Sponsoring a parent with Freedom fighter background

[scylla]

Hey everyone, thanks for your responses.

Since I still have some days left, I was thinking if it will be a good idea to withdraw my application entirely and apply only for my mother (as principal applicant) where my father just remains as the non-accompanying spouse. Any ideas?

Your father needs to be admissible in order for your mother's PR visa to be approved. Doesn't matter if he is accompanying or non-accompanying, he still needs to pass all of the checks.

 

[armoured]

This section pretty much implies that if you are even slightly associated with any organization which was involved in any sort of protest (doesn't matter whether it was peaceful or violent protest) that led to the subversion of ANY government, you can be determined inadmissible.

Not true - the plain text says subversion by force of any government. Let alone that "protest" is and can be entirely different from "subversion."

The definition of subversion is - "the undermining of the power and authority of an established system or institution.".

Don/t know where you got this definition. Suffice to say - this is not the definition under Canadian law.

So, for example if you participated in the protest against a tyrant authority who was responsible for butchering, raping, killing hundreds of people, you will be considered inadmissible because you protested against that authority.

Not true - the law again specifies that non-violent subversion is only grounds for inadmissibility if the government is democratic (as understood in Canada), which by definition is not the 'tyrant authority' you posit.

You fought against genocide, you will be considered in admissible. You fought for the protection of your people against a brutal military authority, and you will be considered inadmissible.

Notwithstanding my disagreements on the parts above (where I think you've exaggerated), I agree that some of these are potentially very problematic in terms of what they could lead to. One would hope that these would be interpreted in context, but I don't have much faith that will be the case in practice.

The law was not like this before. Before the subversion ground was applicable for only democratic govt (section 34.b). That idea resonated with the ideology of Canada. But then, I would never understand why they made an amendment (I think it was done in 2003) to this law and included the subversion of ANY govt

Thanks for the reference, I also want to read more about these changes. (Rather obviously unfortunately tied to 2001 9/11 attacks, when laws were changed all over - and in some cases, NOT for the better.

 

[arkimoon]

Not true - the plain text says subversion by force of any government. Let alone that "protest" is and can be entirely different from "subversion."



Don/t know where you got this definition. Suffice to say - this is not the definition under Canadian law.



Not true - the law again specifies that non-violent subversion is only grounds for inadmissibility if the government is democratic (as understood in Canada), which by definition is not the 'tyrant authority' you posit.



Notwithstanding my disagreements on the parts above (where I think you've exaggerated), I agree that some of these are potentially very problematic in terms of what they could lead to. One would hope that these would be interpreted in context, but I don't have much faith that will be the case in practice.



Thanks for the reference, I also want to read more about these changes. (Rather obviously unfortunately tied to 2001 9/11 attacks, when laws were changed all over - and in some cases, NOT for the better.

I understand your disagreement in regards to my points. Honestly speaking, when I heard about it the first time I also reacted the way you did. But I have seen close friends, family suffering since years because of this section of our immigration law. The problem is the ambiguity in the definition of the word "subversion" itself. In several court cases the word was defined in different way. These are open source information but I am giving you just few examples as reference -

The Federal Court commented on the concept of subversion in a case involving a Palestinian Liberation Organization member. Justice Cullen adopted a broad definition of subversion, holding that “any act that is intended to contribute to the process of overthrowing a government is a subversive act.”

In Eyakwe v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), the Federal Court upheld an Immigration and Refugee Board decision where subversion was defined as “the changing of a government or instigation thereof through the use of force, violence or criminal means.”

In Oremade v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), the Court considered the meaning of “subversion by force.” Justice Phelan came to the following conclusion: The term “by force” is not simply the equivalent of “by violence”. “By force” includes coercion or compulsion by violent means, coercion or compulsion by threats to use violent means, and, I would add, reasonably perceived potential for the use of coercion by violent means.

As stated by Justice Mactavish of the Federal Court, “the subversion by force of any government, including a despotic one, is enough for a finding of inadmissibility.”

The way I wrote might seem exaggeration to you. I don't blame you. I also used to think like that. But the things I wrote came from real life experiences. Let me tell you a recent story. Last couple for month I am accompanying a friend to many lawyers' offices who wants to bring her aged parents in Canada through sponsorship. When her father was a teenager, he was an assistant of the medical team who took care of the wounded soldiers during his country's liberation war. Their democratic right was stripped off by the military authority and people were fighting for their independence. Eventually after a war that ended up killing 3 million people, rapes of almost 400k women, this nation finally achieved their independence. Our Canadian Government, people and media expressed support and sympathy for those people throughout the war and after. But, now my friend's father is being considered inadmissible because of his "association" with the freedom fighters who fought against the brutal military authority to protect their people. And yes, the event of their liberation war is considered an event of genocide.

I don't find it fair. This is when my country let me down because throughout my life I believed my nation's position as a moral leader of the free world.

 

[YVR123]

I understand your disagreement in regards to my points. Honestly speaking, when I heard about it the first time I also reacted the way you did. But I have seen close friends, family suffering since years because of this section of our immigration law. The problem is the ambiguity in the definition of the word "subversion" itself. In several court cases the word was defined in different way. These are open source information but I am giving you just few examples as reference -

The Federal Court commented on the concept of subversion in a case involving a Palestinian Liberation Organization member. Justice Cullen adopted a broad definition of subversion, holding that “any act that is intended to contribute to the process of overthrowing a government is a subversive act.”

In Eyakwe v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), the Federal Court upheld an Immigration and Refugee Board decision where subversion was defined as “the changing of a government or instigation thereof through the use of force, violence or criminal means.”

In Oremade v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), the Court considered the meaning of “subversion by force.” Justice Phelan came to the following conclusion: The term “by force” is not simply the equivalent of “by violence”. “By force” includes coercion or compulsion by violent means, coercion or compulsion by threats to use violent means, and, I would add, reasonably perceived potential for the use of coercion by violent means.

As stated by Justice Mactavish of the Federal Court, “the subversion by force of any government, including a despotic one, is enough for a finding of inadmissibility.”

The way I wrote might seem exaggeration to you. I don't blame you. I also used to think like that. But the things I wrote came from real life experiences. Let me tell you a recent story. Last couple for month I am accompanying a friend to many lawyers' offices who wants to bring her aged parents in Canada through sponsorship. When her father was a teenager, he was an assistant of the medical team who took care of the wounded soldiers during his country's liberation war. Their democratic right was stripped off by the military authority and people were fighting for their independence. Eventually after a war that ended up killing 3 million people, rapes of almost 400k women, this nation finally achieved their independence. Our Canadian Government, people and media expressed support and sympathy for those people throughout the war and after. But, now my friend's father is being considered inadmissible because of his "association" with the freedom fighters who fought against the brutal military authority to protect their people. And yes, the event of their liberation war is considered an event of genocide.

I don't find it fair. This is when my country let me down because throughout my life I believed my nation's position as a moral leader of the free world.

But the Canadian government opened up new program to allow young people from Hong Kong to move over. (study/work and eventually try to get PR)
Many of them were in peaceful protest which eventually turned more aggressive. And many were arrested and jailed for just being in the crowd. The Canadian government is not only allowing but starting new pathway for some that is acting in your mentioned as ... inadmissible

So, for example if you participated in the protest against a tyrant authority who was responsible for butchering, raping, killing hundreds of people, you will be considered inadmissible because you protested against that authority.

What I really mean is that your friend's case is different from sraboni5's case. So my suggestion is to be trueful and let's see what is the result. And OP can go from there.