ValueSubtracted

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?

outside Canada they need to be better promoted as Canadian.

Interesting - what do you see as the benefit to that? I'm not disagreeing, but I hadn't really considered it before.

One thing that needs to happen is the Conservative traitors to stop lying about and maligning the CBC.

Big yup.