The repeated
MISINFORMATION cited to justify erroneously and derisively labeling asylum seekers "illegals" illustrates the malicious intent with which this label is employed. The thing about bigotry is it tends to be as obvious as it is odious.
NOT one person posting here has so much as hinted let alone cited which law it is the asylum seekers have allegedly violated. They can't because the asylum seekers are NOT in fact illegally in Canada. Again, this is NOT the U.S.
(Yeah, the U.S., as S*hole countries are wont to do, has criminalized all sorts mere regulatory breaches, including the mere act of entering that country in pursuit of asylum; it is the kind of place where many states still have laws which prescribe crimes punishable by years of imprisonment for engaging in sexual acts with a member of the same sex, which for now cannot be enforced due to a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court ruling (
Lawrence v Texas) that such laws are unconstitutional, which is among many rulings very much at risk going forward with recent changes to that Court, and indeed numerous states continue to carry these crimes on their books, ready to enforce when Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and their new comrade (probably Kavanaugh) nudge Roberts to concur in turning back the clock; as their orange
buffoon-in-chief is wont to say, "
we'll see what happens.")
Not only have the vast, vast majority of asylum seekers
in Canada, that is refugee claimants, fully complied with the legal requirements to make their claims, as I have repeated (and no one has cited any actual authority otherwise), NO MATTER THE MEANS for which a person seeking asylum in Canada has arrived in Canada, the fact they have duly made an application for asylum, that is for refugee status, means
THEY ARE NOT ILLEGALLY in Canada. This is the law. (Again, this is NOT the U.S.)
They are NOT ILLEGALS.
Moreover, they are specifically excluded from being prosecuted for any border crossing violations. The OPPOSITE of the situation in the U.S.
Let's be clear: THERE IS NO Canadian statute particularly prescribing a violation of law for stepping across the border without going through a PoE. Not in the Criminal Code. Not in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
There is a statute prescribing a generic "offence" for contravening any provision of IRPA for which a penalty is not specifically provided (Section 124(1) IRPA), which includes the failure to comply with a condition or obligation. While on its face this may be interpreted by non-jurists rather broadly, it should be noted, for example, it is NOT an offence for a PR to breach the Residency Obligation and indeed there are many conditions and obligations which are in the vein of prescribing eligibility for obtaining or continuing status, for which a failure to comply does NOT constitute an offence under Section 124(1) even though a layperson might,
erroneously applying common usage of terms, think Subsection 124(1) makes them an offence.
There is, however,
NO NEED to speculate or interpret whether a person crossing the border to seek asylum is guilty of an offence for even the most broad interpretation of Section 124(1) since, in fact, to make sure there is no confusion about this, it is EXPLICITLY prescribed by statute that this provision is
NOT to be enforced against persons who make a refugee claim. This is in Section 133 IRPA which explicitly excludes from any enforcement of this provision those who make a claim for refugee protection, "and who came to Canada directly or
indirectly" (emphasis added) to Canada (thus specifically including those who have transited the U.S. and arrived in Canada from the U.S.). See
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/page-23.html#docCont
Thus, even assuming that the Canadian government interprets crossing the border outside properly seeking entry at a PoE to be an act in contravention of Section 18(1) IRPA (
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/page-5.html#docCont) which is subject to prosecution as an offence under Section 124(1), those persons who are making a refugee claim CANNOT be so prosecuted.
Their presence in Canada is explicitly, as a matter of law, LEGAL. NOT ILLEGAL.
In contrast, there are indeed more than a few PRs who periodically look for ways to slip into Canada undetected or otherwise concealing their status as a PR, because they are in breach of the PR Residency Obligation and want to avoid being the subject of a 44(1) Report for Inadmissibility.
See, for example, a topic in the PR Obligations conference here titled "Entering Canada via Hot air balloon ?"
The whole question about the balloon travelling was in order to avoid to be reported because of the breach of RO.
Obviously the particular means of getting into Canada entertained in that topic is hyperbolic, but it is just one among scores of topics in which queries about how to skirt enforcement of the PR RO, or to otherwise evade examination, are posed with minimal restraint.
"What do you want people to call illegal border crossers?"
Assuming there is such a thing as an "illegal border crosser" (assuming Subsection 124(1) IRPA applies to make an act contrary to Subsection 18(1) IRPA "illegal"), generally people should be referred to by their name.
While PRs and some FNs may indeed be illegal border crossers (again, assuming Subsection 124(1) IRPA applies to make an act contrary to Subsection 18(1) IRPA "illegal"), subject to prosecution for their "illegal" act, persons with a refugee claim in process are specifically EXCLUDED from this group.
Otherwise . . . sure, we commonly use labels to reference certain groups of people, referring to PRs applying for citizenship as "applicants" for example, or more specifically if not otherwise clear in context, "citizenship applicants." Such labels are useful groupings to facilitate discussions particularly relevant to this group of individuals and matters related to them as a group, the label allowing discussion or debate about those matters specifically applicable to this group, the label aptly applying to all members of the relevant grouping, and the label is NOT employed to denigrate or disparage a class of persons.
We are all well familiar with labels used derisively. Such labels are NOT used to advance our understanding or expand our knowledge or to otherwise facilitate a discussion. This is particularly common when certain persons deliberately employ a term to cast aspersions on a class of people.
Recognizing that the labeling of "illegal border crossers" as illegals has NOTHING in particular to do with which class of immigration a person has applied or qualified for, particularly since numerically it is apparent that many more PRs and FNs other than asylum seekers have evaded or skirted or otherwise acted in contravention of not only Section 18(1) IRPA but other border examination requirements as well, it is abundantly clear that using "illegals" to specially label asylum seekers is intended to denigrate, to demean and deride, NOT to use the term as a means of facilitating discussion about asylum seekers but rather to put them down. That is, as previously observed, the DEFINITION of BIGOTRY, and as previously observed should be confronted for what it is.
In the meantime, there are indeed many labels which can be used which are not derogatory (except perhaps to Americans who associate any refugee with being an undesirable) which apply to all those making refugee claims, and which readily suffice for facilitating discussion about matters related to them, be that "asylum seekers," "refugee claimants," "applicants for protected person status," or simply "refugees."
Again, this is NOT the U.S. Discussions about refugee class immigrants can be and should be approached with some basic common decency and respect for other people, without the use of labels which are not only essentially offensive but which (like the use of "illegals" being advocated here) intended to demean and deride.
