That’s the House of Representatives, and the bill hasn’t passed yet.
Nurses who work in Detroit and live in Canada are no longer allowed across the border.
It’s currently slack week, (spring break), in my university city. A university with a huge contingent of foreign students. All last week there was an ad running on a local AM station, “Booked into South Beach? Like to switch destinations? See us! We can help!”
Apparently some kids had concerns and/or parents back home that forbid them, and a lot of switching was going on at travel agents in the city.
Biggest concerns seem to be that if the chaos at airports over enforcement, leads to you getting flagged, rightly or wrongly, you’re going to be kinda screwed for a good long time!
I think people are justified to wait until things get more sorted, enforcement does seem chaotic!
Not only is that not law, you’ve also swallowed the spin. The “Severe Mental Health” issues that prompted the bill in the first place? An attempt by the VA to place veterans whom need financial masters to help manage their finances on the list of people with dangerous mental deficiencies that make them inelligible to own a firearm.* Woo. Scary! He’s bad at math, so he’s got to be a menace!
You might wish to stay current, or you’re going to step on more landmines like that.
*Now, such a person MIGHT be a menace - But that’s for a judge to decide, via due process. Which you appear to think is a bad idea.
Isn’t it the Republicans who always say after each massacre that it’s the mentally ill who need to be taken care of, and not the gun owners? And yet when there are attempts to help the mentally ill to prevent further gun massacres, the Republicans are against them.
Yes, it certainly can be a problem for the tourist industry:
Are you comparing refusal of entry due to past criminal convictions to people who happen to be brown?
The problem with these news stories is that I read them and I have no idea what the policy change was that affected these visas.
Are you pretending that only brown people are turned back? Or that only the USA has offensive and self-defeating border policies?
I’m not pretending anything. Canada and the US has (had?) a great border relationship, until now.
Canadian citizens, even Canadian born citizens, are being refused entry simply due to their heritage.
That ain’t right.
Sent from my adequate mobile device using Tapatalk.
How about Canadian citizen, born in Canada, being turned away and told she needed an immigrant visa to enter the US for a spa day? (It’s mentioned in the posts by Rick Kitchen and Hari Seldon, but I thought I would just emphasize it.)
Canadian woman en route to Vermont spa denied entry to U.S., told she needs immigrant visa
So, turned away because she needs a visa, but the US Embassy says that they don’t know what kind of visa the US Customs official was requiring.
Getting back to your points (B) and ©:
The fact that it may only affect a small number of members is not really relevant, when the question is of a member of a group of kids/teenagers being denied entry at a border. What are the chaperones supposed to do at that point? If the kid is denied entry and the rest of the group goes on the trip, then at least one of the chaperones has to take the kid back home. That means that the number of chaperones for the group is suddenly below the number that the organizers of the trip thought was necessary to ensure that the group could be taken care of, safety concerns met, and so on. And the money thrown away by the organization and the girl’s parents.
As well, Girl Guides is an inclusive organization. Their approach to trips is “we all go, or none go”. For them to accept that a brown Girl Guide is turned back at the border, but the white girl guides get to keep going on the trip, would drastically undercut that basic value of togetherness and respect. So even if it is only a “tiny minority of members” who are refused and those members “happen” to be brown, or from different ethnic heritages, that would not be the right message to send: “we’re okay with this happening, as long as it’s just a small minority of our girls”. Inclusiveness doesn’t accept that a small minority of your group can face an injustice.
With respect to point C: the whole point of these news stories is that it cannot be determined in advance. Canadians don’t need visas to travel to the US for short pleasure trips; that’s always been the understanding. Now apparently some brown Canadians, born in Canada, do need visas to go to a spa trip in the US, according to US border control. Except the US Embassy says it doesn’t know what kind of visa the US border control is requiring. So how does the Girl Guides organization easily determine in advance if all of their group will go through?
Agreed on all points.
And with respect to those who ask “what policy change has let to this? Show us in writing where things have changed!”
It does not have to be in writing. What has changed is the attitudes and expectations coming from the highest federal office in the land.
Border agents have tremendous autonomy in who the let into (or deny entry to) the country. There is no appeal. There is no explanation given. What is happening now is that the Cheeto-in-chief has said there must be a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on” This explicit instruction has been taken to heart by some border agents, who are simply doing what they feel is what their leader has told them to do. So they are doing it. When more border agents are hired, expect the number of these authoritarian knob-heads to increase.
I’m not going to look into this deeply, but my impression is that people end up with financial masters not because they have trouble with math but because of more general problems.
You miss my point (or I am lousy at explaining it). My point is only that this has been going on at the same rate for over 15 years now. It was a knee jerk reaction to 9/11 that caused the Canada->US border to tighten. It has never been an issue with this organization before. I’m questioning why it would be now. I think it has to be due to increased media coverage of individual cases, because according to one of the CBC cites the actual percentage of Canadians being turned away remains steady. The increased media coverage is pretty clearly political.
Let’s see your data on Muslim and brown Canadians having been turned back at the same rate for the last fifteen years.
Let’s see your data on the proportion of Muslim and brown Canadians being turned back at the same rate as non-Muslim and non-brown Canadians.
Let’s see your data on Muslim and brown Canadians having been turned back at the same rate for the last fifteen years.
Let’s see your data on the proportion of Muslim and brown Canadians being turned back at the same rate as non-Muslim and non-brown Canadians.
What you are refusing to recognize is that regardless of why the bigotry exists and for long the bigotry exists, it has now been recognized and rejected by the Girl Guides of Canada.
Your argument that the Girl Guides of Canada should do nothing to reject bigotry now because they should have recognized it earlier is nonsensical.
The Girl Guides of Canada uphold human rights. Have a look at their policies and compare them to Ontario’s Human Rights Code.
What you consider to be political, the Girl Guides of Canada take as an opportunity for its members to collectively take action and fulfil their mission by making a difference, including reinforcing the notion that everyone is entitled to dignity, freedom, and equality.
Nice.
- The cites you asked for are already there, I’ll not relink.
- Still have seen no cites saying the numbers are increasing over the last 6 months.
- Again, for the 3rd time, the organization can make any decision they want
- The only link to current policy is that the media has intensified scrutiny. Nothing else has changed at the US/Canadian border.
You keep ignoring this basic point:
You also have failed to provide any figures at all pertaining specifically to Muslim and brown people.