Refugee could lose PR and refugee status after returning to home country

[screech339]

Please reread my statement more carefully, to wit:

"I'm also stating that returning to their homeland and taking up residence, after having lost their Canadian PR status, may result in them being in exactly the same danger they fled in the first place."

Note, you even highlighted (in bold) the contingent part of my statement -- that the refugee had their PR status revoked and is being deported, and that is why they are taking up residence in their homeland again.

Fine. If you want to nit pick. Let discuss your post. Knowing that PR won't voluntary give up their PR status unless forced to, other than federal conviction, there are basically two ways to lose PR. The first one we discussed is refugee returning home. The 2nd is failing RO requirements. eTA help take care of that problem. Not 100% perfect but it's a good start. If that is the case, it is not Canada's fault that the PR's life end up in trouble on account of PR's lack of own responsibility. You would have to explain why Canada should protect you if you can't even maintain a simple RO rule. You can always apply for refugee status at your nearest safe country (usually next country over) not pick and choose which you want to apply in. UN rules states that a bona fide refugee should apply for asylum at the nearest country. Not sell all your worldly possessions and take a plane ticket to Canada.

 

[Natan]

You have not been discussing my posts, you have only quoted my posts, while ignoring their content, so you can refute points I never made. To wit:

Fine. If you want to nit pick.

I have picked no nits.

Let discuss your post.

You then proceed to discuss your ideas, never once mentioning any of my points.

Knowing that PR won't voluntary give up their PR status unless forced to, other than federal conviction, there are basically two ways to lose PR. The first one we discussed is refugee returning home.

I have not discussed refugees moving back to their home country of their own accord.

The 2nd is failing RO requirements.

I never mentioned RO requirements.

eTA help take care of that problem. Not 100% perfect but it's a good start.

I never said anything about eTA.

If that is the case, it is not Canada's fault that the PR's life end up in trouble on account of PR's lack of own responsibility.

You love blaming victims for their victimization -- again, something I have not done.

You would have to explain why Canada should protect you

No one in this thread has suggested that Canada should protect refugee PRs while they are outside of Canada.

if you can't even maintain a simple RO rule.

I have not discussed refugee PRs failing to meet the RO.

You can always apply for refugee status at your nearest safe country (usually next country over) not pick and choose which you want to apply in.

I have not discussed this.

UN rules states that a bona fide refugee should apply for asylum at the nearest country. Not sell all your worldly possessions and take a plane ticket to Canada.

I have not discussed this.

Let discuss your post.

So this is a fib ("lie" is such an unmusical word), as nowhere in your post do you discuss anything from any of my posts. Where do you take responsibility for misrepresenting what your post is about?

 

[screech339]

I'm also stating that returning to their homeland and taking up residence, after having lost their Canadian PR status, may result in them being in exactly the same danger they fled in the first place.

This post basically saying after losing PR status, he / she is forced to return to homeland and life could end up in danger.

So let discuss that statement you made and post, shall we? Apparently I misrepresent myself by not quoting the said post. Otherwise it's a fib.

There are 2 ways to lose PR under the said post you made. One is return home as a refugee. The other is failing RO. Whether you are PR or refugee who never returned home. explain why you need a Canada protection if you can't follow a simple RO rule that prevented you from you going back to home country in the first place. If your life end up in danger as a result of this, you can flee to the nearest safe country as per UN requirement (Canada is not the nearest safe country, unless you are in US, Greenland, St Pierre & Miquelon). You seem to think this UN refugee rule doesn't apply to Canada when fleeing country from Africa / Middle East / Asia / Europe.

The problem with you Natan is that you think rules and laws should not apply when personal decision / responsibility lead to circumstances not in their favour. You want the "victim" to blame everyone else but themselves when their own decision / action lead to the situation they ended up with.

Your premise is "It's okay to break the rules / laws if you can get away with it. If you got caught, it's not your fault, it's everyone else's."

 

[NewUser2018]

In EU, UK, Australia & Scandinavia refugees lose PR status if they travel back to country they claim asylum from, they arrested on port of entry or warrant of arrest issued immidiately and returned on spot next flight. Atleast this guy dragging time and bad example for other refugees. Geneva convention treaty rule doesnt allow refugees to return to country they claim asylum from also so even UN lawyer wont be able to rescue him.

 

[Natan]

In EU, UK, Australia & Scandinavia refugees lose PR status if they travel back to country they claim asylum from, they arrested on port of entry or warrant of arrest issued immidiately and returned on spot next flight. Atleast this guy dragging time and bad example for other refugees. Geneva convention treaty rule doesnt allow refugees to return to country they claim asylum from also so even UN lawyer wont be able to rescue him.

The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the the Status of Refugees, while agreed to in Geneva, Switzerland, are not part of the four treaties relating to armed conflict known as the Geneva Conventions.

These treaties include general guidelines that signatory nations are encouraged to implement in their law codes to protect refugees. The Convention and Protocol are not rules, regulations, legislation or laws. Absent specific national laws, they cannot be enforced. There is no such thing as a "UN lawyer" with regards to said treaties nor is there a UN court to adjudicate refugee cases.

Article 1 of the Convention, as amended by the 1967 Protocol, defines a refugee as this:

"A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.."

-- Wikipedia​

The treaties do not require countries to revoke refugee status because a refugee avails themselves of the protection of the country they are from. In fact, the treaties do not "require" countries to comply with its guidelines, it merely encourages them to do so. Some signatory countries, like the U.S.A., have laws that are in contravention of some of the treaties' guidelines.

 

[Natan]

...you can flee to the nearest safe country as per UN requirement...

The UN does not have "requirements" with regard to refugees.

You seem to think this UN refugee rule doesn't apply to Canada when fleeing country from Africa / Middle East / Asia / Europe.

There is no such thing as a "UN refugee rule". The UN does not make rules, laws, regulations or legislation in regard to refugees.

The problem with you Natan...

You put words in my mouth which I have not said, argue points that I have not made, and draw conclusions based on logic that I have not employed.

 

[screech339]

Natan. Since you hate people putting words in your mouth, let settle it and hear it from the horse's mouth.

Is it of your statement that Canadian refugee PR be allowed to break the refugee PR rules, return to the country he/she fled from and get to keep PR refugee status?

Yes or No.

No beating around the bush. No indirect answer. No buts. Just a simple yes or no answer.

 

[Natan]

Natan. Since you hate people putting words in your mouth, let settle it and hear it from the horse's mouth.

Is it of your statement that Canadian refugee PR be allowed to break the refugee PR rules, return to the country he/she fled from and get to keep PR refugee status?

Yes or No.

No beating around the bush. No indirect answer. No buts. Just a simple yes or no answer.

It is my opinion that there should be only one class of Canadian Permanent Resident, and that Permanent Residents who immigrated as refugees should not lose their PR status because they have visited, or acquired a passport from, the country they fled.

 

[screech339]

It is my opinion that there should be only one class of Canadian Permanent Resident, and that Permanent Residents who immigrated as refugees should not lose their PR status because they have visited, or acquired a passport from, the country they fled.

I didn't ask for your OPINION. I didn't asked if there should be one class of PR. Actually there is. There is one PR. There's no other kind. Just like there is no other kind of Canadians.

I asked for a simple statement from you. Nothing more. It is not a hard question. Simple yes or no. Answer the question I asked. Or we wouldn't be having a 3 page discussion on why PR refugee breaking rules get to keep PR. So once again what is your answer.

Yes or No.

(And you wondered why people put words in your mouth. You either give vague answers or indirect statements.)

 

[Natan]

Upon becoming a PR, one should have all the same rights and privileges of any other PR. By having a different set of rules for PRs who immigrated as refugees, a second class of PR is created. The dangers of reavailment should only apply while the refugee has TRP status.

This is the very first post I made in this thread. As you can see, I stated my position quite clearly.

 

[Natan]

I didn't ask for your OPINION. I asked a simple question of statement as per refugee PR rules. Simple yes or no. Answer the question I asked. Or we wouldn't be having a 3 page discussion on why PR refugee breaking rules get to keep PR. Your avoidance simply means your answer is YES but don't want to make it official.

It is not my function to instruct you in English comprehension or critical thinking skills. If you can't read simple English sentences and understand their clear meaning, then perhaps you should not be arguing with me in the first place.

 

[Natan]

Is it of your statement that Canadian refugee PR be allowed to break the refugee PR rules, return to the country he/she fled from and get to keep PR refugee status?

You are clearly asking for my opinion, your poor English grammar notwithstanding.

 

[screech339]

It is my opinion that there should be only one class of Canadian Permanent Resident, and that Permanent Residents who immigrated as refugees should not lose their PR status because they have visited, or acquired a passport from, the country they fled.

If there are to be one class of PR, there should be no different sets of processing for PR. Only one. This way everyone achieved PR the same way, but we don't. We have different categories of PRs and each of them have their own set of PR procedures.

 

[screech339]

It is not my function to instruct you in English comprehension or critical thinking skills. If you can't read simple English sentences and understand their clear meaning, then perhaps you should not be arguing with me in the first place.

Again your refusal to answer my question is deafening. Your refusal to answer my question speaks for itself.

 

[screech339]

You are clearly asking for my opinion, your poor English grammar notwithstanding.

Reread my post. I said. There is no where that I asked for your opinion.

Is it your statement that refugee PR should break the rules?

Yes or No.

There is a different between making a statement and making an opinion.

Or how about this if you don't want to make a statement.

Is it your opinion that a refugee PR should break the rules of obtaining Canadian PR.

Yes or No.