Maybe I'm Crazy, But....

[Jas]

... why on earth was this guy not deported already?

From the CBC's list of the 17 terrorism suspects who were arrested:

Mohammed Dirie | Kingston, Ont.
Age: 22

Landed immigrant in the process of becoming a Canadian citizen. Came to Canada from Somalia at the age of seven. Worked as a carpenter and took courses toward a college diploma. Serving a two-year sentence in Kingston's Collins Bay Correctional Institute for attempting to smuggle guns and ammunition from the U.S. in August, 2005.

Um, am I missing something here? How on earth could he have been 'in the process of becoming a Canadian citizen', when he's serving a sentence for smuggling firearms into the country he's trying to get citizenship in? WTF? Was it a typo? Maybe, what they meant to say was, "Currently serving a two year sentence in prison while awaiting deportation."

Especially when you consider that the company I worked for in the past, has repeatedly tried to import skilled workers from Europe and South Africa, with no criminal record, and they've been refused. A friend of mine has been trying to get her mother, a South African citizen (my friend holds Canadian citizenship), into Canada for YEARS, and has been unsuccessful. Her mother has no criminal record, is well educated, and highly skilled.

What am I missing here?

ETA: source for above:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/toronto-bomb-plot/suspects.html

[kittynh]

ummm, well think how bad the guys they DO deport are!!!!

[Jas]

I recall being on a flight to London, and was sitting next to a gentleman who was on his way home to the United Arab Emirates (iirc), to visit his family. His family was originally from India (again, iirc, as this was a few years ago), and his father had emigrated to as a young man, and the gentleman in question was born there. Neither of them held citizenship. Apparently, you can gain citizenship through marriage, in certain cases, but even being born there isn't a guarantee if you're from a different culture.

I remember being a little shocked, but really, it makes sense. Why would you grant citizenship to a foreigner, really? Permanent residency, yes. But wouldn't it be better to have the deportation option available? Not to mention, the threat of deportation would be a pretty effective deterrent, I would think.

[Nick Bogaerts]

Hey, I've got a better idea! Don't grant any newborn babies citizenship. Then you can deport them, to, I dunno, Somalia for instance, which doesn't have much in terms of a government which could refuse them. Why would you grant them citizenship, anyway? They haven't done anything to deserve it.

[Jas]

Hey, I've got a better idea! Don't grant any newborn babies citizenship. Then you can deport them, to, I dunno, Somalia for instance, which doesn't have much in terms of a government which could refuse them. Why would you grant them citizenship, anyway? They haven't done anything to deserve it.

Well, I suppose it would depend on the family that they're born into. Like I said, the person I was talking to didn't have citizenship, even though he was born in that country. I seem to recall Ireland putting a law in effect which limited which babies were given citizenship a few years ago. I don't full recall what it was, I would have to do some research into it.

Although I have to wonder about your post. Do you have a problem with returning people to their native country if they've committed a felony?

The more I think about it, the more sense it makes. Like I said, you can always grant people permanent residency, and if they aren't breaking the law, or making life miserable for the citizens of said country, well, it in no way impedes them. A landed immigrant can still buy land, open a business, etc.

[Silly Green Monkey]

Vote?

[JamesDillon]

Although I have to wonder about your post. Do you have a problem with returning people to their native country if they've committed a felony?
The more I think about it, the more sense it makes. Like I said, you can always grant people permanent residency, and if they aren't breaking the law, or making life miserable for the citizens of said country, well, it in no way impedes them. A landed immigrant can still buy land, open a business, etc.

The problem I see with that is, in what sense is the homeland of a person's parents his or her own "native country"? And why should that country be obliged to open its doors to individuals with whom it has no relationship? I thought about this solution a few months ago when the "anchor baby" phenomenon was in the media; the biggest problem is that it would create a permanent underclass of fundamentally stateless non-citizens.

As to the idea that permanent residency "in no way impedes them," what about the fact that they can't vote, they can't hold public office, and as such, the elected officials at all levels of government have no reason to care about their well-being? Exclusion of a group of people from the democratic process strikes me as a pretty significant impediment.

[Jas]

Hmmm...

The exclusion of people from democratic processes is significant, true. But at what point do we grant foreigners access to our democatric process?

Look at the recent terrorism arrests in Canada. Do you think they view Canada as their native country? There was a case a few years back where a woman and her sons (why can't I remember anyone's names today?!?), who had connections to al Quaida, came to Canada for the free medical treatment. While they were fully anti-Western, and didn't believe in any of the ideals that Canada stood for, they were still entitled to free medical care because they had gotten citizenship.

In terms of the anchor babies, well, I do agree with limiting the automatic granting of citizenship based on where you're born. I believe that most European countries do, and have for a while. They still hold the citizenship of their parents, do they not? Why shouldn't it be a requirement that in order to citizenship for a country, your parent must share that citzenship?

[Nick Bogaerts]

Although I have to wonder about your post. Do you have a problem with returning people to their native country if they've committed a felony?

I have some issues with it, true, but overall I think it is a good idea. My snarky comment was more directed at your suggestion of not granting citizenship to (presumably) second generation immigrants on the basis that they might commit a crime and in which case they could be kicked out. I don't think it is healthy to accept foreigners and then consider them as potential criminals.

The more I think about it, the more sense it makes. Like I said, you can always grant people permanent residency, and if they aren't breaking the law, or making life miserable for the citizens of said country, well, it in no way impedes them. A landed immigrant can still buy land, open a business, etc.

And thereby creating a new class of helots. That hasn't worked out well in the past. It wouldn't make sense at all for Canada, it being a country of immigrants.

[Luke T.]

Look at the recent terrorism arrests in Canada. Do you think they view Canada as their native country?

Canada is their native country, for some of them.

[Hutch]

Jas, just a quick note on one of your above posts in regards to citizenship and the UAE.

You are quite correct, I knew Indians, Lebanese, and others during my 4 years in-country that were there permanently but could never be citizens.

One reason is that the UAE is severly underpopulated, about 800,000 native Emiraties with over 3M "expats" living among them. If any number of the expats were made citizens, they would literally overwhelm the native population.

Just a FYI. Please continue on.

[The Don]

Although I have to wonder about your post. Do you have a problem with returning people to their native country if they've committed a felony?
It depends.

A friend of mine from university was born in British Guyana to Dutch and Norwegian parents. Apart from the first six months, he lived all his life in the UK and had no ties to the place of his birth or to the countries of his parents. Despite coming from such a cosmopolitan background, he was entirely monolingual but held both Dutch and Norwegian citizenship.

In the event of him committing a felony, to which country should he be deported ?

[The Don]

The more I think about it, the more sense it makes. Like I said, you can always grant people permanent residency, and if they aren't breaking the law, or making life miserable for the citizens of said country, well, it in no way impedes them. A landed immigrant can still buy land, open a business, etc.
I feel very strongly about this on the grounds that both Mrs. Don and Daddy Don are legal aliens in the UK. Daddy Don has been resident for 42 years and Mrs. Don for 15.

What you are proposing would deny them the right to become a UK citizen and to always have the threat of deportation to a country with which they have no ties hanging over them should they be convicted of a felony.

Furthermore, if you have to be born to in a country to citizens of that country in order to achieve citizenship, there's no way that these immigrants could ever achieve citizenship. Several generations later, someone is deported back to their "native" country

[breach of Godwin's law] all smacks of preserving the purity of the race to me [/breach of Godwin's law]

[Mycroft]

What you are proposing would deny them the right to become a UK citizen and to always have the threat of deportation to a country with which they have no ties hanging over them should they be convicted of a felony.


But why should a nation grant citizenship to criminals?

[Silly Green Monkey]

Why should the nation automatically treat immigrants as criminals?

[Jas]

Canada is their native country, for some of them.

Legally, yes. But I was wondering if they view Canada as their native country. I'm assuming not, if they wanted to behead the PM on national tv.

A friend of mine from university was born in British Guyana to Dutch and Norwegian parents. Apart from the first six months, he lived all his life in the UK and had no ties to the place of his birth or to the countries of his parents. Despite coming from such a cosmopolitan background, he was entirely monolingual but held both Dutch and Norwegian citizenship.

In the event of him committing a felony, to which country should he be deported ?

Ooh, good question. I'll have to think on that, as I'm still in the process of formulating my thoughts on this. What citizenship does he hold? I know that a lot of Dutch citizens, when they emigrate here, can't get Canadian citizenship without surrendering their Dutch citizenship (however, if you were born her, of a Dutch parent, you can claim dual citizenship. It's kind of messed.)

I feel very strongly about this on the grounds that both Mrs. Don and Daddy Don are legal aliens in the UK. Daddy Don has been resident for 42 years and Mrs. Don for 15.

What you are proposing would deny them the right to become a UK citizen and to always have the threat of deportation to a country with which they have no ties hanging over them should they be convicted of a felony.
Is a resident alien the same thing as a landed immigrant (essentially, you can live and work there for an indefinite period, you just aren't a citizen.)

I do agree with citizenship through marriage, simply because it would be a complete b*tch to have it otherwise. But really, I have no issues with first generation immigrants not being granted citizenship. I should revise my position on babies born into a country, I think that they should be eligible for citizenship, if they're born to foreign parents, but not granted it immediately. There should probably be some sort of residency requirements or something.

Furthermore, if you have to be born to in a country to citizens of that country in order to achieve citizenship, there's no way that these immigrants could ever achieve citizenship. Several generations later, someone is deported back to their "native" country

True. I wonder how it works in the UAE? Would Hutch know?

[breach of Godwin's law] all smacks of preserving the purity of the race to me [/breach of Godwin's law]

I don't think of it as such, though I can see where that interpretation could arise.

[Jas]

Oops, missed these.
I have some issues with it, true, but overall I think it is a good idea. My snarky comment was more directed at your suggestion of not granting citizenship to (presumably) second generation immigrants on the basis that they might commit a crime and in which case they could be kicked out. I don't think it is healthy to accept foreigners and then consider them as potential criminals.

Yeah, the second generation might be a bit excessive. Although I do think that there should be some residency requirements of some sort.

Why should the nation automatically treat immigrants as criminals?
How is not granting citizenship treating someone as a criminal? It's treating them as a non citizen. Being granted citizenship to a foreign country isn't a right.

The way it is now in Canada, is that a criminal record doesn't appear to impede your ability to gain citizenship, and it sucks. It would be nice to be able to to simply kick out someone who isn't abiding by the law, if you're able to do so. Why should a nation harbour criminals that it doesn't have to?

Look at the OP. Here's a guy who's in jail for weapons smuggling yet, is in the process of becoming a Canadian citizen. The very fact that he's in the process means that his conviction isn't automatically barring him. WTF?

[Ian Osborne]

Love the redesigned avatar, Jas. Paint a whip in her hands and she'd be perfect... :D

[BPSCG]

It depends.

A friend of mine from university was born in British Guyana to Dutch and Norwegian parents. Apart from the first six months, he lived all his life in the UK and had no ties to the place of his birth or to the countries of his parents. Despite coming from such a cosmopolitan background, he was entirely monolingual but held both Dutch and Norwegian citizenship.

In the event of him committing a felony, to which country should he be deported ?Either one. If he goes to Norway and the Norwegians don't want him, they should try to send him to Holland. If the Dutch don't want him, they should tell Norway they aren't taking him.

But either way, why should it be the U.K.'s problem?

[Random]

One of the problems with deporting criminals to their home countries is the fact that the home country might not accept them (and who can blame them). There are many people who are sitting in prisons waiting to be deported to their countries of origin long after they have completed their sentences for whatever crime they were originally convicted of.

[kalen]

One of the problems with deporting criminals to their home countries is the fact that the home country might not accept them (and who can blame them). There are many people who are sitting in prisons waiting to be deported to their countries of origin long after they have completed their sentences for whatever crime they were originally convicted of.

Another reason a country like Canada is reluctant to deport foreign nationals to their home country is if they face the possiblility of being tortured or worse. Sending someone off to somewhere you know they will probably be tortured is a gross human rights violation.

And to respond to the OP, I'm pretty sure a conviction on a serious criminal offence basically kills your chances of getting Canadian citizenship. The presumption of innocence still applies nowadays, I believe.

[kalen]

OK, the gun smugglers were convicted. I believe the synopsis you quoted implied what their status was at the time prior to their conviction.

[Belz...]

And thereby creating a new class of helots. That hasn't worked out well in the past. It wouldn't make sense at all for Canada, it being a country of immigrants.

We're a country of immigrants ???

[ImaginalDisc]

Hmmm...

The exclusion of people from democratic processes is significant, true. But at what point do we grant foreigners access to our democatric process?

Look at the recent terrorism arrests in Canada. Do you think they view Canada as their native country? There was a case a few years back where a woman and her sons (why can't I remember anyone's names today?!?), who had connections to al Quaida, came to Canada for the free medical treatment. While they were fully anti-Western, and didn't believe in any of the ideals that Canada stood for, they were still entitled to free medical care because they had gotten citizenship.

In terms of the anchor babies, well, I do agree with limiting the automatic granting of citizenship based on where you're born. I believe that most European countries do, and have for a while. They still hold the citizenship of their parents, do they not? Why shouldn't it be a requirement that in order to citizenship for a country, your parent must share that citzenship?

Jas, I'm American rather than Canadian, but let me see if the story of my mother and father help here at all. My mother and father were born in Cuba just before the 1959 revolution. Bother of their families came to the U.S. as political refugees. Neither of them can remember a thing about Cuba. Both of them have younger siblings who were born in the U.S., and were automatically citizens. Do they deserve to be excluded from the democratic process, and threatened with a more serve form of punishment for felonies (Deportation to a poor, communist country) than their siblings, who happened the be born here?

[BPSCG]

One of the problems with deporting criminals to their home countries is the fact that the home country might not accept them (and who can blame them). There are many people who are sitting in prisons waiting to be deported to their countries of origin long after they have completed their sentences for whatever crime they were originally convicted of.Then take them out to sea, give them a life jacket, a compass, an MRE, papers documenting what country they are a citizen of, and a rowboat, and drop them off just outside the international 3-mile limit, and tell them, "Your country is that way."

[Random]

Then take them out to sea, give them a life jacket, a compass, an MRE, papers documenting what country they are a citizen of, and a rowboat, and drop them off just outside the international 3-mile limit, and tell them, "Your country is that way."
I wonder how the US would respond if Castro did something similar with Cuban prisons. Take all the prisoners onto boats, ship them to Florida, drop them off just before you leave international waters.

[ImaginalDisc]

Then take them out to sea, give them a life jacket, a compass, an MRE, papers documenting what country they are a citizen of, and a rowboat, and drop them off just outside the international 3-mile limit, and tell them, "Your country is that way."

Please, tell me you're joking.

[Nick Bogaerts]

We're a country of immigrants ???

That's what I said, yes. What percentage of the population is indigenous?

[BPSCG]

I wonder how the US would respond if Castro did something similar with Cuban prisons. Take all the prisoners onto boats, ship them to Florida, drop them off just before you leave international waters.Straw man. I didn't say do that with all your prisoners. Just the ones that aren't citizens of your country. Return them to their native country, or as close to that country as you can get them.

[BPSCG]

Please, tell me you're joking.You seem to have a problem with that solution.

[strathmeyer]

You seem to have a problem with that solution.

Yes, our oceans are crowded enough already. Won't somebody think of the fishes?

[ImaginalDisc]

Straw man. I didn't say do that with all your prisoners. Just the ones that aren't citizens of your country. Return them to their native country, or as close to that country as you can get them.

Stranding people at sea definately constitutes creul and unusual punishment and defies international law in any case.

Where is your sense of proportionality? Is a probable death by exposure or drowning really just punishment for, say, tax evasion?

[BPSCG]

Stranding people at sea definately constitutes creul and unusual punishment and defies international law in any case.Who's talking about stranding anybody? I said take them out to sea, give them a life jacket, a compass, an MRE, papers documenting what country they are a citizen of, and a rowboat, and drop them off just outside the international 3-mile limit, and tell them, "Your country is that way."

If you have concerns that a rowboat wouldn't suffice, give them a small motorboat.

Where is your sense of proportionality? Is a probable death by exposure or drowning really just punishment for, say, tax evasion?Drowning? Did you not notice I said we would give the poor felon a life jacket? Exposure? Pardon me, but I'm middle-aged, with a history of heart troubles, and I have no doubt I could row three miles before dying of exposure, given ocean conditions that didn't tip over the boat. Okay, we don't put anyone out on the Barents Sea in January, you happy now?

[Random]

Straw man. I didn't say do that with all your prisoners. Just the ones that aren't citizens of your country. Return them to their native country, or as close to that country as you can get them.
I was thinking more about the diplomatic implications of dumping convicted criminals on other countries without their permission. How do you think America would react if Castro started doing that sort of thing? Forget stranding at sea, we could parachute them it, go in for an actual beach landing, whatever.

[ImaginalDisc]

I was thinking more about the diplomatic implications of dumping convicted criminals on other countries without their permission. How do you think America would react if Castro started doing that sort of thing? Forget stranding at sea, we could parachute them it, go in for an actual beach landing, whatever.
Castro already did that during the Mariel boatlift. It's worth noting that Castro added mental patients and criminals to the pool of genuine assylum seekers who were already trying to leave the island.

[BPSCG]

I was thinking more about the diplomatic implications of dumping convicted criminals on other countries without their permission. How do you think America would react if Castro started doing that sort of thing? Forget stranding at sea, we could parachute them it, go in for an actual beach landing, whatever.

Castro already did that during the Mariel boatlift. It's worth noting that Castro added mental patients and criminals to the pool of genuine assylum seekers who were already trying to leave the island.Again, both straw men. I'm not talking about deporting American (or Canadian) citizens. I'm talking about giving other countries back their own citizens who have made themselves undesireable in their host countries.

AFAIK, Castro wasn't sending any American citizens back here in the Mariel boatlift, and if he was, he was certainly within his rights. And if America didn't want them, why would that make them his problem?

[ImaginalDisc]

Again, both straw men. I'm not talking about deporting American (or Canadian) citizens. I'm talking about giving other countries back their own citizens who have made themselves undesireable in their host countries.

AFAIK, Castro wasn't sending any American citizens back here in the Mariel boatlift, and if he was, he was certainly within his rights. And if America didn't want them, why would that make them his problem?
Excuse me, I was informaing another poster of a historical event, not responding to your post. Incidentally, how would you feel if Castro stranded Americans in international waters?

[Jocko]

Excuse me, I was informaing another poster of a historical event, not responding to your post. Incidentally, how would you feel if Castro stranded Americans in international waters?

Depends on the Americans.

[Nick Bogaerts]

I'm talking about giving other countries back their own citizens who have made themselves undesireable in their host countries.

Fascinating reflection. The countries own the individuals, not vice-versa. You'd make a good Monarchist.

[BPSCG]

Excuse me, I was informaing another poster of a historical event, not responding to your post. Incidentally, how would you feel if Castro stranded Americans in international waters?Sorry for responding to something not intended for me; your post came hard on the heels of a similar one from Random. Anyway if they were truly criminals (as opposed to political wrongthinkers), and if America refused to take them back, I'd have no problem with his taking them out to sea, giving them a life jacket, a compass, an MRE, papers documenting what country they are a citizen of, and a rowboat, and dropping them off just outside the international 3-mile limit, and telling them, "America is that way."

What obligation does any country have to provide food, clothing, and shelter to citizens of any other country who have commited a crime in the host country? (I think I've asked this before; still waiting for an answer.)

[BPSCG]

Originally Posted by BPSCG http://www.randi.org/forumlive/images/misc/backlink.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1695838#post1694993):
I'm talking about giving other countries back their own citizens who have made themselves undesireable in their host countries.

Fascinating reflection. The countries own the individuals, not vice-versa. You'd make a good Monarchist.You're misunderstanding what I said. I'll rephrase, somewhat less elegantly, but more clearly: I'm talking about giving other countries back people who are citizens of said countries, who have made themselves undesireable in the other countries they have been visiting.

Clearer now?

[WildCat]

Forget stranding at sea, we could parachute them it, go in for an actual beach landing, whatever.
I prefer catapulting them home.

[BPSCG]

I prefer catapulting them home.Sorry, the Mythbusters blew that one away. (http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2005/07/mythbusters_border_slingshot.html)

[Nick Bogaerts]

You're misunderstanding what I said. I'll rephrase, somewhat less elegantly, but more clearly: I'm talking about giving other countries back people who are citizens of said countries, who have made themselves undesireable in the other countries they have been visiting.

Clearer now?

Perfectly, as before: giving individuals to countries.

[BPSCG]

Perfectly, as before: giving individuals to countries.Fine, what's your point, then?

[Jas]

Jas, I'm American rather than Canadian, but let me see if the story of my mother and father help here at all. My mother and father were born in Cuba just before the 1959 revolution. Bother of their families came to the U.S. as political refugees. Neither of them can remember a thing about Cuba. Both of them have younger siblings who were born in the U.S., and were automatically citizens. Do they deserve to be excluded from the democratic process, and threatened with a more serve form of punishment for felonies (Deportation to a poor, communist country) than their siblings, who happened the be born here?
Two things.

Firstly, life isn't fair. That's just how it is. No matter what sort of system you have set up, there's always going to be "Yeah, but..." cases. I was talking to a British guy, who's father was American, yet didn't qualify for American citizenship, because he had the poor fortune to be born under wierd legislation. His siblings qualify, but he doesn't because he was born in a certain year.

Secondly, if they don't commit a felony, then they really don't have much to worry about.

It was actually a story in the Globe & Mail today, that reminded me of this thread.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060614.BCDEPORT14/TPStory/?query=deported

VANCOUVER -- Mohamed Hagi Mohamud, a citizen of Somalia who committed several violent crimes against Canadians since arriving here as a refugee in 1992, sat quietly in a holding cell yesterday and listened as time started to run out on his residency.

After calling Canada home for 14 years, Mr. Mohamud learned he is to be deported to Somalia -- as soon as he finishes a 4½-year prison term for a brutal sexual assault.

Mr. Mohamud had little to say for himself as he appeared at an Immigration and Refugee Board hearing in Vancouver, by video link, from the prison where he's serving time for assaulting a Surrey mother of three.

The hearing, which resulted in the deportation order, should have been held years ago, but Mr. Mohamud had eluded authorities previously, skipping a hearing that was called in 2004.

This time, his incarceration at Kent Prison, in Matsqui, meant he had no choice about the matter.

Mr. Mohamud's case has been controversial because he should have been deported after earlier crimes in Toronto. He was first convicted in 1997 for assault with a weapon, then again in 2002 for aggravated sexual assault. In 2003, he was charged with aggravated sexual assault in Toronto, but that case was dropped.

Bolding mine. Why the hell was he not deported the first time?

In May of 2004 he was ordered to appear at an immigration hearing that would likely have led to his deportation -- but he failed to attend. In December of 2004, an immigration warrant for his arrest was issued on the grounds that he was a danger to the public, but Mr. Mohamud stayed at large and soon claimed another victim.

Okay, so we have a violent sexual offender, with MULTIPLE offenses, who fails to show up for a hearing in May, and there's no warrant issued until December?

On March 14, 2005, he accosted Erika Martyn at knife point, dragging her from a SkyTrain station in Surrey to his apartment where he beat and sexually assaulted her. Convinced that she was going to be killed, and in an attempt to ensure that DNA evidence was left behind, Ms. Martyn, who later sought the removal of a publication ban on her name so she could speak out, said she wiped her blood on his clothes and on the walls of his apartment during the assault.

Earlier this year, Ms. Martyn said that Mr. Mohamud should have been removed from Canada long before he attacked her.

"We should have had him sent away and dealt with," she told The Globe and Mail. "Why did this extreme incident have to happen before they started doing anything?"

Ms. King said that because Mr. Mohamud is not a Canadian citizen, and because he has committed an indictable offence that has a maximum term of imprisonment of more than 10 years, the IRB had no choice but to order his deportation.

Why wasn't he deported after his 1997 conviction?

Although Somalia is a country torn by civil unrest, with Islamic militants battling warlords for control of the capital Mogadishu just this week, Ms. Fergusson said it is a nation to which Canada can deport people.

"Somalia is not on the temporary suspension of removals list," she said, referring to countries where dangerous conditions make it impossible to safely return someone.

Who cares if they're safely returned or not? Just because someone comes from an unsafe country, in no way gives them the right to go about making someone else's country that much more unsafe. I don't care if your country is a safe place to live or not. If it's so bad that you're going to come to Canada to live, then maybe you should follow the rules set in place.

[ImaginalDisc]

Two things.

Firstly, life isn't fair. That's just how it is. No matter what sort of system you have set up, there's always going to be "Yeah, but..." cases. I was talking to a British guy, who's father was American, yet didn't qualify for American citizenship, because he had the poor fortune to be born under wierd legislation. His siblings qualify, but he doesn't because he was born in a certain year.

Secondly, if they don't commit a felony, then they really don't have much to worry about.

It was actually a story in the Globe & Mail today, that reminded me of this thread.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060614.BCDEPORT14/TPStory/?query=deported



Bolding mine. Why the hell was he not deported the first time?



Okay, so we have a violent sexual offender, with MULTIPLE offenses, who fails to show up for a hearing in May, and there's no warrant issued until December?





Why wasn't he deported after his 1997 conviction?



Who cares if they're safely returned or not? Just because someone comes from an unsafe country, in no way gives them the right to go about making someone else's country that much more unsafe. I don't care if your country is a safe place to live or not. If it's so bad that you're going to come to Canada to live, then maybe you should follow the rules set in place.
Jas, the people I'm talking about have been in this country for more than fourty years. This is their home now. There comes a time when people born in a foreign country need to become citisens, for better and for worse.