78 (1) Subsection 101(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (b):
(b.1) the claimant entered Canada after June 24, 2020 and made the claim more than one year after the day of their entry;
That's the entire passage in question.
There are legal ways to visit Canada for extended periods of time.
If, during that time, a person's country is invaded or otherwise made unsafe, do you still have no problem kicking them out?
Okay, if you need it spelled out for you, I didn't say organized crime never involves abuse of the immigration system, postal service, or online service providers. I said the bill reaches well beyond that goal (if indeed that is the goal, which is questionable to say the least).
Go construct your straw men some place else.
all of which reach way beyond organized crime.
C'mon, don't insult us both by pretending you can't read.
So you started with "there's no reason to appease the US," and have now landed on, "they say they're trying to appease the US by giving them things they want, but they don't really mean it"?
And that ignores all of the other things in this bill that are about immigration, and asylum seekers, and being able to sieze peoples' mail, and forcing online providers to give up user data, all of which reach way beyond organized crime.
Unless you're trying to tell me those things aren't in the bill (they are), you haven't said anything at all.
If you're going to reply to me, you could at least make an effort to reference a single thing that I said.
How do the things in this bill accomplish that?
There’s no reason for us to come up with “draconian” bills to appease to Taco Chicken.
Maybe you should tell the Public Safety Minister.
Anandasangaree said Tuesday that Bill C-2 was drafted to contain "elements that will strengthen the relationship" between Canada and the U.S.
"There are a number of items in the bill that have been irritants for the U.S. so we are addressing some of those issues," he said. "But it's not exclusively about the United States."
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-legislation-border-fentanyl-1.7550684
Of the points raised in the video, which do you think aren't harmful?
Unilaterally cancelling immigration applications without any real oversight is draconian.
The video lays out a very concrete example of why the one-year limit on asylum claims is not a great idea.
I would think that eliminating "barriers" to forcing electronic service providers to hand over user data to law enforcement should be relevant to the interests of most Lemmy users.
Making it easier for the police to seize and open mail is...concerning.
”Pew, pew, pew, pew, pew.” The middle of the battle against the Rev-1 seems like an odd time for Murf to imitate someone complaining about “Star Trek: Discovery”, but he does seem to have things handled.
I couldn't understand him because he was whispering, and I couldn't see him because it was too dark, and also he was too woke. Is that a Bingo?
I'm not even going to ask what your definition of that is.
And now that weight limit has been removed. It used to say, the Corporation may open any mail, other than a letter." Now it says, "the Corporation may open any mail."
It repeals the portion of the Canada Post Corporation Act that says, "Notwithstanding any other Act or law, but subject to this Act and the regulations and to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, the Customs Act and the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, nothing in the course of post is liable to demand, seizure, detention or retention," and replaces it with, "Nothing in the course of post is subject to demand, seizure, detention or retention, except in accordance with an Act of Parliament," which is a massive expansion of the circumstances in which it can be done.
It also rewords the section on liability to ensure that there's...no liability, for anyone, in cases where mail is seized.
The bottom line is that these should be considered law enforcement activities, but there's no warrant required. Just an "Act of Parliament." There's no probable cause defined here. Maybe you're fine with that. I'm not.
I agree with you to an extent on this one. But things are more likely to be tweaked if people make some noise.
Even the original YT video under discussion here said that this bill contains some entirely unobjectionable things. But it also contains things that I agree need another look, and in fact are downright Trumpian in some respects.