Liberals introduce bill proposing sweeping border security powers
Liberals introduce bill proposing sweeping border security powers
34 comments
-
This is essential to maintaining the safety and security of our country … it is also a priority that we share with our neighbours.
Am I the only one who finds this statement deeply troubling?
-
Nope. You are not.
-
There's a lot of sucking up to Trump going on. One hopes that it's strategic and the elbows up stuff was genuine, not the other way around.
Time will tell. I lean towards the good option right now because Carney doesn't seem dumb enough to not recognise a bad deal.
-
-
Shocking, it's like BOTH parties will do what every they need to do to gain power and the favour of more powerful, people. The Canadian government has been an economic and political appendage of the US since long before Trump got on the scene.
-
It also doesn't work. It completely gives in to conservative framing, and conservatives will always win against liberals on being "tough" on the border.
-
-
So not only is this significantly expanding government's power to arbitrarily fuck with people's immigration paperwork but this is a significant expansion of police powers in general:
- The Coast Guard is being turned from an emergency search and rescue service to an agency that also carries out surveillance for the police and military
- People convicted of sex crimes will have their personal information shared with foreign governments
- Police can more easily search your mail
- "Electronic service providers" will be banned from deleting certain user data just in case the police will want it
-
The banker will save us from fascism guys you're going to have hold your noses and wipe out the third parties!
-
I mean, PP wouldn't be better, and you know damn well a third party government wasn't an option.
Unfortunately, most voters just don't see things our way.
-
-
Is that electronic one about VPN logs?
-
ICE deporting people
Canada "Hold my beer".
-
Very, very different scope:
"We need to ensure Canada's law enforcement is equipped with the tools they need to stay ahead of organized crime groups and crack down on their illicit activities."
-
Yes but that's all lip service to Trump's wild claims of Canada and Mexico being hotbeds and the source of all drugs, criminals, dark skinned people, etc. To even acknowledge that clown's claims in their language is to let them set the agenda. Canada can and should do what it wants at its border but not with a fucking patriot act style national security giveaway.
Just remember, once it's there, it's there for any future admin. This was written for Trump and by industry lobbiests in CA who would benefit from decreased tarrifs and/or security/weapons/data companies that want far contracts.
-
Totally different from when Trump talks about cartels /s
-
That's exactly the justification Trump made to start unleashing ICE
-
Pretty true point, bad argument (as others have pointed out).
-
-
As far as I can tell this doesn't directly mean deporting people, and Carney himself seems unlikely to want to go on an immigrant purge. The devil will be in the details, though, and I worry this could be built on in the future in a way that weakens democracy.
-
-
Canadians, take this as a reminder that your fight with fascism is not even close to over. You avoided the immediate crisis with what is basically an act of God; now it's time to ensure that clowns like these guys don't bring Canada back to that same crisis in three years.
-
Silver lining - sounds like something that could be used to stem the illegal gun importation from the US?
-
Have you heard of drones being used to smuggle guns? No physical person even needs to cross a border now. Personally, I can't think of a practical solution to this.
-
Guns, drugs, pornography, refugees, factual information contradicting or embarrasing the powerful.
You might see a moral difference, but it's all the same from an enforcement perspective. It's a thing, and you want to keep it out. The real question is how much control you trust them with.
-
-
Sweeping border powers? What, they gonna give them brooms?
-
Most of it is fine on the border/tough on crime provisions, whatever.
The export inspections is good and will help with the car theft epidemic. (I don't own a car but I can understand communities being frustrated by our current laws not being able to respond effectively to theft rings).
The one part I am concerned about is Part 15 (Supporting Authorized Access to Information Act), a mandatory confidential pathway for electronic service providers to provide information to authorities. Even though "systemic vulnerabilities" are not meant to be introduced in that Act, I can't help imagine certain edge cases may serve as loopholes to install backdoors that are exploited by both our government and others.
-
The proposed changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act give the government increased power over immigration documents in cases where public health or national security are at risk. Specifically it allows officials to cancel, suspend or change immigration documents immediately, pause the acceptance of new applications and cancel applications already in process if deemed in the public interest. Asylum claims would also have to be made within a year of entering the country, including for students and temporary residents. The immigration changes would also require irregular border crossers, people who enter Canada between official ports of entry, to make an asylum claim within 14 days of arriving in Canada.
Not the kind of legislation I would want a Tory government to inherit (and hence "strengthen").
The changes would also speed up voluntary departures by making removal orders effective the same day an asylum claim is withdrawn.
And this kind of shit is straight up alarming.
Basically, at a time when the US is going full on fascist with respect to immigrants, I want Canada moving confidently in the opposite direction.
-
Fair point, while I wouldn't like a Conservative government to expand on it, I read those sections but I don't consider it beyond the pale. My impression was it is more about removing slack in the process. There are many good arguments to maintain that slack, but that to me is a matter of debate, not a certain slide into fascism.
I'm not a fan of the bill, why it's the first thing the House gets to is concerning, but I'm trying to keep a level head while analyzing the bill and not get into an immediate frenzy.
-
-
34 comments