Feds tell immigration officers to treat U.S. deserters as criminals

[Malevolence]

OTTAWA - The Conservative government has given immigration officers tough new marching orders for dealing with military deserters seeking refuge in Canada, painting them as criminals who may be inadmissible.
The Immigration Department is leaning on officers to give a more critical assessment in new cases and telling them to report more often about existing files.
The department recently issued a bulletin to field officers saying flight from military service in another country may make certain refugee claimants inadmissible.
The new directive points to existing provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act — sections that bar refugees from Canada on the "grounds of serious criminality" — in order to make the case.
"Desertion is an offence in Canada under the National Defence Act," says the notice, issued July 22.
"The maximum punishment for desertion under section 88 of the (National Defence Act) is life imprisonment, if the person committed the offence on active service or under orders for active service. Consequently, persons who have deserted the military in their country of origin may be inadmissible to Canada."

[Vythica]

Originally Posted by Malevolence

OTTAWA - The Conservative government has given immigration officers tough new marching orders for dealing with military deserters seeking refuge in Canada, painting them as criminals who may be inadmissible.
The Immigration Department is leaning on officers to give a more critical assessment in new cases and telling them to report more often about existing files.
The department recently issued a bulletin to field officers saying flight from military service in another country may make certain refugee claimants inadmissible.
The new directive points to existing provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act — sections that bar refugees from Canada on the "grounds of serious criminality" — in order to make the case.
"Desertion is an offence in Canada under the National Defence Act," says the notice, issued July 22.
"The maximum punishment for desertion under section 88 of the (National Defence Act) is life imprisonment, if the person committed the offence on active service or under orders for active service. Consequently, persons who have deserted the military in their country of origin may be inadmissible to Canada."

Yes this is true, unfortunately for the Harper government, this is just the latest in a series of Ministerial missteps for Jason Kenney. There is a large difference between deserting the Canadian military (a truly all-volunteer force) and deserting the US military (a one-sided volunteer force). As I pointed out to the Minister, people who have never worn the uniform of an armed-service (such as the Minister) wouldn't have the slightest inclination to the kinds of moral and legal decisions that soldiers are faced with daily.

The main point is this; desertion from the US military carries with it a lot of mitigating circumstances that Canada doesn't force upon it's soldiers. For example, Canada saved their individual soldiers from having to make the choice of whether the unilateral invasion of Iraq was legal or not, by erring on the side of caution and not participating (Thank you, Jean Chrétien). The US on the other hand, shoved the burden of deciding whether or not one is committing war-crimes in Iraq on the shoulders of each individual soldier.

It's easy to hide behind the NDA and say that all American deserters (like myself) are criminals, but Canada would never put it's soldiers in the position that the US put me.

I'd like to ask anyone who disagrees what they would do when ordered to commit what they believe could be war-crimes.

Also, criminal inadmissibility can be exempted if your mitigating circumstances are good enough. Like when Canada took Russian deserters from Afghanistan, or when Canada took Iraqi deserters who refused to invade Kuwait...

Only once you've put yourself into that situation can you judge. The Minister is clearly out of line.

The other thing that stinks to high-heaven in this is the Ministerial interference in what should be independent decision making. The IRB (immigration and refugee board) is supposed to be free of Ministerial influence. Peter Showler, former head of the IRB, has spoken out publicly against the interference from the Minister's office, so has Human Rights Watch, so has Amnesty International, so has the Canadian Council of Refugees, so has the United Church of Canada, the list goes on and on. It's clear that Minister Kenney and the Harper government are grasping at straws at any tiny thing to try and sway public support for our bill, bill C-440.

Polls consistently show that over 65% of Canadians would allow people like me to stay in Canada. The House of Commons has passed two motions that the Harper gov't ignored. Bill C-440 would amend the immigration act to allow people "who have left or refused military service to avoid participating in a war not sanctioned by the UN security council" to apply for permanent residence in Canada, provided they meet all other medical and criminal criteria.

Clearly the Harper government is the minority on this issue.

[WhateverUSMC]

If you actually, oh, I don't know, read the Canadian National Defence Act, you'll notice that the section on desertion starts with this;

PART II

THE CANADIAN FORCES

Nice try, conservatives, but I joined the USMC, not the CF.

I'm getting pretty tired of the right wing here trying to make new regulations in order to circumvent their own laws and ignore their own people. Why Canadians allow (yes, ALLOW) this is beyond me.

[Malevolence]

LOL if you are Canadian and joined US military you are a goof plain and simple. Clearly Canada don't cause enough war and destruction for you. Next time look this up. http://www.legion-recrute.com/en/ I would respect you more...scratch that, I mean I'd have some respect for you period.

[blood-raven]

the legion is FRENCH not canadian.

[Malevolence]

Originally Posted by blood-raven

the legion is FRENCH not canadian.

omg you are ignorant and you are missing the point.




A new opportunity for a new life ...

Whatever your origins, nationality or religion might be, whatever qualifications you may or may not have, whatever your social or professional status might be, whether you are married or single, the French Foreign Legion offers you a chance to start a new life...

Source:http://www.legion-recrute.com/en/

[WhateverUSMC]

Originally Posted by Malevolence

LOL if you are Canadian and joined US military you are a goof plain and simple. Clearly Canada don't cause enough war and destruction for you. Next time look this up. http://www.legion-recrute.com/en/ I would respect you more...scratch that, I mean I'd have some respect for you period.

http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/5923/servernp.jpg

I'm not sure I understand your point, here. I'm one of the refugee claimants from the US.

What I was saying is that, following Canadian law, I am a refugee, and that the powers-that-be need to pay attension to the laws they put their names on.

[Malevolence]

Ah I see. You should of used your head before joining the US army/navi/air w/e then. Now you don't even have a country and need to feed off of my taxes now. If you joined cause the recruitment officer sold you on it I have to laugh a bit. But what do you expect when your Government dumbs down its citizens. If you really didn't know what you where getting into when you joined, maybe you should of stayed in school a little longer. I commend you that you maybe realized that USA military is just an extension of corporations protecting its foreign interest. Why not go hide in Mexico?? Ah standard of living I guess. I have no respect for you people and I wish you left my country and stooped using us as a place of refuge. We get enough boat loads of Tamil Tigers from a bonafied 3rd world....Whats your excuse? Ignorants period.

For the record I served my Country with distinction.

[Greyman_tle]

Originally Posted by Vythica

I'd like to ask anyone who disagrees what they would do when ordered to commit what they believe could be war-crimes.

Firstly..just to clarify....I DON'T DISAGREE.

right, now my question.

What options were availiable to you before you deserted..ie If when you recieved your orders and went to your CO and stated you were not going to obey them....what would the consequenses be.?..I assume that apart from using force to actually get you on the plane, they can't really make you go ( i may be nieve, not being from the US).

I ask from the standpoint that if you choose to disobey the rules set by society - both in and out of the armed forces, then you must accept - to a certain degree - the consequences of your actions.

1 of my great-uncle's was a concientious objector during WW1. He refused to fight, but still served at the front as a field medic...his other choice was prison. And if the 'war crime' rules of today had been applied then, we'd probably still be holding trials for it.

[Vythica]

Originally Posted by Greyman_tle

Firstly..just to clarify....I DON'T DISAGREE.

right, now my question.

What options were availiable to you before you deserted..ie If when you recieved your orders and went to your CO and stated you were not going to obey them....what would the consequenses be.?..I assume that apart from using force to actually get you on the plane, they can't really make you go ( i may be nieve, not being from the US).

I ask from the standpoint that if you choose to disobey the rules set by society - both in and out of the armed forces, then you must accept - to a certain degree - the consequences of your actions.

1 of my great-uncle's was a concientious objector during WW1. He refused to fight, but still served at the front as a field medic...his other choice was prison. And if the 'war crime' rules of today had been applied then, we'd probably still be holding trials for it.

Sorry, I had to get the retard out of the way before I could answer a genuine question.

Here are the options when given orders to go to Iraq (or anywhere else for that matter) go; or go to jail. That's it, there's no grey area. There is no option to retrain as a medic or anything like that.

I agree that when being civilly disobedient, that you should be willing to accept consequences. On the other hand, when society sets rules in place (such as soldier's right to conscience and that soldiers can be refugees based on that) then society should be expected to uphold those as well. It's irrational to say that "you should expect consequences" when it's actually society who committed; one, to not put soldiers in the situation that we've been put in; and two, to give them protection when they only follow the internationally accepted rules.
Thanks for listening.