本帖最后由 星洲炒米 于 2018-8-21 09:15 编辑
那你选NDP好了，NDP比自由党还支持非法难民，另外NDP更支持最低工资涨到30刀。安省的选举结果正说明了自由党根本没有存在的必要， 两党保守党和新民党足够了。
土豆自己都承认是illegal 而不是irregular， LOOK：
https://globalnews.ca/video/4355799/trudeau-says-its-illegal-to-enter-canada-irregularly
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/trudeau-is-exaggerating-what-international-refugee-law-compels-canada-to-do
The illegal entry of this latest wave of refugee claimants has worried many Canadians and has led to a politicized debate about use of the term “illegal” (which is not the same as “criminal”). Yet this aspect is not paramount from a protection perspective because all refugee claimants can be turned back to a safe country according to the Refugee Convention. For now, the U.S. is still considered a safe country according to Canadian law, despite controversial policies adopted by the White House. Nowhere in this 1951 treaty is anything mentioned about refugee status procedures. The word “asylum” is not even mentioned in any of its 46 articles. The most relevant obligation is found in article 33, which stipulates that refugees cannot be returned to a country where their “life or freedom would be threatened.” This basic guarantee is not the same as a right of asylum in that it allows some flexibility as long as refugees’ lives are not endangered. Unless a Canadian court determines the U.S. is no longer safe, there is no violation of the convention if migrants arriving at the Quebec border are returned to upstate New York. This principle is what allows Australia’s controversial policy of intercepting boat people and offloading them onto what Canberra considers to be safe Pacific islands. The Refugee Convention also prohibits “penalties” against claimants who enter illegally, but only if they come “directly” from the country they are fleeing. The meaning of “penalties” is clearer in the official French version which uses the expression “sanctions pénales.” The migrants at Quebec’s infamous Roxham Road are not arriving “directly” and they would not be “penalized” in the convention sense even if they were told to follow the standard rules applicable at official ports of entry (i.e. returned to the U.S. according to the Safe Third County Agreement). The harsh reality is that the convention’s limited protection does not oblige Canada to provide a hearing to every refugee claimant who shows up at the border.
| 
楼主: zbj
狗仔卡
发表于 2018-8-21 09:02:33
显身卡
