I wonder if during this period where all the attentional oxygen is sucked up by the US/Trump, will bring down the partisan valance of all the other "bread and butter" issues of government as potential wedge issues to exploit. Maybe, just maybe some boring but long term meaningful things can be done incrementally, and done well outside the 'bread and circus' pressure. Its not impossible. The Ontario nuclear reactor referbs has been a positive news story for example.
Interesting interview, although a bit vexing. Mr Sandinsky talked like a lawyer representing his client, presenting the best possible case for his position and glossing over inconvenient facts. Of course, that meant you could see where the problems with Canada’s refugee policy lie: bogus claims, limited capacity, and problems finding and removing failed applicants.
Sooo .... we are told that we need to change our refugee system due to the Trump changes south of the border.
Um....
No. Not whatsoever. Remember, our laws must protect Canada and Canadians. To this point our refugee system has let in far, far, far too many folks who, well, are, shall we say, suspect as to their bona fides.
Yes, I understand that changes south of the border are not necessarily what these refugee enthusiasts would like. Tough! Our laws are to protect Canada and Canadians. Period.
Some might call me hard hearted. I repeat, tough!
I do not find the actions of DJT and his claque to be at all praiseworthy; in fact, to me they are beyond dumb. Nevertheless, our laws must remain to protect Canada and Canadians.
Oh, and let's remember that it was very recently that the Liberal government allowed virtually unfettered access to Canada by "refugees" (who, for the most part were not true refugees) at immense cost to Canada. No more.
It is clear that Canada has allowed far, far, far too many non-residents to arrive, with a consequent diminution of the quality and quantity of housing, jobs, healthcare, education and other important services upon which Canadians depend. The Liberal government promised to reduce those non-permanent residents. That promise should to reduce be maintained!
Oh, and the argument that the US uses detention makes the US "worse" whereas Canada does not use detention? In Canada we often provide welfare and our broken system takes so long that often refugees never appear for hearings, etc.
So, again, do not liberalize the existing system; if anything, tighten it up.
As Sadinsky pointed out (if I'm following the legalese correctly), literally everyone on the globe has a "right" to come to Canada, a "right" to apply for refugee status, a "right" to be interviewed as a claimant, and, if accepted (what is the acceptance rate to a hearing? Nearly 100%?), then released WITH ALL THE RIGHTS OF CANADIANS to work, to medical care, to employment insurance, to welfare, to... wait, what? And he says THIS system is widely recognized and copied by other countries? Maybe the older system accompanied by sponsorship when numbers could be absorbed and people integrated, but this free-for-all?
Gosh, I wonder why many of the major cities in Canada have a majority population not born in Canada and in many cases hold values diametrically opposed to Charter rights and freedoms? It's a mystery. Does it really matter that just 7% of our population are 'foreign students'? Universities and colleges MUST grow. Isn't that in the Constitution somewhere? I wonder why rent is sky high with demand far, Far, FAR in excess of supply? Who knows? Not this camper. Imagine having difficulty finding a family doctor (ridiculous, I know) when the population has gone from 26 million at the turn of the century to a mere 41.5 million today... knowing that first gen immigrant populations cost more in public funding than they give back in taxes... an inconvenience, really when governments are swimming in excess cash, and we've graduated and imported how many physicians in the meantime who can be immediately licensed immediately start up a family practices in Canada and not seek saner numbers elsewhere in the world? Well, no wonder why we're the immigration envy of the world, I tell you, if all this is deemed a 'model of success'.
All I can say is that we have certain responsibilities but our first and paramount responsibility is to ourselves, that is to ensure that we prosper, can take care of our citizens and so forth.
To say that we have a responsibility to the world is something that I reject. In total.
I really like these interviews Jenn and Matt do with subject matter specialists/professionals/knowledgeable persons. And Jenn in the Sandinsky interview you did a great job at controlling your self admitted habit of answering your own question.
Mr Sandinsky's perspective is as a lawyer representing asylum seekers point of view. Mr Sandinsky indicated a large number of asylum seekers in the U.S. are put into jail like detention. I don't know about that statement. It looks like there is some U.S. government support to house asylum seekers but it appears NGO's, charities and family are leaned on for housing. Some probably do end up in jail like facilities, but is that a holding place until housing can be found???? I don't know that we do much better in Canada considering the refugees that ended up on sidewalks or homeless shelters in our big cities.
Of interest, the US had just under 1 million asylum seekers in 2023 (Google search), Canada had from 146,000 to 170,000 (2 sources 2 numbers🤷♂️)...which really surprises me that it was that many. And there were 37,000 asylums granted by Canada in 2023 vs 54,000 granted asylum in USA. This would appear to back-up Mr Sandinsky's assertion that its easier to get asylum in Canada than USA.
Canada processed just under 47,000 applications in 2023. So as many have stated we are not close to getting ahead of applications. Its a mess, on many levels, and some of the suggestions Mr Sandinsky's made seem to be good ideas such as a triage to bump to the head of the queue the most likely candidates based on country of origin and personal circumstances .
Thanks again Jenn, that was a thought provoking interview.
I love Jen's rants and ramblings, they express so much of what I think. But with all the respect in the world, please leave room for the people you are interviewing to answer the questions instead of answering for them. It makes listening hard, and it was the same during the Air Canada exec interview.
The guest stated that 80% of refugee claims are granted implying that we don’t need alternative barriers or alterations to the system to safeguard against fraudulent or ineligible claims from clogging the refugee system. I would be curious if abandoned or cancelled claims are included in this statistic. Meaning that some applicants are using the backlogged refugee system as a stopgap to pursue other avenues to gain status. Also I could imagine these stats looking very differently ten years ago versus today.
Subscriber here. Late to the game commenting on this. JG... Dude, you should have pushed back way harder on this guy. It sounded like a CBC radio interview.
A question I have is "when do the benefits kick in?" From what I can tell, it's immediately. How does that compare to EI benefits for unemployed Canadians?
Not anti-refugee at all. My mother and her family came to this country as refugees from Latvia (via war torn Austria) in the early 50's. FYI, they got sweet f* all from the government when they got here and had to rely on charity.
As expected, that refugee lawyer was focused on the feelings of the refugees instead of the problems caused by letting in so many people.
One area was not mentioned at all, unfortunately: The consequence that every approved application triggers a load of family members to follow, and the problems this causes.
I generally like the style of interview where an academic or essayist is allowed to explain positions and questions are asked to understand the depth and nuance of those positions. If the interview is with a PR flack pushing a position clearly aligned with economic interests it seems necessary to become somewhat adversarial.
Letting the subject detail an opinion is fine and I do appreciate Jen asking about abuse of the refugee system. That said, I understand the system is robust and the only concern one should have is with approving more refugee claims. No further questions are necessary.
He also dodged the question completely. It’s a fine balance to pushback and being hostile and for me the non answer to Jen’s question was telling and I don’t know if more forceful pushback would have been beneficial
I wonder if during this period where all the attentional oxygen is sucked up by the US/Trump, will bring down the partisan valance of all the other "bread and butter" issues of government as potential wedge issues to exploit. Maybe, just maybe some boring but long term meaningful things can be done incrementally, and done well outside the 'bread and circus' pressure. Its not impossible. The Ontario nuclear reactor referbs has been a positive news story for example.
Interesting interview, although a bit vexing. Mr Sandinsky talked like a lawyer representing his client, presenting the best possible case for his position and glossing over inconvenient facts. Of course, that meant you could see where the problems with Canada’s refugee policy lie: bogus claims, limited capacity, and problems finding and removing failed applicants.
Sooo .... we are told that we need to change our refugee system due to the Trump changes south of the border.
Um....
No. Not whatsoever. Remember, our laws must protect Canada and Canadians. To this point our refugee system has let in far, far, far too many folks who, well, are, shall we say, suspect as to their bona fides.
Yes, I understand that changes south of the border are not necessarily what these refugee enthusiasts would like. Tough! Our laws are to protect Canada and Canadians. Period.
Some might call me hard hearted. I repeat, tough!
I do not find the actions of DJT and his claque to be at all praiseworthy; in fact, to me they are beyond dumb. Nevertheless, our laws must remain to protect Canada and Canadians.
Oh, and let's remember that it was very recently that the Liberal government allowed virtually unfettered access to Canada by "refugees" (who, for the most part were not true refugees) at immense cost to Canada. No more.
It is clear that Canada has allowed far, far, far too many non-residents to arrive, with a consequent diminution of the quality and quantity of housing, jobs, healthcare, education and other important services upon which Canadians depend. The Liberal government promised to reduce those non-permanent residents. That promise should to reduce be maintained!
Oh, and the argument that the US uses detention makes the US "worse" whereas Canada does not use detention? In Canada we often provide welfare and our broken system takes so long that often refugees never appear for hearings, etc.
So, again, do not liberalize the existing system; if anything, tighten it up.
As Sadinsky pointed out (if I'm following the legalese correctly), literally everyone on the globe has a "right" to come to Canada, a "right" to apply for refugee status, a "right" to be interviewed as a claimant, and, if accepted (what is the acceptance rate to a hearing? Nearly 100%?), then released WITH ALL THE RIGHTS OF CANADIANS to work, to medical care, to employment insurance, to welfare, to... wait, what? And he says THIS system is widely recognized and copied by other countries? Maybe the older system accompanied by sponsorship when numbers could be absorbed and people integrated, but this free-for-all?
Gosh, I wonder why many of the major cities in Canada have a majority population not born in Canada and in many cases hold values diametrically opposed to Charter rights and freedoms? It's a mystery. Does it really matter that just 7% of our population are 'foreign students'? Universities and colleges MUST grow. Isn't that in the Constitution somewhere? I wonder why rent is sky high with demand far, Far, FAR in excess of supply? Who knows? Not this camper. Imagine having difficulty finding a family doctor (ridiculous, I know) when the population has gone from 26 million at the turn of the century to a mere 41.5 million today... knowing that first gen immigrant populations cost more in public funding than they give back in taxes... an inconvenience, really when governments are swimming in excess cash, and we've graduated and imported how many physicians in the meantime who can be immediately licensed immediately start up a family practices in Canada and not seek saner numbers elsewhere in the world? Well, no wonder why we're the immigration envy of the world, I tell you, if all this is deemed a 'model of success'.
Good grief.
All I can say is that we have certain responsibilities but our first and paramount responsibility is to ourselves, that is to ensure that we prosper, can take care of our citizens and so forth.
To say that we have a responsibility to the world is something that I reject. In total.
I really like these interviews Jenn and Matt do with subject matter specialists/professionals/knowledgeable persons. And Jenn in the Sandinsky interview you did a great job at controlling your self admitted habit of answering your own question.
Mr Sandinsky's perspective is as a lawyer representing asylum seekers point of view. Mr Sandinsky indicated a large number of asylum seekers in the U.S. are put into jail like detention. I don't know about that statement. It looks like there is some U.S. government support to house asylum seekers but it appears NGO's, charities and family are leaned on for housing. Some probably do end up in jail like facilities, but is that a holding place until housing can be found???? I don't know that we do much better in Canada considering the refugees that ended up on sidewalks or homeless shelters in our big cities.
Of interest, the US had just under 1 million asylum seekers in 2023 (Google search), Canada had from 146,000 to 170,000 (2 sources 2 numbers🤷♂️)...which really surprises me that it was that many. And there were 37,000 asylums granted by Canada in 2023 vs 54,000 granted asylum in USA. This would appear to back-up Mr Sandinsky's assertion that its easier to get asylum in Canada than USA.
Canada processed just under 47,000 applications in 2023. So as many have stated we are not close to getting ahead of applications. Its a mess, on many levels, and some of the suggestions Mr Sandinsky's made seem to be good ideas such as a triage to bump to the head of the queue the most likely candidates based on country of origin and personal circumstances .
Thanks again Jenn, that was a thought provoking interview.
I love Jen's rants and ramblings, they express so much of what I think. But with all the respect in the world, please leave room for the people you are interviewing to answer the questions instead of answering for them. It makes listening hard, and it was the same during the Air Canada exec interview.
The guest stated that 80% of refugee claims are granted implying that we don’t need alternative barriers or alterations to the system to safeguard against fraudulent or ineligible claims from clogging the refugee system. I would be curious if abandoned or cancelled claims are included in this statistic. Meaning that some applicants are using the backlogged refugee system as a stopgap to pursue other avenues to gain status. Also I could imagine these stats looking very differently ten years ago versus today.
Subscriber here. Late to the game commenting on this. JG... Dude, you should have pushed back way harder on this guy. It sounded like a CBC radio interview.
A question I have is "when do the benefits kick in?" From what I can tell, it's immediately. How does that compare to EI benefits for unemployed Canadians?
Not anti-refugee at all. My mother and her family came to this country as refugees from Latvia (via war torn Austria) in the early 50's. FYI, they got sweet f* all from the government when they got here and had to rely on charity.
As expected, that refugee lawyer was focused on the feelings of the refugees instead of the problems caused by letting in so many people.
One area was not mentioned at all, unfortunately: The consequence that every approved application triggers a load of family members to follow, and the problems this causes.
I generally like the style of interview where an academic or essayist is allowed to explain positions and questions are asked to understand the depth and nuance of those positions. If the interview is with a PR flack pushing a position clearly aligned with economic interests it seems necessary to become somewhat adversarial.
Letting the subject detail an opinion is fine and I do appreciate Jen asking about abuse of the refugee system. That said, I understand the system is robust and the only concern one should have is with approving more refugee claims. No further questions are necessary.
He also dodged the question completely. It’s a fine balance to pushback and being hostile and for me the non answer to Jen’s question was telling and I don’t know if more forceful pushback would have been beneficial
Is this going to be a series of "What's broken and how we can fix it?"
I’m all for that, though it could probably be daily.