Refugee or Terrorist?
"However, failing to balance asylum permissiveness with national security can have serious implications, as has been demonstrated by lenient Canadian immigration policies. In 2003, Former Canadian Ambassador Martin Collacott, Senior Fellow at the Frasier Institute, told a Center for Immigration Studies audience that “in the case of Canada our largest problem area has been our system for processing asylum seekers... since this is the channel through which most terrorists have entered Canada.” According to Collacott, the Canadians have “stretched” the definition of refugee so far that a British minor was granted refugee status in 1998 because he feared persecution by his deceased father."
Link
A British minor was granted refugee status in 1998 bacause he feared persecution by his desceased father...!
Maybe it's time for the US to start looking in to building fences towards the northern borders aswell...
Well I suppose we here in Sweden are not there just yet. But just you wait... Wanna make a bet?
posted by pela68 at 19:38
3 Comments:
build the fence..build the fence..build the fence!!!!..good work my friend!
Friday, 12 October 2007 at 23:38:00 CEST
Well, it really goes against all my core beliefs. As a libertarian, I wish that we could have open borders. But as a realist, I realise that we can not have those.
Not because of western societies and ideologies- but because of other ideologies.
Do we want to keep our own society. The most suceccful society ever?
Or should we succumb, lay down our hats and bend our backs for societys and ideologies that has made no positive impression in history what so ever?
There has never been a war between two democraties.
What do we want?
I know what I want!
Saturday, 13 October 2007 at 02:25:00 CEST
oooh, oooh, wait! Saddam was elected with 100% of the vote! ;-)ROFLMAO!
Tuesday, 16 October 2007 at 18:46:00 CEST
Post a Comment
<< Home