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

[screech339]

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

That post says nothing about breaking the current rules. If you want refugee PR to return home country, the rules for refugee PR must be changed.

But right now the rules states that refugee must not return to home country. That said. Is it your opinion or statement that the current rules for refugee to obtain and maintain PR should not apply. In other words:, do you think that refugees are allowed to break the refugee PR obligation, such as returning to home country and get to keep PR?

 

[Natan]

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

Yes or No.

This is a leading question. It is called a leading question because it "leads" a person to respond with a predetermined answer. Leading questions are not designed to illicit truth or discover facts; they are intended to mislead and deceive, often indicating an arguer's weakness and their lack of the necessary evidence and critical thinking skills to win their argument. Leading questions are often a subtle form of ad hominem attack.

 

[screech339]

This is a leading question. It is called a leading question because it "leads" a person to respond with a predetermined answer. Leading questions are not designed to illicit truth or discover facts; they are intended to mislead and deceive, often indicating an arguer's weakness and their lack of the necessary evidence and critical thinking skills to win their argument.

That is not a leading question. I'm not leading you anywhere? I want to know what is your position is. I am not making a deceiving question. Are refugee allowed to break the current PR rules and keep it.

 

[Natan]

That is not a leading question. I'm not leading you anywhere? I want to know what is your position. I am not making a deceiving question. Are refugee allowed to break the current PR rules and keep it.

It has been my observation that an arguer's insistence that their opponent answer a leading question with a "yes" or a "no" is in direct proportion to their lack of evidence and critical thinking skills. The more of the one, the greater the other.

 

[screech339]

It has been my observation that an arguer's insistence that their opponent answer a leading question with a "yes" or a "no" is in direct proportion to their lack of evidence and critical thinking skills. The more of the one, the greater the other.

Lack of evidence?

The evidences are as followed. They are facts not opinions.

1. Current refugee PR rules / laws state that they are not to return to home country.

2. Refugee PR returned to home country.

3. Refugee broke the conditions of refugee PR.

4. Refugee will / can lose PR status due to breach of current PR rules.

Which evidence above is fault?

 

[Natan]

Lack of evidence?

The evidences are as followed.

1. Current refugee PR rules / laws state that they are not to return to home country.

2. Refugee PR returned to home country.

3. Refugee broke the conditions of refugee PR.

4. Refugee will / can lose PR status due to breach of current PR rules.

Which evidence above is fault?

You have completely ignored the content of my posts in this thread and entered into an imaginary argument with an imaginary opponent. You are effectively arguing with yourself.

With the exception of correcting some misconceptions about TRP status, the role of the United Nations, and the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees; my posts have only been about my opinions:

(i) that there should be a single class of Canadian Permanent Resident;

(ii) that Canadian Permanent Residents, who immigrated as refugees, should not lose their status for visiting, or obtaining a passport from, their homeland; and

(iii) that refugees may be in far less danger visiting their homelands once they have removed and obtained permanent residence status in another country, by virtue of having removed and obtained permanent residence status in another country.​

 

[screech339]

Natan, you wanting refugee PR to return home without losing PR is fine and dandy. But that requires Refugee PR rules changes. That is a completely different discussion.

The discussion we are having now is what the current rules are and how they must be respected and followed. If you break the rules (any rules or laws) be prepared for the consequences.

 

[screech339]

You have completely ignored the content of my posts in this thread and entered into an imaginary argument with an imaginary opponent. You are effectively arguing with yourself.

With the exception of correcting some misconceptions about TRP status, the role of the United Nations, and the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees; my posts have only been about my opinions:

(i) that there should be a single class of Canadian Permanent Resident;

(ii) that Canadian Permanent Residents, who immigrated as refugees, should not lose their status for visiting, or obtaining a passport from, their homeland; and

(iii) that refugees may be in far less danger visiting their homelands once they have removed and obtained permanent residence status in another country, by virtue of having removed and obtained permanent residence status in another country.

All 3 points requires changes to the PR rules to achieve what you want. That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about current laws and regulations. Unless the laws are changed, whether you think refugees should break the rules ( I think you do) or not, the fact of the matter is that the refugees are not allowed to return to home country if they want to keep PR status.

 

[screech339]

Natan. I am going to give you a chance to walk away with your head up high.

Do you agree with the following statement?

All applicants applying for any types of Canadian PR must follow current Canadian rules, laws and regulations pertaining to obtaining and maintaining Canadian PR status.

All 4 following answers are acceptable responses. However you must choose one.

"Yes"
"No"
"I refuse to answer the question"
"I plead the fifth amendment"

Giving a non answer or an indirect answer means the latter two response answers.

 

[Natan]

Natan. I am going to give you a chance to walk away with your head up high.

Do you agree with the following statement?

All applicants applying for any types of Canadian PR must follow current Canadian rules, laws and regulations pertaining to obtaining and maintaining Canadian PR status.

I'll accept one of the 4 following answers.

"Yes"
"No"
"I refuse to answer the question"
"I plead the fifth amendment"

Giving a non answer or an indirect answer means the latter two answer response.

This is a leading question. It is called a leading question because it "leads" a person to respond with a predetermined answer. Leading questions are not designed to illicit truth or discover facts; they are intended to mislead and deceive, often indicating an arguer's weakness and their lack of the necessary evidence and critical thinking skills to win their argument. Leading questions are often a subtle form of ad hominem attack.

 

[screech339]

This is a leading question. It is called a leading question because it "leads" a person to respond with a predetermined answer. Leading questions are not designed to illicit truth or discover facts; they are intended to mislead and deceive, often indicating an arguer's weakness and their lack of the necessary evidence and critical thinking skills to win their argument. Leading questions are often a subtle form of ad hominem attack.

Blah blah blah.

In other words you refuse to answer the question or pleading the fifth. All I hear from you is "Charlie Brown's school teacher speaking". Until you answer the question, there is no point having a meaningful discussion with you. All your posts in this thread and article has no credibility anymore.

I have more respect for someone who is not afraid to answer a simple direct question, right or wrong. I let your refusal , misdirect, indirect answers speak for itself.

 

[itsmyid]

You two should probably exchange phone numbers, or meet for coffee so you can debate to the full capacity of your knowledge on this topic Lol

 

[screech339]

You two should probably exchange phone numbers, or meet for coffee so you can debate to the full capacity of your knowledge on this topic Lol

Yes. Great idea. Discussing about rules and regulations. Natan speaks for breaking them. I would speak for following them. Gee who would win public support? Any takers?

 

[screech339]

Breaking the rules / laws to make the government change the laws does not work. It will only solidify the government's and public opinion against them. Contacting the government or voting in the parties to change the laws is the correct way to go.

My impression I get from Natan's refusal to answer my question is that he supports breaking the laws if they can get away with it, if they get caught, the laws shouldn't apply. He also thinks that PR refugees should be allowed to return to home country and keep their PR status after getting caught breaking the rules.

Just because everyone is breaking the rules doesn't mean the laws don't apply. It is just not enforced. Take people driving 120 km on the 400 series highway. Everyone is practially driving 120km/hr are breaking the law only they have not been caught and fined. When one do get pulled over by police for going 120 in a 100 zone, the driver cannot say the law doesn't apply to him because he always been doing it in the past or everyone else are also going 120 or faster as well and not caught. If the driver doesn't want to get a ticket for going 120km/hr, the law needs to change the speed limit to 120km/hr. This is the same to the refugee in article. Just because he wasn't caught the 1st time or 2nd time or other refugees have been doing it as well doesn't mean the law doesn't apply to him when he was finally caught on these PR refugee violations.

If PR refugees want to be able to return to their home country, the laws / rules must be changed first. No government will want to remove this requirement without any negative flashback from the voters. Voters will say if refugees can return to home country they are no different from non refugee PR and thus refugee PR should be scrapped completely. Refugees can apply for PR through normal means like everyone else who wants PR, if they want equal treatment.

Wanting a utopia society whereby everyone is equal to everyone is one thing. Breaking the laws to achieve it is quite another.

 

[Rigly68]

This is a leading question. It is called a leading question because it "leads" a person to respond with a predetermined answer. Leading questions are not designed to illicit truth or discover facts; they are intended to mislead and deceive, often indicating an arguer's weakness and their lack of the necessary evidence and critical thinking skills to win their argument. Leading questions are often a subtle form of ad hominem attack.

Actually a question you can answer only with yes or no is called a CLOSED or polar question.