Comments Sept 22, 2010

bluenosedoug Report Comment

September 22nd 2010, 4:06pm

This issue will not be treated any differently when the next boatload arrives, all of our politicians from all party,s will continue to follow the politically correct path they are presently on,as it is far more important to them than actually doing anything constructive regarding the problem.they already know full well how to prevent boatloads of illegals from entering Canada but will continue to ignore the wishes of the majority of Canadians and suck up to the U.N. as some of them seek future appointments with the U.N. My opinion is the Government represents other nations people before they even consider the needs of those they were elected to represent

Johnny Canuck from Guelph Report Comment

September 22nd 2010, 3:46pm

@Let the voters decide. You just have to look across from the standing Government to those who feel they should still be running the country and their pets, the NDP.

Let the voters decide Report Comment

September 22nd 2010, 3:32pm

I would just like to know the names of the MPs who are reluctant to take sterner action.

grenadier Report Comment

September 22nd 2010, 3:30pm

@ Johnny Canuck form Guelph: I second the motion!

Johnny Canuck from Guelph Report Comment

September 22nd 2010, 3:13pm

I can't believe no one in our Government has thought about this. Its a no brainer. TURN THE BOAT AROUND. Next opt out of the UN; we can't afford to keep throwing money at third world nations when nothing has changed in the past 50 years. Next, allow only English and French (our two official languages) speaking immigrants in as long as they have a job to go to and aren't a drain on our systems (educational, medical and judicial). If they have a criminal record, you photograph them, finger print them and then escort them back to where they came from. The cost to taxpayers to teach those English, free medical, free education and on and on cannot be sustained any more. The money we save from opting out of the UN will help pay down our debt.

Dudley Do Right Report Comment

September 22nd 2010, 3:10pm

Leave it to politicians and lawyers to cloud a very simple issue. Turn the fricking boats around and don't let them enter Canadian waters. It's that simple.

Dooey Report Comment

September 22nd 2010, 2:47pm

Steve, hopefully by the time the little freeloader turns 18 the laws will have changed to prevent him/her from sponsoring anyone from 3rd world countries. Let just keep our fingers crossed shall we.

mary Report Comment

September 22nd 2010, 2:44pm

This clown didn't have to go to Australia to find out what they are doing, my gosh, this is why we have telephones, internet, video conferencing etc... Canada seems to love throwing money away, money they claim we don't have. Gather up all the immigrants that dont need to be here and lets start saving some money, stop these unecessary "business" trips that us tax payers are paying for. and for heavens sake, BAN THE HIJAB!!! and TURBAN WEARING at places of employment!. Thanks.

Emily Report Comment

September 22nd 2010, 2:43pm

We should consult with the Sri Lankan administration and they know how to keep the refugees in the camps without anyone visiting them or to kill them enmasse. Can we send some to Sri Lanka to learn lessons on these

Steve Report Comment

September 22nd 2010, 2:40pm

Has our newest Canadian from the MV Sun Sea popped out yet. The little tyke can sponsor scores of relatives when he reaches 18 and is still living off welfare

billwjames Report Comment

September 22nd 2010, 2:26pm

Canada is one of about 147 states who sign-up to the 1951 Convention on asylum seekers. Opting-out is a choice. Canada's supreme court decision on rights when on Canadian soil could be neutralized with the not withstanding clause. Some choices are; Temporary residencies and hope we can find them later. Opt-out of Convention on asylum seekers. Not-withstanding clause. Ship them to an agreeable third country.

JT Report Comment

September 22nd 2010, 2:23pm

It's funny how the boat load of "refugees" didn't try to dock in the US (which is actually closer).

billwjames Report Comment

September 22nd 2010, 2:07pm

1951 Geneva Convention on asylum seekers, article 33. â– Although both customary international law and the Geneva Convention require that contracting states not return (refoule) refugees to the country where they fear persecution, such states are not required to permit them to stay permanently. As well, they are not prohibited from returning refugees to a third country, unless that country would likely return them to the country where they fear persecution. â– The right of refugees not to be refouled is not absolute. A state is entitled to place its own security interests ahead of the rights of the refugee; it also has the right to refuse refuge to people convicted of serious crimes and who thereby pose a danger to the receiving society.

harold Report Comment

September 22nd 2010, 1:56pm

What's next, a boat full of gay people?

David Report Comment

September 22nd 2010, 1:44pm

Send all illegals back for any reason and have their goverment and peoples pay for this mess. It is a total mockery of our legal system to let these people run all over our system - there by proving we have no real system at all. A trip to Australia is only going to provide this person with a good tan and nothing else. He could of just called them or contacted his counterparts over the internet. What a continued waste again of taxpayers money. Does any body in our current Goverment have any brains at all. Are they smarter than a 6th grader?