Liberal government's high immigration policy created housing crisis: report
abff08f4813c @ abff08f4813c @j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us Posts 5Comments 1,044Joined 11 mo. ago
abff08f4813c @ abff08f4813c @j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us
Posts
5
Comments
1,044
Joined
11 mo. ago
I may accidentally carry something illegal across the border.
Don’t say this. They will use that as justification to search you and your vehicle for suspicious behavior.
Ah, you're probably right under the current regime. Open to suggestions for better phrasing like "I did this because I want to comply with the laws of the USA and also because it was suggested by the recent travel advisory issued by Canada" , except
the best thing to do is simply not travel.
100%. My advice was more for these folks,
If you have to cross the border for whatever reason
As per https://dailyhive.com/canada/us-canada-travel-phone even lawyers are recommending this now.
Ackah Business Immigration Law founder and managing lawyer Evelyn Ackah told Daily Hive that Canadians should leave their electronic devices behind if possible. She also suggests travellers use a burner phone (pre-paid phone) to protect their personal data from border agents.
As to what to say when asked about the obvious burner phone, I wonder if the following would help:
"Yes officer, I got a brand new phone with nothing on it to take with me. I did this because I want to comply with the laws of the USA and am afraid that if my phone got hacked I may accidentally carry something illegal across the border. I left my phone with all my lifetime photos and other history behind and I look forward to being reunited with it when my trip is over and I return home."
It looks more like he was doing the best he could to behave ethically.
Agreed, 100%
He can’t lie to the judge so he didn’t.
Again, in 100% agreement.
There’s not really anything else he could have done without violating his duty to the court.
I addressed this in my comments about the case. So apparently the US attorney general said this,
“He shouldn’t have taken the case. He shouldn’t have argued it, if that’s what he was going to do,” she said.
Now, it wasn't clear to me if a DOJ lawyer can avoid taking on a case like this, as Bondi seems to be saying. But Google's AI did report this to me, below.
If Google's AI is accurate or Bondi is correct, then Reuveni could have passed on the pass and let someone else argue it. And if every legit ethical lawyer in the DOJ was allowed to pass on the case, it'd end up in the lap of some newly appointed MAGA lawyer guy who might have struck lightning and someone convinced the judge that reversing the deportation is not possible - or at least gotten additional delays in, prolonging Abrego Garcia's suffering.
So my case is that he didn't do the minimum (which was the pass on the case) but he took it and then did the minimum on the case, ensuring a victory for the other side.
From Google's AI:
Yes, a lawyer within the Department of Justice (DOJ) can pass on a case, but it's typically done through a formal process and with the approval of superiors, not simply by choosing to ignore it.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
DOJ Lawyers are Assigned Cases:
DOJ lawyers, like other government lawyers, are assigned cases by their superiors or within the legal team they are part of.
Reasons for Passing on a Case:
There are several reasons why a DOJ lawyer might pass on a case, including:
Conflict of Interest: If a lawyer has a conflict of interest, they may need to be removed from the case.
Lack of Expertise: A lawyer might not have the specific expertise or experience necessary to handle a particular case.
Overload: A lawyer might be overloaded with other cases and unable to take on additional work.
Case Strategy: A lawyer might believe that the case is not worth pursuing, or that the best course of action is to pass it on to another lawyer or unit within the DOJ.
Formal Process:
Passing on a case is not something a lawyer can do unilaterally. They must follow a formal process to request to be removed from a case, which usually involves:
Consulting with Superiors: The lawyer must first discuss the reasons for wanting to pass on the case with their supervisor or other relevant authority.
Documentation: The reasons for passing on the case should be documented.
Approval: The request to pass on the case must be approved by the appropriate authority.
Consequences of Passing on a Case:
There can be consequences for a lawyer who passes on a case, including:
Loss of Trust: If a lawyer passes on a case without a valid reason, it could damage their reputation and the trust of their superiors.
Negative Impact on the Case: If the case is important, passing it on could have a negative impact on the outcome.
Alternative to Passing on a Case:
Instead of passing on a case, a lawyer might seek assistance from other lawyers or units within the DOJ, or they may request additional resources to handle the case.
Generative AI is experimental. For legal advice, consult a professional.
One nice thing about being in Canada. Meta opted out of the news game and now we can say that any "news" shared on Meta is legit fake.
Me: So where did you see this "news" ?
Other Person: I don't remember who sent it but it was in my Facebook feed.
M: You're still in Canada, right?
O: Yes, so? What's that got to do with anything?
M: So it's fake.
O: How do you know? How do you know the other stuff isn't fake and the only true news is on Facebook?
M: Because under C-18, big megacorps like Google and Meta would have to pay up for each piece of genuine news that they share. Google agreed and worked out a deal, but Meta said no way.
O: And...?
M: So that means anything you see in Facebook isn't real news. Because Meta won't pay for it, so they'd block it if it was real. Literally everything you see there is fake news.
O: No way that's true.
M: Why don't you ask Facebook? https://about.fb.com/news/2023/06/changes-to-news-availability-on-our-platforms-in-canada/
O: (long pause)
O: Dang.
I've pointed out before that most of the MAGA-land folks in Canada likely currently don't have a viable path to immigrate to the USA, see https://lemmy.ca/post/41215108/15425311 and https://lemmy.ca/post/41215108/15458003
But that doesn't mean we can't make one for them!
I imagine we could easily negotiate something like the Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement, but between Canada and the USA - but with the additional condition that MAGA is a disqualifying condition for coming to Canada.
Like the TTTA, we should also allow the green card holders in.
It links to a map, https://www.newsweek.com/map-shows-states-most-likely-secede-1870679 (archive: https://archive.ph/oGlKO )
Surprising that support in Alaska (36%) and Texas (31%) is so much higher than the national average, I'd have thought it'd be blue states leading, shows what I know...
I think she's confused the poll with her reflection in the mirror...
Yeah, it seems the best I can hope for was that Carney agreed to show support outside while pressuring to drop from within.
Seems like the NAFTA option is still open to you if you're a US citizen, or maybe you can get your masters in Canada if you can scrounge up the funds?
I have a little bit of good news for you, and lots of bad. The good news is that as soon as someone becomes an asylum or refugee claimant in Canada, they can become eligible for IFHP which covers prescription drugs, see https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/refugees/help-within-canada/health-care/interim-federal-health-program/coverage-summary.html
(See also a recent example of an American citizen who got IFHP after applying for aslyum at the Candian-US border, https://www.tiktok.com/@katie/_katie2113/photo/7478861387322625322 )
And now the bad:
If the refugee claim fails, it's very tough to get into Canada afterwards. See https://vancouverimmigrationblog.com/is-it-possible-to-go-from-a-failed-refugee-claimant-to-an-economic-immigrant/ and https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/trv-for-previously-refused-refugee-claimant.123089/#post-2004890
If you did get approved for asylum or as a refugee, then you need to be careful never to return to the US or use or renew your US passport (or similar like passport card I guess), at least not until you've taken the oath and become a Canadian citizen.
If you do either, you risk losing it all and getting deported back to the US: https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/refugee-status-cessation-and-prs-applying-for-citizenship.333455/
Finally, I've been assuming that you're a US citizen. If you are not - most folks who make a refugee or asylum claim at the US-Canada border are denied because of the Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) between Canada and the US, and so will usually be summarily returned to the US. (Somehow US citizens don't fall under this agreement.) So don't try this if you're not a US citizen, unless you're able to consult with a lawyer first.
So if you have any other way to get to Canada (you qualify for PR / Express Entry directly somehow and have enough points to get in - possibly because you are fluent in both French & English and have a masters; or you know someone who can get you a job offer that qualifies for a work permit under NAFTA; or you have enough funds to apply as an international student; or you are under 35 years and can qualify for a working holiday visa) - try that first. The consequences of failure there are less severe.
Agreed. In addition, I'd add this to the OC's comments:
It would be like if you were at a pro Palestinian protest and were asked to sign a document saying you’re free to protest but only if you remain quiet about certain things the isralie government is doing
Well, no. It's more like, the Israeli gov't promises that you can get secret information from them about what they are doing, but you can't mention it publicly until they've made it public. But worst case you're still free to protest anything and everything that's already public.
I'm not sure if even that premise is correct, though. From https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-poilievre-is-the-sole-party-leader-foregoing-access-to-classified/ (archive https://archive.is/QEbVP)
top intelligence officials have said that secrecy rules would not prevent leaders from acting on the information they receive. On Tuesday, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May held a lengthy news conference detailing what she learned from the classified report.
Likewise, the previous opposition leader did have the clearance, and was able to speak publicly about what he learned, as per https://globalnews.ca/news/9732593/erin-otoole-chinese-interference/
Former Conservative Leader Erin O’Toole says the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) found an “active campaign of voter suppression” by China against him and his party in the 2021 election. O’Toole made the comments Tuesday from the floor of the House of Commons
So this excuse rings hollow.
not because of anything you did but because you refused to sign the document.
A refusal to perform a certain action is a choice. And choices have consequences...
If you refuse to sign, a crowd of people all start shouting that
I haven't seen anyone call PP a Nazi specifically because of this, yet. So I think the analogy breaks down here.
Also, signing the document is just a step, it's not all there is. Even though PP had a security clearance in the past that has since expired, presumably he'd have to be rechecked before getting a new one. Unlike just signing a doc, there are some concerns here that PP might actually have something in his background that would cause him to fail this check, resulting in a denial even after he agrees to sign.
As an MP He’s a representative not a member of the federal government.
No, the government is the party that governs
Parliament is the legislative branch of government. Its main purpose is to make laws and hold the government to account.
Government is a broader term with different meanings. Inside the House of Commons, it usually refers to the Prime Minister, Cabinet and other members of the governing party.
So that is accurate.
Let the opposition be the opposition.
How come only PP didn't get a clearance? Every other party leader has one. Think of all the times Bloc Quebecois clashed with the Liberals (e.g. https://globalnews.ca/news/10791235/bloc-quebecois-pension-payments-possible-election/ and https://globalnews.ca/news/10791235/bloc-quebecois-pension-payments-possible-election/ ) but their leader still has the clearance. Doesn't seem like having a clearance hurt that much.
I can't find confirmation but I imagine the last time that the Liberals were the Opposition, their leader, Michael Ignatieff, would have held this clearance as well. So PP is very much the odd one out here.
Also, for Express Entry the age limit is 55. Not sure what PR pathways exist for those older.
Though, while not permanent, theoretically you can just keep renewing a work permit under NAFTA. There's no age limit to the permit, so as long as you're able to work (and you have a qualifying employer and meet other requirements) you should be able to do this to stay in Canada indefinitely.
If you're a US (or Mexican) citizen you don't even need LMIA, you might be eligible under NAFTA.
But I work in tech, and when I did this, I found it quite challenging to find an employer who would be willing to do this. Usually the employer needs an immigration lawyer and has to be set up with IRCC (i.e. the Canadian gov't) to do this. An LMIA - if you need one - would be even more paperwork for them.
Like an intra-corporate transfer to the Canadian office of your current US-based employer?
Also, welcome!
Our gain, their loss.
We got the joke - but are you sure you got Ford?
Right? Not sure I trust Ford long term, even though he's saying a lot of the right things right now.
It does seem to be the rare case where Ford and Chow are aligned, but she's actually taking action https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-tariff-response-plan-1.7494034
Wow, I can't believe how common this is becoming. There was an article about this recently, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/03/gold-card-residence-abroad/682103/ (archive https://archive.is/q3iCF )
Out of curiosity (and on the off-chance that it helps out a fellow USian) how are you getting out? What's the path you've picked, if you've gotten that far, or what options are you considering?
This is a recurring pattern though. When that idiot acts, it's the red states who supported him that get hurt the most.
Examples: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/04/trump-doge-federal-layoffs-national-parks https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/pain-hits-home-republicans-balk-trumps-spending-cuts-tariffs-rcna191832
I find serious flaws with this.
It's for a different country, but consider from https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-03-21/australia-rent-crisis-not-international-students-fault-study/105076290
Meanwhile, the original article says,
But this makes the false assumption that those who came had identical housing needs as local citizens, when we know international students (for example) did not.
Also, aside from this token callout,
there's no breakdown in the article on how much of that increase is actually from immigration as opposed to citizens moving back home because of covid - let alone a breakdown of new PRs vs international students vs temporary workers vs refugees vs etc...
Perhaps the study actually does contain this information. I wanted to double check there but couldn't find the study linked in the article, so I wasn't able to do this. Basically it's a very poor article that conflates different things, I'd go as far as to speculate that they came up with the conclusion that they wanted first and then tried to find support in the data while disregarding or outright ignoring contrary indicators...