Canada near top of list for asylum seekers

[pampango]

Source: CBC

The UN refugee agency says the number of people seeking asylum in the West dropped by five per cent last year

The agency said Monday that 358,800 people applied for asylum in the EU and 17 other countries that it surveyed in 2010. At the peak, in 2001, almost 620,000 people applied for asylum.

Despite the overall fall, the United States — which receives one of every six applications — still saw an increase of 6,500 applications in 2010 partly due to a rise in the number of Chinese and Mexicans applying.

France, Germany, Sweden and Canada had the next highest numbers of new applications.



Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/03/28/un-refugee-agency.html?ref=rss

---

http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home

[LiberalEsto]

1. And how many U.S. citizens are fleeing to Canada?

My husband keeps saying he wants to move to Canada, but the growing season is so short that I wouldn't be able to have a decent vegetable garden.

[cleanhippie]

2. Just FYI, "Moving to Canada" is not as easy as it would seem.

I own property there and had a job (on a work permit that was very difficult to get) and consulted an immigration lawyer about moving there permanently. It would cost THOUSANDS of dollars (in both government and lawyer fees), weeks in paperwork and forms, and take anywhere from 18-36 months to get a response from the government.
You see, we had a revolution against the Crown a few years back, and are no longer part of the Commonwealth. Unless the Queen is on your money (or you HAVE a LOT of money), its a very difficult, costly and time consuming process.
Good Luck.

[iverglas]

5. and more ridiculous BS

You see, we had a revolution against the Crown a few years back, and are no longer part of the Commonwealth. Unless the Queen is on your money (or you HAVE a LOT of money), its a very difficult, costly and time consuming process.

Citizens of Commonwealth countries have no advantage whatsoever in the Canadian immigration process.

Canada is an independent self-governing nation, and the Commonwealth is an association of independent self-governing nations, you might have heard.

There are NO national-origin quotas in the Canadian immigration process. One of the largest source of immigrants is in fact the US.

... But this thread really isn't about the US, or USAmericans wanting to move to Canada ...

[cleanhippie]

7. Iver, whats up?

Been a long time!

My commonwealth comments were a bit toungue-in-cheek. But in MY 2 1/2 years of experience living in BC, it certainly SEEMED that way.

At any rate, I was only relaying what I know about the process.

[iverglas]

8. must've been a long time ago in BC

... or you were living in Victoria. ;)

Urban BC these days is heavily populated by Chinese and Southeast Asian immigrants and their descendants.

What's up?

It's fucking cold in my part of Canuckistan still! But it's a sunny cold ... ;)

[cleanhippie]

12. I was in Kamloops

We miss you in the gungeon. Some real nutjobs have filled the void you left.

[LiberalEsto]

13. Thanks for the info

I wouldn't want to move there, even if the Canadians are considerably saner than some of my fellow citizens. I can't take the cold, long winters, or the long nights during the winter.

I technically have dual citizenship in the U.S. and in Estonia because my parents and grandparents were born there. I speak the language fluently and have relatives there. But again, I'd go crazy during the long, dark winters.

[iverglas]

15. sigh

Sunrise/sunset in Baltimore, Maryland, 1 April 2011:

Apr 1, 2011 6:51 AM 7:30 PM
length of day: 12h 38m 39s

Sunrise/sunset in Toronto, Ontario, 1 April 2011:

Apr 1, 2011 7:00 AM 7:44 PM
length of day: 12h 44m 20s


Not sure how that works, but that's what it says.

Toronto is farther south than the entire state of Maine, e.g., and than all of Minnesota, the Dakotas, and states west in that line.

London, Ontario, where I grew up, is farther south than all of Vermont and New Hampshire and much of NY state, and barely north of Boston.

We really, really do not all inhabit the area inside the Arctic Circle.

Most of the Canadian population lives within an hour's drive of the US border, because most of the land mass much farther north than that really is uninhabitable by large populations, for various reasons.

[mahigan]

3. You have no idea

how tired Canadians get of constantly hearing this ridiculous BS. I live in one of the coldest parts of the country. Yes it gets to -40 and the snow is still knee deep in places. However, you can grow excellent vegetable gardens here with no problem whatever - and that includes even artichokes if you are willing to start them indoors. We also grow apples, cherries, plums, grapes, apricots and blackberries on our land. And, if you can't handle the -40, the tulips have been up for a month in BC.

Of course, if you can't be bothered to check a few basic facts, you might not find yourself too well received.

[iverglas]

4. and besides

... this thread is not about the US or USAmericans ... really.

;)

[forty6]

10. Canada produces most major vegetables and fruits produced in the USA..

Corn and wheat are major crops, in some areas. All root vegetables, potatoes, beets, turnips, etc, grown in many areas just as they are in Maine, and Idaho. Carrots, Onions, Squash, Tomato, Eggplant etc., all grow in Canadian home gardens.

Canadians also use 3 season greenhouses to extend the growing season from April to October. Garlic and Herbs grow well inside .

Unless you're feeding an army, you can grow enough vegetables and berries and even apples in Canada for two or three average families in a large yard. True, peaches, cantalopes, oranges, bananas etc, no you won't find them growing outside a greenhouse, but you won't find banana's growing in the USA anyway.

Yes, it snows and freezes in winter all over Canada, but much less in British Columbia on the W. coast than in Nebraska.

[iverglas]

16. !

No peaches grown in Canada?? Tell that to the peach growers in Ontario and BC. ;) (And don't forget the internationally renown wines produced from vineyards in both provinces.)

My cantaloupes are grown in Ontario, in season, along with watermelons and honeydews. My brother has an infant cherry orchard on the northern shores of Lake Ontario. There's a huge local strawberry crop in June where I'm at.

Citrus fruit and bananas, nope, we don't grow them. Yet.

Global warming may just make this an even more desirable place to live. ;)

Our home garden tends to be limited to tomatoes and peppers, which always seems kind of pointless because by the time they're ready, they're too cheap in the stores to make it all worthwhile ...

[forty6]

30. I plead Peach ignorance! Grapes and wines, I knew but left out!

Sorry for my Peach ignorance. (There are, as far as I know, NO Peaches grown outside in New England where I live!)

[CHIMO]

33. Peaches

HOW MANY PEACHES DO WE PRODUCE?
BC produces 7 million kilograms of peaches, about 20% of the Canadian production. 90% of the peaches grown are sold as fresh peaches; 10% are sold to be processed. There are about 800 peach growers in BC.

http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/aboutind/products/plant/peaches.htm

[forty6]

35. PEACHY !!! n/t

[Keith Bee]

14. No need to worry

When global warming starts to really kick, The Breadbasket will shift way north.

[Darth_Kitten]

21. We have gardens up here...and sunshine.

:shrug:

[murphyj87]

36. Are you thinking about Nunivut

What ridiculous "reasoning". This shows how little most Americans know about Canada. In most parts of Canada, except the far north, many people have vegetable gardens year after year after year. Your comment shows how uninformed most Americans are about Canada (and many Americans are equally uniformed about the United States). This shows how much of a failure American education is now, and has been for decades. It has always been clear that my education in Canada was far more well rounded and complete is, with a world view, when compared that of my two American, and American "educated", narrow minded cousins.

[iverglas]

6. something those who go on about the difference

between Canada and the US re immigration might be interested in:

Mexican citizens make up a significant portion of refugee protection claimants in Canada.


http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/756336

2010/01/27
Since Ottawa slapped the visa requirement on Mexicans in July, asylum claims have fallen from an average of 1,000 cases a month to fewer than 200, hitting a new low of 158 in December. A total of 9,296 Mexicans sought refugee status in Canada last year; 9 per cent were accepted, compared with 11 per cent the year before.

http://ccrweb.ca/documents/claimsfacts07.htm

* Very few Mexicans have come to Canada from the U.S. to make a refugee claim. Prior to the arrivals of Mexicans from the U.S. in the last few weeks, there were virtually no Mexicans making refugee claims at the U.S-Canada border. The overwhelming majority of the Mexican claimants in Canada have been coming directly from Mexico.

* Some Mexicans have a well-founded fear of persecution in their home country and need Canada’s protection. There are significant human rights abuses occurring in Mexico. In fact, Canada has been criticized by the UN Committee Against Torture for failing to offer refugee protection to a Mexican survivor of torture, Enrique Falcon Rios. ...

* U.S. policies and practices have an impact on claims made in Canada. Although the Canadian government has designated the U.S. as a “safe country” for refugees, many refugees are not in fact safe in the U.S. The failure of the U.S. to provide asylum to many refugees who need it leads some refugees to turn to Canada for protection. Similarly, the failure of the U.S. to address the problem of its undocumented population leads some to grasp at promises of something better in Canada. In late 2002 and early 2003, the U.S. Special Registration program (NSEERS), which targeted males from mostly Muslim countries, led to a significant increase in claims in Canada from nationals of those countries. Some claimants arriving in Canada have U.S. citizen children, but feel they have no prospect of achieving status in the U.S. Some report having fled to Canada because of rumours that they would be deported and their children taken away from them.

[WatsonT]

11. 9% of 9,296 is 837

(assuming they rounded up).

Yeah, yall are being flooded with Mexican immigrants.

837 per year, that's hard to imagine, particularly here in Texas.

[iverglas]

17. you really don't read well at all, do you?

How you missed it, I don't know, but here you go:

an average of 1,000 cases a month

-- cases of Mexican nationals claiming refugee protection. (Oh, and that doesn't include family members of the claimants. The cases I have read, personally, all involved multiple family members.)

12,000 a year is not 937 a year.
12,000 a year x a factor to account for family members is not 837 a year.
The relevant figure is would-be refugees/immigrants, NOT accepted refugees/immigrants.

I mean, were you not one of the ones insisting on the distinction between "legal" and "illegal"? "Legal" in this context is the claimants whose claims were accepted. And here's you, the one hooting and hollering about how Canada doesn't have an "illegal" immigrant problem, pretending that the "legal" figure here is the rleevant one.

Did somebody claim Canada was being flooded with Mexican immigrants?

What was happening was that our refugee system was experiencing a very high volume -- and you'll remember the important word relative -- of claims from Mexico. If we assume only one dependent per claimant (and I suggest that is an underestimate), that's close to 25,000 would-be refugees/immigrants entering the refugee system in the peak year. You'll recall that this is equivalent to about 175,000 as a proportion of the US population. Not on the same scale as in the US. No one claimed it was.

Canada (the Conservative government) dealt with it by imposing a visa requirement, an action that does risk disrupting legitimate travel between the countries for business or tourism.

You may have noticed we don't share a border with Mexico ...

And of course I'm sure you also noticed at least the most recent occasion on which I said that the immigration situations in Canada and the US are not comparable, and noticed that I have expressed no opinion about immigration policy in the US, and noticed that in the thread to which we are both referring, it was not I or any other Canadian who dragged Canada into the discussion of US immigration policy ...

[WatsonT]

19. Ahem

"A total of 9,296 Mexicans sought refugee status in Canada last ********year************; 9 per cent were accepted, compared with 11 per cent the year before."

Emphasis mine.

[iverglas]

28. jesus christ, you're unbelievable

The obvious poitn of the info I posted was that before Canada IMPOSED A VISA REQUIREMENT, the numbers of refugee protection claimants from Mexico were high and rising.

There is no land bridge between Canada and Mexico -- other than the one called "The United States".

To enter Canada from Mexico, one must either:

- drive through the US and present one's self at a port of entry at the Canadian border
- drive through the US and cross the border without presenting one's self for examination
- get on a plane in Mexico or somewhere else in the world

If you read up, you'll see that a large majority entered by the third route.

Before there was a visa requirement, would-be entrants needed only to buy an airline ticket.

With a visa requirement, would-be entrants who do not have visas are denied boarding by airlines.

A foreseeable effect of the visa requirement is that more would-be immigrants / refugee protection claimants will arrive via the US border, since access to air entry has been closed off.

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/243329

2007/08/05
... With the defeat this spring of a U.S. immigration bill that would have provided a path to citizenship for undocumented migrants – and the increasing hostility of many Americans – observers worry that Mexicans hoping for a safe haven will instead file claims in Canada.

Francisco Rico-Martinez, of the Faithful Companions of Jesus (FCJ) Refugee Centre, says 85 per cent of the advocacy group's clients are now Mexicans. As many as 15 new cases arrive at his door each week.

"My concern is we're going to be swarmed by Mexicans in the U.S. who don't have status there and can come to the border because they don't need a visa to come to Canada," says Rico-Martinez, himself a refugee from El Salvador. "We're starting to get calls from Mexicans in the States, five to six a week, hoping to file refugee (claims) in Canada. But we may not even know half of the Mexicans here who are without status, because they don't need visas to come." ...

I am not saying that the United States should or should not impose a visa requirement for Mexican nationals, or take or not take any other action in that regard. In fact, I am not saying that Canada should or should not have imposed a visa requirement for Mexican nationals.

I am saying that despite the fact that Canada has no border with any country other than the US, would-be immigrants do arrive in this country by a variety of ways other than applying for and obtaining a permanent resident visa beforehand.

Once again, this has NOTHING TO DO WITH the acceptance rate for Mexican nationals who claim refugee protection in Canada, or the absolute numbers of Mexican nationals granted refugee protection.

It has to do with the fact that "undocumented" would-be immigrants arrive in Canada just as they do in any other country, and some of them claim refugee protection -- often, only when their status comes to light.

[WatsonT]

31. Oh relax, I pointed out where you misread

don't blow it out of proportion.

Yeah Canada accepts a few immigrants legally. No one denied that.

But to claim that their immigration situation, particularly for illegals, is at all like the US is just plain silly.

As for your land bridge statement: which do you suppose is easier A) hopping the rio grande which is now mostly dry and doesn't even require that you swim it, or B) crossing the rio grande then the entire continental United States and then the US-Canadian border?

Take a trip to the US-Mexico border some time.

I think you will find the experience . . . enlightening.

[iverglas]

32. Heard of the Champlain Bridge?

I doubt it. But Canadians will know what I mean when I suggest you go spend some time sitting on it.


But to claim that <Canada's> immigration situation, particularly for illegals, is at all like the US is just plain silly.

And if you were claiming I (or anyone) had done that, you would be lying -- so I know you're not claiming that. I just don't know what you are claiming.


Yeah Canada accepts a few immigrants legally. No one denied that.

No one claimed it, either. What has been claimed, and proved, is that relative to population, Canada admits over twice as many permanent resident foreign nationals per annum as the United States.


As for your land bridge statement: which do you suppose is easier A) hopping the rio grande which is now mostly dry and doesn't even require that you swim it, or B) crossing the rio grande then the entire continental United States and then the US-Canadian border?

I give up!

What colour is orange: true or false??

[WatsonT]

37. You keep doing this

bringing up Canada on threads discussing US immigration, then claiming that you weren't trying to make any sort of comparison when people point out the obvious flaws in that argument.

Perhaps if you want people to stop discussing Canada's immigration policies you should stop bringing up Canada's immigration policies.

[iverglas]

40. that's pretty funny

You keep doing this
bringing up Canada on threads discussing US immigration

The fact that it's 100% false and that you know it is 100% false ... well, maybe not so funny.

Check out the OP for this thread. It's a thread discussing US immigration, is it?

Check out the posts I replied to in the other thread (threads?) you're referring to. You know as well as I do that they were in response to posts dragging misrepresentations of Canadian immigration policy into a discussion of US immigration policy.

Talk about sad.

Go away now. We're having an election up here, and I have way better things to do.

[iverglas]

18. I forgot

9% of 9,296 is 837
(assuming they rounded up).

Even if there were a verb in that, I wouldn't know what you meant.

We don't "round up" people in Canada. What a nasty bit of rhetoric that is.

The figures refer to people who made claims to Convention refugee status. Your comment seems to reflect your ignorance ... etc. ... again.

[WatsonT]

20. Rounding up is a mathematical term

9,296 * .09 (9%/100) = 836.64

If we were talking money that would be fine, but .64 people doesn't make sense. So it would either have to be 836 or 837. I rounded up.

It's a math thing.

[iverglas]

26. uh huh

"assuming they rounded up"

And then there's that grammar thing.

"They" is called a pronoun, and with no referrent in sight, I had no clue what you were talking about.

[WatsonT]

29. Oh ok then

you were clueless.

"they" obviously referring to the people performing such official calculations.
But your grammar nazi/concern troll approach is noted.

[iverglas]

34. "grammar nazi/concern troll"

"they" obviously referring to the people performing such official calculations.

"They" "obviously" referred to SWEET FUCK ALL.

This was the problem.

I don't give a flying fuck about your grammar, and I wouldn't lower myself to pretend to be concerned about you.

I did not UNDERSTAND what you typed, because it was incomprehensible. Lousy grammar actually has that effect sometimes.

Starting with the fact that you were pretending something was what it wasn't (i.e. was what I was talking about when it wasn't) ... well, if there's a prize for obfuscation being handed out today, I'll nominate you.

Meanwhile, I'll take your vicious obnoxious little attempts at insults as compliments. Considering the source, and all that.

[WatsonT]

38. Wow, this is just sad now

"what's this, what's going on? I'm so confused because I am not particularly fluent in English."

The fact that you feel this is a reasonable rebuttal. . . well that speaks volumes about you.

Oh and "you" refers to the user known as "iverglas" in case that was confusing.

[RedCloud]

9. US should be tops for insane asylum seekers,

[freshwest]

23. Muahahaha!!!

[CHIMO]

22. Asylum-seeker numbers nearly halved in last decade, says UNHCR

GENEVA, March 28 (UNHCR) – New figures compiled by the UN refugee agency have shown a dramatic fall in the number of asylum-seekers in the industrialized world over the last 10 years.

http://www.unhcr.org/4d8cc18a530.html
From the UN release.

For a bit of information
If one tries to seek asylum by crossing the US/Canada border at a border crossing they will be sent back to the US for asylum in the US.
If one wishes to do that, then they must cross undetected over the porous border.

Other Thoughts
If one wishes to seek asylum in Canada they have to cross the continental security perimeter(in other words they must also meet US requirements for asylum)(soon to be implemented).

That leaves only arriving by water.

Many people don't like 18 h of sunlight or black flies or those things that bite in the summer.(Not to mention the present government)

[freshwest]

24. How about those of us who want to escape the insane asylum here?

Please, please, I don't eat much and I'm housetrained.

*wags tail frantically*

:hi:

[CHIMO]

25. Then

Just immigrate. You will have a tough time seeking asylum.

[freshwest]

27. Ah, but they don't want me. *sniffs*

[Blue_Tires]

39. Canada also got a bunch of Tamil Tigers after they lost their war

could be a reason for the bump in statistics

[iverglas]

41. another expert

Canada was receiving and accepting Tamil refugees back in the early 1980s. I know, because I represented quite a few of them at the time.

So many things could be reasons for so many things ...

It's actually fairly easy to find figures for the national origins of refugee protection claimants. The internet is an amazing thing.

Rather than post idle speculation about what could be a reason for something, I generally find it useful to find out, if I'm interested enough to speculate and publish that speculation for public consumption.

[Blue_Tires]

42. never claimed to be an expert...

just vaguely recalling a news story from the back of my mind from a year or two ago...

clearly you're much more in touch with the subject matter than I am; I just don't see why the snark is necessary...

[iverglas]

43. when you publish words

people read them. "Vaguely recalling a news story" really isn't any kind of a basis for words that could influence people's ideas.

Surely Canada has enough disinformation to contend with, particularly when it comes to our immigration policies.

Just this week here at DU ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=4786810#4787007

9-11 had the crashers coming in from the Northern border

We really don't need more tales of how foreign "terrorists" are making Canada their home, with ignorant stupidity like that still circulating.

Parenthetically:

The Tamil people of Sri Lanka have long been engaged in a wholly legitimate struggle against oppression by the dominant ethnic/religious majority. Some of my clients' personal stories rival anything that has come out of Iraq, either before or after the occupation. That struggle, like many national liberation struggles in the world, turned sour a while back. Canada takes the position that those engaged in it are all excluded from refugee protection if they were associated with the armed opposition. And yet we recognized people who suffered horrifically under the oppression that led to the armed opposition as legitimate refugees. Go figure.

http://www.rabble.ca/news/2010/08/canada%E2%80%99s-treatment-tamil-refugees-defining-moment

Whatever else happens, the MV Sun Sea shall be remembered as having posed a security, immigration and moral dilemma for Canada, depending on who you speak to. A Thai registered cargo ship, the MV Sun Sea had approximately 500 potential claimants for refugee status, all of whom are of Tamil origin. It originated in Sri Lanka and was denied permission to dock by Thailand and Australia.

... However, if the issue comes down to who is a "terrorist" and who is not -- Canada absolutely must follow its own dictates and not those of the Sri Lankan government. In this dubious world established by "Bushisms," like "you are either with us or against us," we cannot declare the world to be divided between us and them because determining either is treacherous and highly subjective.

Canada is host to the largest Tamil diaspora in the world, and one that has enriched our country immeasurably. The great majority of those Tamils are in Canada because of being dislocated by the war in Sri Lanka. No matter what their beliefs may be regarding who is right and who is wrong in Sri Lanka, and thus who they consider to be the "terrorist," they live their lives here as exemplary Canadians.

Similarly, those passengers must be seen as Tamil refugees, and not be accused of terrorism unless they we are shown to have committed a crime against the state of Canada or be subject to some international investigation based on a transgression deemed to be criminal in nature by some legitimate international agency to which Canada is a signatory. One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter! As for destruction of property and lives -- well, unless it is Canadian property and life that is shown to be destroyed by one of the passengers or we can claim some special extradition agreement with the government of Sri Lanka, we must process them as refugees.