumstances in which they travel or the conditions they face in countries of origin, transit and destination, by assisting them and protecting their human rights, in accordance with our obligations under international law. We further commit to uphold the best interests of the child at all times, as a primary consideration in situations where children are concerned, and to apply a gender-responsive approach in addressing vulnerabilities, including in responses to mixed movements.

The U.N. really does believe that migration is a human right.

OBJECTIVE 8: Save lives and establish coordinated international efforts on missing migrants

  1. We commit to cooperate internationally to save lives and prevent migrant deaths and injuries through individual or joint search and rescue operations, standardized collection and exchange of relevant information, assuming collective responsibility to preserve the lives of all migrants, in accordance with international law. We further commit to identify those who have died or gone missing, and to facilitate communication with affected families.

This is another objective that sounds great until you realize that this is going on a major operation for search and rescue of migrants who have chosen to flout the will of home countries, and gone missing as a result.

OBJECTIVE 9: Strengthen the transnational response to smuggling of migrants

  1. We commit to intensify joint efforts to prevent and counter smuggling of migrants by strengthening capacities and international cooperation to prevent, investigate, prosecute and penalize the smuggling of migrants in order to end the impunity of smuggling networks. We further commit to ensure that migrants shall not become liable to criminal prosecution for the fact of having been the object of smuggling, notwithstanding potential prosecution for other violations of national law. We also commit to identify smuggled migrants to protect their human rights, taking into consideration the special needs of women and children, and assisting in particular those migrants subject to smuggling under aggravating circumstances, in accordance with international law

OBJECTIVE 10: Prevent, combat and eradicate trafficking in persons in the context of international migration

  1. We commit to take legislative or other measures to prevent, combat and eradicate trafficking in persons in the context of international migration by strengthening capacities and international cooperation to investigate, prosecute and penalize trafficking in persons, discouraging demand that fosters exploitation leading to trafficking, and ending impunity of trafficking networks. We further commit to enhance the identification and protection of, and assistance to migrants who have become victims of trafficking, paying particular attention to women and children.

Another 2 objectives that sound great, until you realize that the U.N. is in effect just bringing smuggling under its own control. The actual idea of sneaking people into countries is not going away, rather it is just a change in management.

OBJECTIVE 11: Manage borders in an integrated, secure and coordinated manner

  1. We commit to manage our national borders in a coordinated manner, promoting bilateral and regional cooperation, ensuring security for States, communities and migrants, and facilitating safe and regular cross-border movements of people while preventing irregular migration. We further commit to implement border management policies that respect national sovereignty, the rule of law, obligations under international law, human rights of all migrants, regardless of their migration status, and are non-discriminatory, gender-responsive and child-sensitive.

Exactly what it appears to be. Countries enforcing their own borders will be a thing of the past. Instead, governments will now coordinate with the U.N. The part about “respecting border sovereignty” is a joke, as the idea of coordinating defeats the idea of sovereignty.

OBJECTIVE 12: Strengthen certainty and predictability in migration procedures for appropriate screening, assessment and referral

  1. We commit to increase legal certainty and predictability of migration procedures by developing and strengthening effective and human rights-based mechanisms for the adequate and timely screening and individual assessment of all migrants for the purpose of identifying and facilitating access to the appropriate referral procedures, in accordance with international law.

Going through the details, this appears to be a combination of social worker combined with human rights tribunals. Nothing could possibly go wrong?

OBJECTIVE 13: Use immigration detention only as a measure of last resort and work towards alternatives

  1. We commit to ensure that any detention in the context of international migration follows due process, is non-arbitrary, based on law, necessity, proportionality and individual assessments, is carried out by authorized officials, and for the shortest possible period of time, irrespective of whether detention occurs at the moment of entry, in transit, or proceedings of return, and regardless of the type of place where the detention occurs. We further commit to prioritize noncustodial alternatives to detention that are in line with international law, and to take a human rights-based approach to any detention of migrants, using detention as a measure of last resort only.

Yes, detention of migrants who commit crimes must be a last resort. And you think bleeding heart liberal justice systems are weak now?

OBJECTIVE 14: Enhance consular protection, assistance and cooperation throughout the migration cycle

  1. We commit to strengthen consular protection of and assistance to our nationals abroad, as well as consular cooperation between States in order to better safeguard the rights and interests of all migrants at all times, and to build upon the functions of consular missions to enhance interactions between migrants and State authorities of countries of origin, transit and destination, in accordance with international law

Here the Compact completely undermines itself. If these people are fleeing horrible persecution, then how exactly do they have “consular services”? Wouldn’t that imply the government does help them?

OBJECTIVE 15: Provide access to basic services for migrants

  1. We commit to ensure that all migrants, regardless of their migration status, can exercise their human rights through safe access to basic services. We further commit to strengthen migrant inclusive service delivery systems, notwithstanding that nationals and regular migrants may be entitled to more comprehensive service provision, while ensuring that any differential treatment must be based on law, proportionate, pursue a legitimate aim, in accordance with international human rights law.

“Irregulars”, meaning “illegals” are still entitled to most, if not all of the same rights as people “legally” immigrating.

OBJECTIVE 16: Empower migrants and societies to realize full inclusion and social cohesion

  1. We commit to foster inclusive and cohesive societies by empowering migrants to become active members of society and promoting the reciprocal engagement of receiving communities and migrants in the exercise of their rights and obligations towards each other, including observance of national laws and respect for customs of the country of destination. We further commit to strengthen the welfare of all members of societies by minimizing disparities, avoiding polarization and increasing public confidence in policies and institutions related to migration, in line with the acknowledgment that fully integrated migrants are better positioned to contribute to prosperity.

This may sound great, but in practice it generally means that the host country must bend over backwards to accommodate very different and often incompatible cultures and traditions. Yay, multiculturalism.

*** Object 17 refers to propaganda, which to be fair, Rempel did mention ***

OBJECTIVE 18: Invest in skills development and facilitate mutual recognition of skills, qualifications and competences

  1. We commit to invest in innovative solutions that facilitate mutual recognition of skills, qualifications and competences of migrant workers at all skills levels, and promote demanddriven skills development to optimize the employability of migrants in formal labour markets in countries of destination and in countries of origin upon return, as well as to ensure decent work in labour migration.

So a job training problem for migrants, one not available to host citizens. Is this not an acknowledgement that we are bringing large numbers of unskilled people? Further, what if the migrants refuse to work? Are we expected to just shut up and pay their welfare?

OBJECTIVE 19: Create conditions for migrants and diasporas to fully contribute to sustainable development in all countries

  1. We commit to empower migrants and diasporas to catalyse their development contributions, and to harness the benefits of migration as a source of sustainable development, reaffirming that migration is a multidimensional reality of major relevance for the sustainable development of countries of origin, transit and destination

OBJECTIVE 20: Promote faster, safer and cheaper transfer of remittances and foster financial inclusion of migrants

  1. We commit to promote faster, safer and cheaper remittances by further developing existing conducive policy and regulatory environments that enable competition, regulation and innovation on the remittance market and by providing gender-responsive programmes and instruments that enhance the financial inclusion of migrants and their families. We further commit to optimize the transformative impact of remittances on the well-being of migrant workers and their families, as well as on sustainable development of countries, while respecting that remittances constitute an important source of private capital, and cannot be equated to other international financial flows, such as foreign direct investment, official development assistance, or other public sources of financing for development.

Short explanation: massive open-ended welfare

OBJECTIVE 21: Cooperate in facilitating safe and dignified return and readmission, as well as sustainable reintegration

  1. We commit to facilitate and cooperate for safe and dignified return and to guarantee due process, individual assessment and effective remedy, by upholding the prohibition of collective expulsion and of returning migrants when there is a real and foreseeable risk of death, torture, and other cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment or punishment, or other irreparable harm, in accordance with our obligations under international human rights law. We further commit to ensure that our nationals are duly received and readmitted, in full respect for the human right to return to one’s own country and the obligation of States to readmit their own nationals. We also commit to create conducive conditions for personal safety, economic empowerment, inclusion and social cohesion in communities, in order to ensure that reintegration of migrants upon return to their countries of origin is sustainable.

So, we can’t deport someone or send someone back if they claim to be in fear for their lives. That is never abused or used to circumvent legal court orders. “Human rights” in such a way that will undermine public safety.

OBJECTIVE 22: Establish mechanisms for the portability of social security entitlements and earned benefits

  1. We commit to assist migrant workers at all skills levels to have access to social protection in countries of destination and profit from the portability of applicable social security entitlements and earned benefits in their countries of origin or when they decide to take up work in another country

Not only are we paying welfare, but pensions as well. This although the Canadian government or public has received no benefit. And how would we even verify that this work took place? Ripe for abuse.

OBJECTIVE 23: Strengthen international cooperation and global partnerships for safe, orderly and regular migration

  1. We commit to support each other in the realization of the objectives and commitments laid out in this Global Compact through enhanced international cooperation, a revitalized global partnership, and in the spirit of solidarity, reaffirming the centrality of a comprehensive and integrated approach to facilitate safe, orderly and regular migration, and recognizing that we are all countries of origin, transit and destination. We further commit to take joint action in addressing the challenges faced by each country to implement this Global Compact, underscoring the specific challenges faced in particular by African countries, least developed countries, landlocked developing countries, small island developing States, and middle-income countries. We also commit to promote the mutually reinforcing nature between the Global Compact and existing international legal and policy frameworks, by aligning the implementation of this Global Compact with such frameworks, particularly the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development as well as the Addis Ababa Action Agenda, and their recognition that migration and sustainable development are multidimensional and interdependent

Earlier, we are told that each country will maintain sovereignty. Now, its “global partnerships”.

Once more, the entire document is available here.

And here are the 2 separate agreements, one for migrants, one for refugees.

Back to the original point: CPC “Immigration Shadow Minister” Michelle Rempel now claims the CPC opposes the UN Global Migration Compact in her YouTube video. This is stark contrast to when she shrugged it off as “non-binding”.

However, in the video, she spends most of the time talking about other things. There is no sense of urgency, and the video is very lacking in details. Here are just the 23 OBJECTIVES, and they are scary.

Has Michelle Rempel even read the U.N. Global Migration Compact?

Doubtful, otherwise her video wouldn’t meander nearly as much. Either that or she is flat out lying.

Posted on

Unifor Denies Crawling Into Bed With Government

(The new release from the Federal Government)

(Not surprising, the endless pandering about the “wage gap”)

1. The Media Is Not Loyal To The Public

Truth is essential in society, but the situation in Canada is worse than people imagine. In Canada (and elsewhere), the mainstream media, periodicals, and fact-checkers are subsidized, though they deny it. Post Media controls most outlets in Canada, and many “independents” have ties to Koch/Atlas. Real investigative journalism is needed, and some pointers are provided.

2. Fall 2018 Economic Update

economic.update.2018

The good part starts on page 40 of the Update. It has to do with “Support For Canadian Journalism”

Here is the problem that the Canadian Government identifies:

In recent years, changes in technology and in the way that Canadians consume news have made it difficult for many news outlets to find and maintain financially sustainable business models. At a time when people increasingly get their news online, and share news and other content through social media, many communities have also been left without local news outlets to tell their stories. Concerns have been expressed that, without government intervention, there may be a decline in the quantity and quality of journalism available to Canadians, including a significant loss of local news coverage.

In November 2018, the Prime Minister, together with other world leaders, committed to take action to support a strong and independent news sector in the digital age. The Government recognizes the vital role that local journalism plays in communities all across the country, and is committed to finding ways to help keep people, and communities, connected through local news providers

Yes, that is correct. The Government realizes that in modern times, the old format of news (large offices and staff), has become obsolete, and financially unviable. This is particularly true in the age where anyone with a laptop and a camera can post online and gain a substantial following.

CanuckLaw itself is run on a shoestring budget, with little expenses. So yes, it is easy to sympathise with those who have had a lengthy career in media.

However, this is the new reality. Media itself is reducing the barriers to entry where literally anyone can be a contributor online. Rather than maintaining a monopoly (or near monopoly) on news, major outlets are facing strong competition from a population who can drastically undercut it. Further, these people will have no loyalty to any political party or government. This is good for a free and open media.

However, the Federal Liberals have decided that propping up the media financially is a better idea.

Access to Charitable Tax Incentives for Eligible News Organizations

Budget 2018 announced that the Government would explore new models that would enable private giving and philanthropic support for trusted, professional, non-profit journalism, including local news. To that end, the Government intends to introduce a new category of qualified donee, for non-profit journalism organizations that produce a wide variety of news and information of interest to Canadians. As qualified donees, eligible non-profit journalism organizations would be able to issue official donation receipts, which allows donors to benefit from tax incentives for charitable giving (including the Charitable Donations Tax Credit for individuals and deductions for corporations). As qualified donees, these organizations would also be eligible to receive funding from registered charities.

A New Refundable Tax Credit to Support News Organizations

To further support news journalism in Canada, the Government intends to introduce a new refundable tax credit for qualifying news organizations. This new measure will aim to support Canadian news organizations that produce a wide variety of news and information of interest to Canadians. The refundable credit will support labour costs associated with producing original news content and will generally be available to both non-profit and for-profit news organizations. An independent panel will be established from the news and journalism community to define eligibility for this tax credit, as well as provide advice on other measures. Once established, the effective date of the refundable tax credit will be set for January 1, 2019.

A New Non-Refundable Tax Credit for Subscriptions to Canadian Digital News Media

To support Canadian digital news media organizations in achieving a more financially sustainable business model, the Government intends to introduce a new temporary, non-refundable 15-per-cent tax credit for qualifying subscribers of eligible digital news media. In total, the proposed access to tax incentives for charitable giving, refundable tax credit for labour costs and non-refundable tax credit for subscriptions will cost the federal government an estimated $595 million over the next five years. Additional details on these measures will be provided in Budget 2019

Yes, the government will be spending about $595 million over 5 years, $119 million annually, to prop up dying media outlets.

The story is explained by Candice Malcolm, but in a nutshell, Unifor, the union which represents — among others — 13,000 media workers, is officially committing to opposing the Federal Conservative Party.

This of course raises a huge red flag. A union that will be taking $120 million/year to subsidise failing media outlets is officially opposing the government’s main opposition party.

In fact, this arguably violates the Conflict of Interest Act. A political party using their power to award public funds to an industry, namely media, who can promote their interests.

3. Conflict Of Interest

4 For the purposes of this Act, a public office holder is in a conflict of interest when he or she exercises an official power, duty or function that provides an opportunity to further his or her private interests or those of his or her relatives or friends or to improperly further another person’s private interests.
Marginal note:

General duty
5 Every public office holder shall arrange his or her private affairs in a manner that will prevent the public office holder from being in a conflict of interest.
Marginal note:

Decision-making
6 (1) No public office holder shall make a decision or participate in making a decision related to the exercise of an official power, duty or function if the public office holder knows or reasonably should know that, in the making of the decision, he or she would be in a conflict of interest.

It sounds harsh. However, from the literal wording in the Conflict of Interest Act, the subsides and political allegiance do appear to violate it.

4. Interview With Howard Law Of Unifor

On Friday, November 23, Unifor representative Howard Law did return a phone call for an interview. Here is a summary of that interview.

(a) The subsidies are meant to keep jobs from being lost, and to prop up sections of the media that are becoming unviable with technology changes.
(b) There is no deal of any kind to provide favourable coverage to any political party.
(c) Unifor, the union, promotes progressive causes all the time. They do not oppose any party because of financial considerations like what people suggest here.
(d) The media workers will continue to operate objectively.

While Mr. Law’s comments are reasonable on the surface, there is still no question that this at least appears to be a form of bribery. Governments handing millions of dollars to a friendly media reeks of propaganda and corruption.

But for now we will wait and see what comes of this.

Posted on

Kevin O’Leary Sues Elections Canada Over Fundraising Limits

(Kevin O’Leary, former candidate for CPC, to replace Stephen Harper)

***********************************************************************
The full text for UN Global Migration Compact is RIGHT HERE.

Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE
***********************************************************************

CBC published an article announcing that former Conservative Party leadership candidate, Kevin O’Leary, is suing Elections Canada over ruling relating to how he can pay back campaign debt. During the election campaign, O’Leary accumulated about $2,000,000 in debt. Approximately $400,000 is still outstanding.

Kevin-O-Leary

A quote from the article states that:

In his claim, O’Leary said that it is proving too difficult to raise the necessary funds in the three-year timeframe set by Elections Canada laws because people are understandably “uninterested” in contributing to a failed campaign that is long over.

He has a good point. No one would be interested in contributing to a political campaign that has long since ended. So it does posse serious challenges for him to do so.

Further, the article raises an interesting question:

“If you’re out of the race, and you’re not a politician any more and you owe money to a fellow citizen, where is it right that the law protects you from ever paying it back? That’s un-Canadian. That’s unconstitutional. That’s simply wrong,”

Again, this is valid. O’Leary’s brief political career is finished. He claims to never wish to run for office again, so what is the issue with him simply paying the debts and moving on with his life? O’Leary states that he has the funds available to do so, but is prohibited from doing so under the Canada Elections Act.

The claim filed is available here, and let’s go through some of the better arguments.

Regarding the applicable laws, the claim states:

1. A declaration that subsections 367(1)(d), (6) and (7), 478.756), and 500(1) of the Canada Elections Act, SC. 2000, c. 9 (the ?Act?) (collectively referred to herein as the impugned provisions) infringe on and deny the rights and freedoms guaranteed by sections 3 and 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter)

and are not saved by section 1 thereof;

2. A declaration that, insofar as the impugned provisions infringe on and deny the rights and freedoms guaranteed by sections 3 and/or 7 of the Charter and cannot be justified under section 1 of the Charter, those provisions are invalid and of no force and effect, to

the extent of the inconsistency;
3. In addition, or in the alternative:

a. A declaration that the impugned provisions violate the constitutional principle of the rule of law, which requires that laws be written and interpreted according to an intelligible legal standard that gives individuals fair notice of the conduct that will

attract imprisonment by the state;

b. A declaration that, insofar as the impugned provisions fail to meet the constitutional standard of legislative precision required by the rule of law, these provisions are invalid and of no force and effect or, in the alternative, must be read down so as to

satisfy this standard;

Okay, let’s dissect this word salad. O’Leary claims that portions of the Canada Elections Act, violate several provisions of the Canadian Charter. The “reasonable limitation is the Charter (section 1) would not apply and justify the C.E.A. Further, he implies that the C.E.A. is written in a too confusing standard to be followed.

Here is the Canada Elections Act.

Contribution limits
367 (1) Subject to subsection 373(4), no individual shall make contributions that exceed

(a) $1,500 in total in any calendar year to a particular registered party;
(b) $1,500 in total in any calendar year to the registered associations, nomination contestants and candidates of a particular registered party;
(c) $1,500 in total to a candidate for a particular election who is not the candidate of a registered party; and
(d) $1,500 in total in any calendar year to the leadership contestants in a particular leadership contest.

Contributions — candidates and leadership contestants
(6) Subject to subsection (7), no candidate in a particular election and no leadership contestant in a particular leadership contest shall make a contribution out of their own funds to their own campaign.
Marginal note:

Exception — certain contributions to own campaign
(7) The following contributions are permitted:
(a) contributions that do not exceed $5,000 in total by a candidate for a particular election out of their own funds to their own campaign; and
(b) contributions that do not exceed $25,000 in total by a leadership contestant in a particular leadership contest out of their own funds to their own campaign.

Okay, 367(1)(d) has to do with individuals making contributions being limited to $1,500 per year to any leadership contestant. Sections (6) and (7) have to do with overall individual limits. It is definitely reasonable that there should be contribution limits, in order to avoid having candidates “BOUGHT AND PAID FOR”. However, should that apply to former candidates who have since moved on.

3 potential counter arguments against O’Leary though:
(a) What if a person “hasn’t” moved on, and intends to use this relief for future campaigns?
(b) Would removing this cap be an end-run around spending limits?
(c) Would this restriction be necessary to ensure “smaller candidates” get a fair shot?

There is no 478.756 in the Canada Elections Act. It appears to be a type in the claim. However, this is the provision that I believe O’Leary was referring to. That is 478.75.

Payment within three years
478.75 (1) If a claim for a leadership campaign expense is evidenced by an invoice or other document that has been sent under section 478.74, or if a claim for repayment of a loan is made to the leadership contestant under section 373, the claim shall be paid within three years after the day on which the leadership contest ends.

Once more this seems to make a good point. The C.E.A requires repayment within 3 years. However, if former candidates must: (I) pay in 3 years or less; (II) are not actually able to raise more donations because they are not running; and (III) have strict limits as to how much of their personal wealth they can use, then there seem to be few, if any options.

Now, for section 500 of the C.E.A.:

Marginal note:
Punishment — strict liability offences
500 (1) Every person who is guilty of an offence under any of subsections 484(1), 486(1), 489(1), 491(1), 492(1), 495(1), 495.1(1), 495.2(1), 496(1), 497(1), 497.1(1), 497.2(1), 497.3(1), 497.4(1), 497.5(1) and 499(1) is liable on summary conviction to a fine of not more than $2,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than three months, or to both.

I’m not going to quote the entirety of Section 500. The point is that O’Leary is correct, the C.E.A. does in fact threaten jail time as a punishment for failing to comply.

One the surface, Kevin O’Leary’s claim seems to be valid, given the strict rules the C.E.A. sets out. But let’s now check out the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which the lawsuit references as relief.

Democratic rights of citizens
3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.

Life, liberty and security of person
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Rights and freedoms in Canada
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

O’Leary makes the argument that fairly large campaigns are necessary to be elected as part of a legislative assembly. Without debating the merits of “big money”, it is a fact. Campaigns and elections are expensive to run.

Section 7 has to do with punishments, which Section 500 of the C.E.A. establishes can be up to 90 days in prison for violating provisions of the act.

Section 1 is often invoked as a “reasonable justification” for restricting Charter rights. Obviously, in order to restrict, there must be some societal overall good. While Elections Canada will obviously argue differently, O’Leary is attempting to preempt the defence by stating there is none.

Thoughts And Conclusions
Obviously, this is only beginning. The claim has been filed, but no response or defence has yet been made.

On the surface, the claim makes valid points. O’Leary, like all Canadian citizens, is allowed to run for any legislative assembly or body he wishes to. Today’s reality is that campaigns are long, expensive, and a financial drain to run. However, candidates may find themselves hamstrung by campaign finance rules, which seem overly complex and tedious.

As stated earlier, I see a few possible defences for Elections Canada
(a) What if a person “hasn’t” moved on, and intends to use this relief for future campaigns?
(b) Would removing this cap be an end-run around spending limits?
(c) Would this restriction be necessary to ensure “smaller candidates” get a fair shot?

Politicians (and aspiring politicians) across the country will likely be tracking this case, as it will have real impact on future elections and party leadership races.

As a side note: CBC published the article a month after the case was filed. Not that it is relevant to the case, but did they not know about it until then?

Posted on

Privacy Commissioner, Banks, Throw StatsCan Under the Bus

(The issue of bank data being seized is raised in Parliament)

This article was released by Global News on October 26, 2018, and CanuckLaw covered it here on October 28. In short, Statistics Canada wants to seize the banking information of 500,000 Canadians (each year), and do it without the knowledge or consent of Canadians.

(at 1:40 in the video) Statistics Canada representative James Tabreke in a very blunt way claims that this is a ”new way of getting economic data to make government decisions”. He also claims that StatsCan is being open with the public, and that the Canadian Banks were aware of this.

(at 2:32 in the video) Claim that the Privacy Commissioner has okayed the project.

Prime Minister Trudeau, in his typically partisan manner, defended the data seizure. Of course blamed Stephen Harper for eliminating the long form census in 2010. He claimed StatsCan was working closely with the Privacy Commissioner.

Now the lies get exposed:
First, Trudeau is distorting the truth with reference to Harper gutting the long-form census. In the original video, Statistics Canada claimed bank seizure was a move done to replace the long form census. So Harper cancelling the LFC in 2010 was actually irrelevant, as StatsCan was going to pull this stunt anyway.

Second, StatsCan claims that they have been open with what they are doing. Yet, these talks have been going on for a year now without the public’s knowledge.

Third, the C.B.A. (Canadian Bankers Association) has publicly objected, claiming they thought StatsCan was just in an exploratory stage. C.B.A. says they didn’t know StatsCan was going ahead with this, and says they will oppose the measure. Here is their statement:

Statement from the Canadian Bankers Association

Protecting the information privacy of their valued customers is a top priority for banks in Canada. Banks believed this proposed data acquisition project was still in the exploratory stages and were not aware that Statistics Canada was moving to compel disclosure of this information. No customer transaction data or other personal information has been transferred to Statistics Canada under this request. The CBA is working with members to understand the nature of this request and next steps.

Fourth, the Privacy Commissioner, seen here appearing before the Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, refutes the claim that he ”okayed the move”. Instead, he stated that he does not have the authority to approve such a thing, and is only able to provide general advice on privacy laws.

Fifth, the Privacy Commissioner claims he was unaware until very recently that Statistics Canada that they wanted to do this to 500,000 Canadians. He says numbers were not discussed. In the hearing he states, ”Proportionality is very important.”

Sixth, the Privacy Commissioner states he was unaware or just how much information would be seized by such a move.

Seventh, the Privacy Commissioner admits that StatsCan was not nearly as transparent as it could have been.

Eighth, and this is a glaring omission: StatsCan doesn’t say how this massive intrusion would actually help. There are just vague references to ”economic information”.

Certainly, that 15 years of credit card data had recently been seized also doesn’t sit well with many Canadians.

Now that formal complaints against this measure have been filed with the Privacy Commissioner, there is no longer the option of just giving general legal information. At this point, an investigation is mandated by law.

The proposal appears to be dead in the water, as public outrage and the threats of legal action are forcing StatsCan to back off. But it will be interesting to see if the Federal Liberals continue to support this Orwellian measure.

Note:
Statistics Canada, Equifax, Transunion, the C.B.A., and the major banks have all been contacted by CanuckLaw for comment. Any responses will be posted here as updates.

Canadian Banker’s Association rep Aaron Boles
Thanks, Alex.

The most important take-away from yesterday is that StatsCan is suspending any movement on its proposed project until the Office of the Privacy Commissioner has completed its report, which we understand will be January at the earliest. We were firm in our appearance before the Senate Committee that all options are on the table in terms of defending the privacy and security of bank customers’ personal information and transaction records. Until the OPC report is tabled and StatsCan responds about what it proposes to do thereafter, there’s little point in speculating on how information on spending habits would be collected, if at all.

Best,

AEB

From RBC
Hi Alex – please refer to the CBA for comment on this.

Best,
AJ

AJ Goodman I Director, External Communications, Personal & Commercial Banking I

From TD Canada
Hi Alex,

We refer your inquiry to the CBA, however can tell you that TD takes the trust our customers place in us extremely seriously and has not agreed to share customer data.

Thanks,

Alison

From Statistics Canada
Hello,

“I can assure you that we will not proceed with this project until we have addressed the privacy concerns expressed by Canadians by working cooperatively with the Privacy Commissioner and with financial institutions.”

Anil Arora, Chief Statistician of Canada (Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, November 8, 2018)

Thank you,

Laurence Beaudoin-Corriveau

Manager (Acting), Media Relations, Communications
Statistics Canada, Government of Canada

laurence.beaudoin-corriveau@canada.ca / Tel: 613-951-2599

From Equifax
Hello Alex.

In our database, Equifax Canada has information on ~27M Canadian consumers, which we maintain as a registered Canadian credit bureau in accordance with applicable credit reporting and privacy laws. Statistics Canada has never directed Equifax Canada to provide them with, and subsequently, Equifax Canada has not provided to Statistics Canada all of its data pursuant to its enabling legislation.

In any instance where a regulated body relying on legislative authority requests information from Equifax, our standard process is to conduct a review against our internal data governance and security processes, as well as to consider applicable law prior to disclosure.

We don’t have any information on the rumour you mentioned about credit data from 15 years ago.

Media Relations | Equifax Canada Co.

5700 Yonge St., Suite 1700, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M2M 4K2

Posted on

Canada Should Leave The U.N. Entirely

(The U.S. leaving the UN Human Rights Council. The violators are part of the council)

(The Hungarian Foreign Minister defending “legal-only” migration)

CLICK HERE, for the main page of the United Nations (in English).

1. Previous Solutions Offered

A response that frequently comes up is for people to ask what to do about it. Instead of just constantly pointing out what is wrong, some constructive suggestions should be offered. This section contains a list of proposals that, if implemented, would benefit society. While the details may be difficult to implement, at least they are a starting point.

2. Reasons To Dump The UN

The main argument here is that Canada would be MUCH better off as a country if we left the United Nations, permanently. No deals, no special arrangements, no reform, just leave forever.

For the political junkies, take this to heart: traditional arguments of “left v.s. right” are no longer relevant. The choice we must face is the “globalist v.s. nationalist” one. Is Canada a sovereign nation, one that determines its own future, or is it a U.N. colony or puppet state? If Canada is to be a free and independent nation, then the U.N. is the last thing we need. Here are several reasons, each to be explored.

(1) The U.N. Articles are incompatible with free and sovereign nations.
(2) The U.N. destroys borders through political means.
(3) The U.N. destroys borders through direct means.
(4) The U.N. destroys national sovereignty
(5) The U.N. erodes individual cultures and societies.
(6) The U.N. has become a money pit, with the climate change scam
(7) The U.N. funds do not go where they are supposed to
(8) The U.N. “councils” are beyond hypocritical.
(9) The U.N. would just be a bigger version of the E.U.

Of course, this list could be much, MUCH longer. However, the point is to demonstrate that the U.N. is a globalist institution, and that it has no respect for individual nations.

(1) The U.N. Articles are incompatible with free and sovereign nations.

Click here, for the full text, but here are some worth noting:

Article 8
The United Nations shall place no restrictions on the eligibility of men and women to participate in any capacity and under conditions of equality in its principal and subsidiary organs.

This is a bit amusing, since many of its members do not believe in women’s rights.

Article 19
A Member of the United Nations which is in arrears in the payment of its financial contributions to the Organization shall have no vote in the General Assembly if the amount of its arrears equals or exceeds the amount of the contributions due from it for the preceding two full years. The General Assembly may, nevertheless, permit such a Member to vote if it is satisfied that the failure to pay is due to conditions beyond the control of the Member.

No money, no vote. Sort of a pay-to-play system.

Article 24
In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf.
In discharging these duties the Security Council shall act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations. The specific powers granted to the Security Council for the discharge of these duties are laid down in Chapters VI, VII, VIII, and XII.
The Security Council shall submit annual and, when necessary, special reports to the General Assembly for its consideration.

Article 25
The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.

So, if 8 nations got together, they could override the nation’s sovereignty. Great idea.

Article 32
Any Member of the United Nations which is not a member of the Security Council or any state which is not a Member of the United Nations, if it is a party to a dispute under consideration by the Security Council, shall be invited to participate, without vote, in the discussion relating to the dispute. The Security Council shall lay down such conditions as it deems just for the participation of a state which is not a Member of the United Nations.

Yes, no joke, you won’t even get a vote if you are not on the council.

Article 41
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations

If this weren’t the United Nations doing this, it would seem an awful lot like the mafia. There are more clauses, but the point here has been made. Signing on with the U.N. means losing control of your country.

(2) The U.N. destroys borders through political means.
This was addressed in an earlier article. The U.N. does try to push mass immigration (a.k.a. “open borders”) on the rest of the world. The latest effort is the global compact for migration, which would effectively give the U.N. control over the host countries’ borders.

Interestingly, the U.N. site has both a: compact for migration and a compact on refugees. However, the U.N. seems hell bent on pushing migrants.

(3) The U.N. destroys borders through direct means.
It is not enough for the U.N. to destroy borders with political means. The agency also directly aids and abets others, such as the Honduran migrant caravan. The U.N. openly admits helping to help thousands of economic migrants “illegally” get into the U.S.

And they admit it here.

“IOM maintains its position that the human rights and basic needs of all migrants must be respected, regardless of their migratory status,” said Christopher Gascon, UN Migration’s Chief of Mission in Mexico.

In other words, we don’t care if they are illegal economic migrants. How is this not human smuggling? Further, the U.N. has been known to help flood Europe with more than 1 million “refugees” since 2015.

(4) The U.N. destroys national sovereignty
Too many examples to cite, but here are a few from the U.N. website.

(a) If you think Trudeau is bad, gender neutral language is a serious thing here.

(b) The U.N. is big on stopping terrorism, but its efforts are seriously called into question considering how much it pushes migration.

(c) The Human Rights Council has ruled that the French burka ban is a human rights violation. Interestingly, the Council doesn’t mention that being forced to wear it is a human right, or the security risk it poses is an issue.

(d) Of course, it wouldn’t be complete without gender quotas.

(e) Here is some Trudeau style concern for ISIS terrorists.

(5) The U.N. erodes individual cultures and societies.

The U.N pages make many references to respecting religion and culture, particularly on the migration pages. Funny, they never mention assimilation

Throughout its many sections on migration, the U.N. talks about how religions and cultures need to be respected, but notably absent is any expectation to respect the host country. Acceptance has to be a 2-way street.

(6) The U.N. has become a money pit, with the climate change scam
This was covered in a another article. The short story is that the U.N. is knowingly pushing a bogus climate change narrative, in order to extract large amounts of money, for “polluting” with carbon dioxide.

(7) The U.N. funds do not go where they are supposed to
There are many examples, but an infamous one was the oil for food program imposed on Iraq after the 1991 invasion of Kuwait. Under the scheme, Iraq could keep exporting oil, and the proceeds were supposed to help the citizenry. However, the program served largely to enrich Saddam Hussein and his family, while leaving the population in poor conditions.

(8) The U.N. “councils” are beyond hypocritical.
This was alluded to in the video at the start.
Members with the worst human rights records are part of the Human Rights Council. See here for the 2018 list. The list includes: Afghanistan, Indonesia, Iraq, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, U.A.E., and others

The U.N. Status of Women Council is just as big a joke. Their membership, elected for 4 year terms, includes: Algeria, Congo, Kenya, Iraq, Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and others.

The Human Rights Council is filled with member states who don’t believe in human rights. The Status of Women Council is filled with member states who don’t believe women should have equal right. Kind of flies in the face of the U.N.’s own declarations.

(9) The U.N. would just be a bigger version of the E.U.
Where to start here. The E.U. triggered Article 7 of the Lisbon Treaty against both Hungary and Poland for rejecting “migrant quotas”, which would strip them of their voting rights. Yes, Poland and Hungary might lose voting rights for daring to say that “they” will choose who lives in their own countries.

Italy has had its budget blocked by the EU. Yes, the democratically elected government needs to get approval of their own budget. Brexit was a rejection of E.U. controls, and Nigel Farage addresses it well.

While there are too many examples to cite, the point with #9, is that the European Union effectively destroys the sovereignty of the European States. The U.N. would just be a global example of the same problem.

3. Does The UN Serve Any Purpose?

I would argue, yes, to a point. However, we need to be concerned with our borders, and the sovereignty of our national policies. Becoming a province of the U.N. will only destroy Canada, as will flooding our borders with migrants (the U.N. doesn’t pretend they are refugees at times).

As for worthwhile causes, it would be better to decide for ourselves on a case by case basis whether to add any funding, or to send any personnel.

The battle for Canada will not be Left v. Right, or of Liberal v. Conservative, or of Poor v. Rich. It will be of Globalism v. Nationalism. As such, Canada should get the heck out of the U.N.

Canada for Canadians.

Posted on

”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.

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress