Illegal immigration into Canada from southern land border spikes after Trump's muslim ban - Polidicks

[QUOTE=archangel125;51842843]Then you're no Canadian and you can leave too. As elix said, unless you're a Native American you're an immigrant.[/QUOTE] Not really, probably actually born in Canada. Unless you're talking about ancestry in which case how far back does it need to go to matter? should we all go back to Africa?

[QUOTE=snookypookums;51843147]That's not the real fear here - the real fear is the arbitrariness and swiftness that this was executed with. Imagine, for example, that US is currently having strained diplomatic ties with India. I need to travel there on work and in the 24 hours it takes for me to fly in, the US government again decides to issue a travel ban to Indian nationals. Even setting aside the fact that nothing bad is likely to happen to me personally - they'll cancel the visa and technically deport me back to my home country - do you know what kind of a ramification having a cancelled visa or a deportation means for the traveller? Every time I need to apply for a new visa from that point on, I'll need to actually declare that on the form and then run a risk of having to explain the cricumstances to a consular officer who may or may not give a shit and reject my application. It's all fine and dandy for western folks who have visa-on-arrival (if they even need one at all) for travel between US/UK/EU, but for countries that need these visas, the US shutting the door on you is almost as likely to get a huge fuck you from the rest of the western world as well. It also works reciprocally - if you get a US visa, getting the other visas are a hell of a lot easier as well. So yes, this sentient hairpiece writing executive orders willy nilly without thinking through the consequences this could have for international trade in general with other countries is a pretty serious problem.[/QUOTE] It's actually soul crushing how many lives Trump has probably permanently ruined just with the travel ban alone.

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;51843193]Not really, probably actually born in Canada. Unless you're talking about ancestry in which case how far back does it need to go to matter? should we all go back to Africa?[/QUOTE] Sure I'm talking about ancestry. As far back as it takes.

[QUOTE=archangel125;51843292]Sure I'm talking about ancestry. As far back as it takes.[/QUOTE] So we should all go back to africa? [editline]19th February 2017[/editline] or as far as it takes to fit your argument

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;51843313]So we should all go back to africa? [editline]19th February 2017[/editline] or as far as it takes to fit your argument[/QUOTE] Stepping out of the trees and walking on two legs was a mistake.

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;51843327]Stepping out of the trees and walking on two legs was a mistake.[/QUOTE] "In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."

I'm still extremely fucking confused why people are doing this and in the dead of winter no less (read up on the guys who crossed around Christmas time and lost most of their fingers to frostbite). Can they seriously not show up at any of the regular border crossings and claim status or is this just people using some convoluted loophole to get in? I mean, I'm not saying it's a BAD thing to get migrants from the states as it does a great job filtering out the scum from Mexico (that is, the folks who are jumping because a lengthy criminal record or because they've been repeatedly denied a visa because of their history). I'm just confused.

Should I seek asylum to Canada from the Washington state border?

[QUOTE=snookypookums;51843147]That's not the real fear here - the real fear is the arbitrariness and swiftness that this was executed with.[/QUOTE] What arbitrariness? This has been law for more than a century. [editline]18th February 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=DOCTOR LIGHT;51843201]It's actually soul crushing how many lives Trump has probably permanently ruined just with the travel ban alone.[/QUOTE] The travel ban lasts only a few months. The number of people who will be permanently affected by this would be under 100, I guarantee.

[QUOTE=Ridge;51843439]What arbitrariness? This has been law for more than a century. [editline]18th February 2017[/editline] The travel ban lasts only a few months. The number of people who will be permanently affected by this would be under 100, I guarantee.[/QUOTE] Under 100? I think you underestimate how many citizens from the middle east there are.

[QUOTE=windows098;51843453]Under 100? I think you underestimate how many citizens from the middle east there are.[/QUOTE] And the travel ban has already been amended to exclude US citizens (only a few days after it was signed).

[QUOTE=Ridge;51843463]And the travel ban has already been amended to exclude US citizens (only a few days after it was signed).[/QUOTE] You know, we're all aware you'd shill for absolutely any atrocity, but tell me, why was it signed to include US permanent residents in the first place? Hmm?

[QUOTE=archangel125;51843497]You know, we're all aware you'd shill for absolutely any atrocity, but tell me, why was it signed to include US permanent residents in the first place? Hmm?[/QUOTE] Or for that matter, if you're already sliding down that slippery slope of banning people from a specific religion, why target a select few regions? The silence from the Trump team on why KSA, unarguably one of the biggest financial backers for the kind of radical Islam Trump claims to want to stop entering the country, wasn't included is deafening. The same country that is now indiscriminately causing multiple civilian casualties in Yemen right now in a series of Urkel-esque "Did I do that?", I might add. I'd argue that arbitrary is the best word to describe it unless you can actually find the facts that defends the inclusion and exclusion of countries put on this list, in a way that doesn't make the Trump cabinet look like the utter fools that they are.

[QUOTE=Scratch.;51843182]Is anyone fleeing to mexico?[/QUOTE] I might if circumstances allow for it.

[QUOTE=snookypookums;51843546]Or for that matter, if you're already sliding down that slippery slope of banning people from a specific religion, why target a select few regions? The silence from the Trump team on why KSA, unarguably one of the biggest financial backers for the kind of radical Islam Trump claims to want to stop entering the country, wasn't included is deafening. The same country that is now indiscriminately causing multiple civilian casualties in Yemen right now in a series of Urkel-esque "Did I do that?", I might add. I'd argue that arbitrary is the best word to describe it unless you can actually find the facts that defends the inclusion and exclusion of countries put on this list, in a way that doesn't make the Trump cabinet look like the utter fools that they are.[/QUOTE] It's the countries selected by the Obama admin as countries of "concern." So blame them for being arbitrary if you must.

[QUOTE=Ridge;51843439] The travel ban lasts only a few months. The number of people who will be permanently affected by this would be under 100, I guarantee.[/QUOTE] You're full of shit and you know it. Imagine the relationships severed by it. Job opportunities lost. Future visas denied. There's probably some poor schmuck who lost his fucking house in the US (since this nearly happened to a mate of mine due to the uncertainty of his visa being cleared) while he was away from the country.

`

[QUOTE=sgman91;51843593]It's the countries selected by the Obama admin as countries of "concern." So blame them for being arbitrary if you must.[/QUOTE] On that note: Trump actually only specifically named Syria in his presidential order. In keeping with his norm for vagueness and plausible deniability, he pointed to a section of US code (previously passed by Obama in December 2015). This was done immediately following the San Bernardino shooting and the evidence that suggested that the shooter had travelled to countries known for terrorist training activities. The specific quote from his executive order is this: [QUOTE]“I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order.”[/QUOTE] [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/02/07/trumps-claim-that-obama-first-identified-the-seven-countries-in-his-travel-ban/"]A full and more comprehensive explanation about this specific issue can be found here.[/URL] During Obama's administration, there was a focus on these countries (Yemen, Iraq) as well as countries that were specifically considered guilty of state sponsored terrorism (Syria, Sudan and Iran), but not for a restriction on travel based on nationality or religion, but specifically to address the threat of radicalized fighters.Of course, the reasons for KSA being mysteriously off this list continues, because of reasons that were also clear during the Obama administration. Trump, while being overtly critical of the Saudis, is likely learning exactly why he won't be able to do anything and will refuse to say anything as well, considering his business concerns in the country. What's even more damning is this: [QUOTE]Charles Kurzman, a sociology professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill who tracks Muslim American violent extremism, says that since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, only 23 percent of Muslim Americans involved in extremist plots had family backgrounds in the seven countries identified by Trump — and that “[B]there have been no fatalities in the United States caused by extremists with family backgrounds in those countries.[/B]”[/QUOTE] The appeals court that overturned the order had this to say: [QUOTE]“Although the Government points to the fact that Congress and the Executive identified the seven countries named in the Executive Order as countries of concern in 2015 and 2016, the Government has not offered any evidence or even an explanation of how the national security concerns that justified those designations, which triggered visa requirements, can be extrapolated to justify an urgent need for the Executive Order to be immediately reinstated.”[/QUOTE] In other words, Trump was playing the blame game when he pointed to the Obama administration as the "source of his inspiration", but hadn't realized that the motivations and reasons for "concern" on these specific countries was not the same as Trump's.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;51842744]Unless you're first nations, you can get back on the boat too. Off you go, pack up and leave and take your attitude with you.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=archangel125;51842843]Then you're no Canadian and you can leave too. As elix said, unless you're a Native American you're an immigrant.[/QUOTE] [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean_hypothesis]Soluteran hypothesis[/url] has been picking up some [url=http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/5/e1600375]new evidence in the recent months[/url], with some finds in Florida predating the Bering Strait land bridge's existence, as well as the point where it would of been feasible to go on the land bridge thanks in part to lack of wildlife and food.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51842094]I think you're making it a whole lot deeper than was intended. The Berlin Wall is an example of a wall that stopped the mass movement of people, what side it was stopped doesn't change it's effectiveness as a wall.[/QUOTE] The Berlin Wall was also 91 miles long, while the US-Mexico border is 1,954 miles long, over 21 times longer. The Berlin Wall also wasn't just a wall, it had watchtowers, barbed wire fences, mine fields, and military patrols that would kill anyone they trying to cross it.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51844080]The Berlin Wall was also 91 miles long, while the US-Mexico border is 1,954 miles long, over 21 times longer. The Berlin Wall also wasn't just a wall, it had watchtowers, barbed wire fences, mine fields, and military patrols that would kill anyone they trying to cross it.[/QUOTE] I think a more apt modern-day comparison to visualize Trump's idea of what the wall should look like is the Demilitarized zone separating South Korea and Best Korea. [video=youtube;erXTfmiYZ7k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erXTfmiYZ7k[/video]

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;51841247]I would like to see an American legitimate apply for asylum/refugee status when going to Canada just to see the political circus to follow it.[/QUOTE] My partner works in asylum claims (here in the UK) and has seen a case of an American claiming asylum here. I don't know whether he was successful

[QUOTE=snookypookums;51844185]I think a more apt modern-day comparison to visualize Trump's idea of what the wall should look like is the Demilitarized zone separating South Korea and Best Korea. [video=youtube;erXTfmiYZ7k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erXTfmiYZ7k[/video][/QUOTE] [t]https://jii.moe/HJjz6WwKe.png[/t] the fuck

[QUOTE=Scratch.;51844455][t]https://jii.moe/HJjz6WwKe.png[/t] the fuck[/QUOTE] It's a 5:13 video - not sure why it's showing as long as 1:11:26.55 for you, Scratch.

[QUOTE=Doozle;51844352]My partner works in asylum claims (here in the UK) and has seen a case of an American claiming asylum here. I don't know whether he was successful[/QUOTE] It'd be both funny and kinda sad if he was.

[QUOTE=archangel125;51842843]Then you're no Canadian and you can leave too. As elix said, unless you're a Native American you're an immigrant.[/QUOTE] If you can't speak english or french you don't belong in Canada. I was born here and I've had so much trouble communicating with immigrants who were "just off the boat" that want to work under the table and not pay taxes it pisses me off.

[QUOTE=ultra_bright;51846264]If you can't speak english or french you don't belong in Canada. I was born here and I've had so much trouble communicating with immigrants who were "just off the boat" that want to work under the table and not pay taxes it pisses me off.[/QUOTE] Never go to Richmond, BC then. [editline]19th February 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Ridge;51843463]And the travel ban has already been amended to exclude US citizens (only a few days after it was signed).[/QUOTE] Either way it was determined to be unconsititutional by the courts.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51844080]The Berlin Wall was also 91 miles long, while the US-Mexico border is 1,954 miles long, over 21 times longer. The Berlin Wall also wasn't just a wall, it had watchtowers, barbed wire fences, mine fields, and military patrols that would kill anyone they trying to cross it.[/QUOTE] That's fine. You can argue that it's a bad example of an effective wall, but that's very different than saying the comparison was trying to make some moral argument about keeping people in like the Berlin wall did. As a side note, I'm not a supporter of building a wall. I think it's the least effective way to stop illegal immigration.