Trudeau's failed post national Canada experiment

[Anonymous]

Putting other nations ahead of the nation that elected Trudeau is not working.



China mess inevitable for 'post-national' Canada





By former Conservative cabinet minister Chuck Strahl



When Prime Minister Justin Trudeau declares that Canada is the world's first 'post-national state', what does that mean to a country like China?



China must scratch their collective heads and say: "What's this? The previous Canadian government told us that they would do whatever it takes to strengthen national security, to protect essential Canadian infrastructure, to promote — and expect all countries to live by — the rule of law and basic freedoms of expression, religion, association, and so on. Now Canada is 'post-national', whatever that means."



A country like China looks for proof in the pudding, and they can now start to see patterns where patterns exist.



Whereas the previous Conservative government consistently expressed serious reservations about China, about unrestricted investment, national security issues, and the absence of democracy, at the beginning of his leadership Trudeau said that he admired "their basic dictatorship" and their ability to get things done.



Perhaps this admiration is part of what it means to be 'post-nationalist?'



We're all in this together, whatever 'this' is, and so as long as you get 'er done, what's a little dictatorship along our mutual path?



The previous Canadian government created an Office of Religious Freedoms, in part to respond and bring attention to the unjust treatment of religious believers in China. But one of the Trudeau government's early acts was to abolish the Office, a decision that no doubt caused the Chinese government to raise a glass in agreement.



The previous Canadian government spoke out against the one-child policy of China, since it coerced women to have an abortion whether they wanted a child or not. The current Canadian government made it a party policy that in Canada you had to support unrestricted access to abortion to be part of the government and then decided that no Canadian or group (especially those pesky religious groups) could apply for summer jobs grants unless they also supported unrestricted abortion. China understands how to force citizens to agree with a party policy, and would no doubt agree with the initiative.



What about allying yourself with other countries who share concerns about national and international security? When many of our democratic allies have moved to restrict Huawei from playing a role in their country's 5G systems, we have held off on joining them.



The problem with all of this, as the Trudeau government has now found out, is that you either stand for something, or you will fall for anything.



You stand with your allies, or soon you won't have any. You consistently apply the lens of freedom, rule of law and democratic ideals to thorny issues, or these heartfelt issues will get ignored when you need them most.



China was not blowing smoke when they voiced support for former ambassador John Mccallum's positions on Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou and are livid with what they see as Canada's kowtowing to the U.S.



It is completely understandable that they would think this way. Having heard three years of post-national drivel from a country that once held the high moral ground, they no doubt expect us to act 'post-nationally' when it comes to dealing with them as well.



Near as one can tell, they expect us, as a nation, to put China's interests first.



What a mess, and a mess of our own making. The light bulb is slowly coming on in Ottawa that while it maybe sounds good to muse about being post-national when you're talking to high school students or United Nations rapporteurs, countries like China see it for what it is.



It's an inane and dangerous foray into a foreign policy that is neither soft or hard power, based on neither democratic principles or long-standing Canadian values. It's simply open to interpretation, and China (for one, though there will be others) will be emboldened to define it for us and get angry when we disagree. What a mess.

[Anonymous]

The lack of leadership from Trudeau on illegal border crossings is not only expensive, it puts Canadians at risk.



By Canadace Malcolm of Sun News Media



Lack of border screenings can lead to deportation headaches



Canada's biggest problem when it comes to the national security threat posed by asylum seekers may not be stopping bad guys from entering, but making them leave.



An internal government report obtained through an access to information request from immigration lawyer Richard Kurland revealed that 11,745 illegal border crossers and asylum seekers in Canada have not yet received national security screening or vetting.



Instead, these migrants were admitted into Canada and remain in queue amidst a massive backlog that has skyrocketed since 2016.



Rather than detaining individuals and holding them at the border until proper security screening measures are completed, Canada simply releases these migrants into the community.



We rely on good faith in the hopes they'll show up to their next appointment with border and immigration officials.



Once a migrant is in Canada, however, the record shows that even if they're found to be inadmissible, it's incredibly difficult to make them leave.



Take the case of Othman Ayed Hamdan — a Jordanian man who crossed into Canada from the U.S. in 2002 and filed an asylum claim.



He was originally admitted, but government officials later argued that he had faked a conversion to Christianity in order to game the system and achieve refugee status.



The federal court eventually ruled against Hamdan, concluding that he was a "Christian of convenience in order to get into Canada."



Around the same time an Immigration and Refugee Board ruling discussed Hamdan engaging in pro-islamic State propaganda on social media.



He identified critical infrastructure that could be targeted by ISIS terrorists, and he celebrated the death of Canadian soldiers at the hands of jihadist terrorists in 2014.



He called the jihadist who killed Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent a "hero for hitting evil Canadian forces on their soil."



While a judge in B.C. acquitted Hamdan on terrorism charges, the Immigration and Refugee Board ruled that Hamdan was a danger to national security and was ordered deported in October 2018.



But, as reported by Global News, Hamdan is refusing to cooperate.



He is "playing games" — refusing to meet with CBSA removals officers and refusing to sign the travel documents required to send this terrorist back to Jordan.



Hamdan is not the first foreign criminal to play this game.



Canada has been trying to deport a violent Rwandan asylum seeker for years.



According to a federal court decision, Jacob Damiany Lunyamila has had "approximately 389 police encounters" which "resulted in 95 criminal charges and 54 convictions."



He was deemed inadmissible to Canada for serious criminality and handed a deportation order.



But like Hamdan, Lunyamila has repeatedly refused to cooperate.



He has vowed that he will never sign the required paperwork to complete his deportation order.



And so, both men remain in Canadian prisons, living off taxpayers and making a mockery of our system.



News that the government has failed to do thorough national security checks of over ten thousand asylum seekers — including individuals who entered Canada illegally and who arrived with no documentation — could lead to decades of deportation headaches for those who will eventually be found inadmissible.



If there is a lesson to learn from the above cases, it's that we're better safe than sorry.



Once a person is allowed to enter Canada, there's no turning back.

[Anonymous]

Post national Canada is treasonous. Justine should be held accountable.

[Anonymous]

Putting other nations ahead of the nation that elected Trudeau is not working.



China mess inevitable for 'post-national' Canada





By former Conservative cabinet minister Chuck Strahl



When Prime Minister Justin Trudeau declares that Canada is the world's first 'post-national state', what does that mean to a country like China?



China must scratch their collective heads and say: "What's this? The previous Canadian government told us that they would do whatever it takes to strengthen national security, to protect essential Canadian infrastructure, to promote — and expect all countries to live by — the rule of law and basic freedoms of expression, religion, association, and so on. Now Canada is 'post-national', whatever that means."



A country like China looks for proof in the pudding, and they can now start to see patterns where patterns exist.



Whereas the previous Conservative government consistently expressed serious reservations about China, about unrestricted investment, national security issues, and the absence of democracy, at the beginning of his leadership Trudeau said that he admired "their basic dictatorship" and their ability to get things done.



Perhaps this admiration is part of what it means to be 'post-nationalist?'



We're all in this together, whatever 'this' is, and so as long as you get 'er done, what's a little dictatorship along our mutual path?



The previous Canadian government created an Office of Religious Freedoms, in part to respond and bring attention to the unjust treatment of religious believers in China. But one of the Trudeau government's early acts was to abolish the Office, a decision that no doubt caused the Chinese government to raise a glass in agreement.



The previous Canadian government spoke out against the one-child policy of China, since it coerced women to have an abortion whether they wanted a child or not. The current Canadian government made it a party policy that in Canada you had to support unrestricted access to abortion to be part of the government and then decided that no Canadian or group (especially those pesky religious groups) could apply for summer jobs grants unless they also supported unrestricted abortion. China understands how to force citizens to agree with a party policy, and would no doubt agree with the initiative.



What about allying yourself with other countries who share concerns about national and international security? When many of our democratic allies have moved to restrict Huawei from playing a role in their country's 5G systems, we have held off on joining them.



The problem with all of this, as the Trudeau government has now found out, is that you either stand for something, or you will fall for anything.



You stand with your allies, or soon you won't have any. You consistently apply the lens of freedom, rule of law and democratic ideals to thorny issues, or these heartfelt issues will get ignored when you need them most.



China was not blowing smoke when they voiced support for former ambassador John Mccallum's positions on Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou and are livid with what they see as Canada's kowtowing to the U.S.



It is completely understandable that they would think this way. Having heard three years of post-national drivel from a country that once held the high moral ground, they no doubt expect us to act 'post-nationally' when it comes to dealing with them as well.



Near as one can tell, they expect us, as a nation, to put China's interests first.



What a mess, and a mess of our own making. The light bulb is slowly coming on in Ottawa that while it maybe sounds good to muse about being post-national when you're talking to high school students or United Nations rapporteurs, countries like China see it for what it is.



It's an inane and dangerous foray into a foreign policy that is neither soft or hard power, based on neither democratic principles or long-standing Canadian values. It's simply open to interpretation, and China (for one, though there will be others) will be emboldened to define it for us and get angry when we disagree. What a mess.

The hypocrisy that I put in bold is so blatant.

[Gaon]

The lack of leadership from Trudeau on illegal border crossings is not only expensive, it puts Canadians at risk.



By Canadace Malcolm of Sun News Media



Lack of border screenings can lead to deportation headaches



Canada's biggest problem when it comes to the national security threat posed by asylum seekers may not be stopping bad guys from entering, but making them leave.



An internal government report obtained through an access to information request from immigration lawyer Richard Kurland revealed that 11,745 illegal border crossers and asylum seekers in Canada have not yet received national security screening or vetting.



Instead, these migrants were admitted into Canada and remain in queue amidst a massive backlog that has skyrocketed since 2016.



Rather than detaining individuals and holding them at the border until proper security screening measures are completed, Canada simply releases these migrants into the community.



We rely on good faith in the hopes they'll show up to their next appointment with border and immigration officials.



Once a migrant is in Canada, however, the record shows that even if they're found to be inadmissible, it's incredibly difficult to make them leave.



Take the case of Othman Ayed Hamdan — a Jordanian man who crossed into Canada from the U.S. in 2002 and filed an asylum claim.



He was originally admitted, but government officials later argued that he had faked a conversion to Christianity in order to game the system and achieve refugee status.



The federal court eventually ruled against Hamdan, concluding that he was a "Christian of convenience in order to get into Canada."



Around the same time an Immigration and Refugee Board ruling discussed Hamdan engaging in pro-islamic State propaganda on social media.



He identified critical infrastructure that could be targeted by ISIS terrorists, and he celebrated the death of Canadian soldiers at the hands of jihadist terrorists in 2014.



He called the jihadist who killed Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent a "hero for hitting evil Canadian forces on their soil."



While a judge in B.C. acquitted Hamdan on terrorism charges, the Immigration and Refugee Board ruled that Hamdan was a danger to national security and was ordered deported in October 2018.



But, as reported by Global News, Hamdan is refusing to cooperate.



He is "playing games" — refusing to meet with CBSA removals officers and refusing to sign the travel documents required to send this terrorist back to Jordan.



Hamdan is not the first foreign criminal to play this game.



Canada has been trying to deport a violent Rwandan asylum seeker for years.



According to a federal court decision, Jacob Damiany Lunyamila has had "approximately 389 police encounters" which "resulted in 95 criminal charges and 54 convictions."



He was deemed inadmissible to Canada for serious criminality and handed a deportation order.



But like Hamdan, Lunyamila has repeatedly refused to cooperate.



He has vowed that he will never sign the required paperwork to complete his deportation order.



And so, both men remain in Canadian prisons, living off taxpayers and making a mockery of our system.



News that the government has failed to do thorough national security checks of over ten thousand asylum seekers — including individuals who entered Canada illegally and who arrived with no documentation — could lead to decades of deportation headaches for those who will eventually be found inadmissible.



If there is a lesson to learn from the above cases, it's that we're better safe than sorry.



Once a person is allowed to enter Canada, there's no turning back.

If somebody wants to immigrate to Canada, they should have to do it the same way that my wife and I did. Apply from their home country, submit a detailed background check, pay all fees and wait for approval.

[Thiel]

Immigrants who applied from home and paid are the most outraged by queue jumpers.