SYR Refugees to Canada (split fm SYR refugees thread)

[PuckChaser]

That's because the problem is minor at the moment.  Without US cooperation, we are literally doing everything that is legally allowed at the moment.  The US could solve this by A ) stopping them on their side, or, B ) agreeing to amend the safe third country agreement.  Whether they've been asked about that second piece - I have no idea.

How do you know we don't have US cooperation? The current government has done nothing thus far, so I wouldn't expect the US to start wading into our domestic politics until our government leaders say there's a problem and demand change.

 

[jmt18325]

How do you know we don't have US cooperation? The current government has done nothing thus far, so I wouldn't expect the US to start wading into our domestic politics until our government leaders say there's a problem and demand change.

I didn't say that we didn't have US cooperation.  I said that only cooperation from the Americans can change the situation, and that I don't know if we have that or not.  I'm guessing not.  I'm guessing they're more than happy to be rid of the people who are coming here.  I don't know what you would propose that the current government do differently, quite frankly.  They are having the illegal migrants detained on entry.  That they then claim asylum, as they are legally allowed (they're in Canada, and have full protection of the Constitution - this isn't like at a border post) is where the problem comes from.

 

[YZT580]

so declare that every point at which a person crosses the border is a de facto border crossing point and SEND THEM BACK!!!  Why should the people of Canada foot the legal, medical and social bill of someone who has already reached a safe haven in the States and wishes to change?  And the point is not without precedent.  Illegals who enter via air can be stopped on the bridge and ordered back onto the aircraft.  So why should a trail through a field be any different?  It still links foreign soil with Canadian just as the bridge links foreign soil, the aircraft with Canada (the terminal building). 

 

[Good2Golf]

I didn't say that we didn't have US cooperation.

Actually you did.

Without US cooperation, we are literally doing everything that is legally allowed at the moment.

If your phrase was meant to be conditional, you should have phrased it conditionally: "Without US cooperation, we would be doing everything that is legally allowed at the moment." Or, more precisely worded, "If we didn't have US cooperation, we would be doing everything that is legally allowed at the moment."

Your existing sentence had no such condition - its phraseology was merely a re-arranged "We are literally doing everything that is legally allowed at the moment without US cooperation." 

Grammatically yours,

G2G

 

[Eye In The Sky]

so declare that every point at which a person crosses the border is a de facto border crossing point and SEND THEM BACK!!!  Why should the people of Canada foot the legal, medical and social bill of someone who has already reached a safe haven in the States and wishes to change?  And the point is not without precedent.  Illegals who enter via air can be stopped on the bridge and ordered back onto the aircraft.  So why should a trail through a field be any different?  It still links foreign soil with Canadian just as the bridge links foreign soil, the aircraft with Canada (the terminal building).

If they are illegal immigrants, etc in the US, once they *leave* the US will the US take them back?  I think not.  Can we "make" them?  Ya..there's a conversation I'd like to hear between the PM and POTUS.  :nod:

 

[jmt18325]

Actually you did.

If your phrase was meant to be conditional, you should have phrased it conditionally: "Without US cooperation, we would be doing everything that is legally allowed at the moment." Or, more precisely worded, "If we didn't have US cooperation, we would be doing everything that is legally allowed at the moment."

Your existing sentence had no such condition - its phraseology was merely a re-arranged "We are literally doing everything that is legally allowed at the moment without US cooperation." 

Grammatically yours,

G2G

This is what I said:

Without US cooperation, we are literally doing everything that is legally allowed at the moment.  The US could solve this by A ) stopping them on their side, or, B ) agreeing to amend the safe third country agreement.  Whether they've been asked about that second piece - I have no idea.

----

I should have worded it a bit differently, but the context of the rest of what I said was important to my meaning.  I wasn't accusing them of anything.  I don't know if we've asked the US about any of it, so they may be just waiting for an ask from us.  Somehow though, I doubt that this administration is in a hurry to keep those people or get them back.

 

[jmt18325]

so declare that every point at which a person crosses the border is a de facto border crossing point and SEND THEM BACK!!!

I'm thinking that would also require input from the US, being as it would impact the safe third country agreement in a material way.