Temporary Permit for Conrad Black

Hazel’s Blog – Temporary Permit for Conrad Black 

I am new at reviewing these types of cases.  I keep asking myself what could have, what should have been approved or not approved and what was the validation which lead to an approval for a TRP?

Wow lots of comments on Conrad’s welcome back to Canada; for the time being.  Somehow I have a feeling that he will be granted a permanent resident or even his Canadian Citizenship status back.

How to we look at this case?  Keep changing glasses to see it from another perspective.  Focusing in on his needs at his age and his wife’s holistic wellbeing.   Should we feel compassion and forgiveness for such a case?  Even if there is forgiveness should there still be a consequence for his actions.  Would others be treated in this same manner? Should we compare this case to others? I think so, there are those who get refused, we need to do some comparison research.  Also was the Minister involved, I heard he wasn’t, does this fit the regulations for approving a TRP, or does the regulations state that the Minister must be involved. 

I hear an echo of; it’s not fair and yet we also see his face and see him as a family man who needs to come home, or wait a minute he renounced his Canadian Citizenship!  Should this count for something? Where is his patriotism to Canada, he signed it away!  Now Canada has opened her arms and embraced him for the time being.

I believe in forgiveness and also in serving the sentence to which he had been given for the crime he committed.  Anyone of us would have to.  Same time this is setting an example to the rest of Canada and to the world of how one can demonstrate their loyalty to one’s country, to practicing honesty, and to how a sentence can be shortened for some or would this have happened for anyone in Conrad’s position? 

Black paid a 200.00 fee for his temporary resident permit; this is the fee anyone would have to pay.  Temporary Resident Visa is a doorway into Canada which those who otherwise would never be admitted and those who are deemed inadmissible due to foreign citizenship and the owner of a criminal record.

Immigration officers weigh the information and the person’s probability to recommit the/a crime and also their reasons of why they need in and based on that they either approve a TRV or reject it.

Conrad’s last citizenship was in United Kingdom, maybe he will end up returning there and his family can follow.  Media eyes are watching and ears are listening for the next episode of Conrad Black.  Hmm I still wouldn’t want them to be separated or look at wrongly, he did time (some) for his crime, let’s hope if he stays in Canada that he will now be patriotic.  

Hazel’s BLOG – IMCD 03, 1 May 2012

News Release — Amendments to the Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act

Announcement !! Hear Hear!  

Proposed amendments to Bill C-31

“Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act”

According to Minister Kenney “We have always said that we were open to amendments that make Bill C-31 stronger and help us to fight human smuggling and to protect Canada’s immigration system.  These amendments do jus tat, and make for a stronger bill.”

I agree that we do need to have a stronger bill to continue to protect genuine refugees. While making sure that the others; those who are not genuine who are seeking asylum, those whose actions could be a problem, a threat, or inflict harm on others should be detained, processed and quickly removed from Canada.

This is an intense manner; to pull out and identify the genuine refugee without further adieu.  This amendment assures that mass arrivals are investigated thoroughly before they are released into the community.  Persons would be released from detention before 12 months if they are found to be genuine refugees.   Others detained and removed.

Assisting and welcoming the genuine refugees is of utmost importance and having a process in place that is able to service their needs quickly and also protect Canada is an ideal plan. 

Some critics feared that the cessation of permanent residence might be used in such a way as to remove permanent residence status from refugees who have become well established in Canada, but who’s rationale for refugee status stops because of improved conditions in their country or origin  Apparently the amendment proposed by the government will clarify this.

This proposed amendment will make it crystal clear as to where the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada determines that an individual protected person status has stopped to exist due to a change in country conditions, that person would not automatically lose permanent resident status.  This is the original reason of the provision of the bill.

Government is proposing to amend this new provision so the 12 month bar will apply as soon as Bill C-31 receives Royal Assent.  Application delays should not occur through this provision.  Individual who received a negative outcome their refugee claim or they have received a negative decision from the IRB, or have given up on their claim will be barred from applying for a PRRA until 12 months after that first negative decision/action of withdrawal.

In addition; the time for removal of non genuine refugees has been beefed up.  This is because a PRRA is duplicative of the IRB decision, and the main purpose of the bill was to reduce redundancy and unnecessary delays in the removal process for failed asylum seekers.

This change is also to prevent previous failed asylum seekers from going underground and evading their removal.

Will it work as put forth?  We’ll see, any amendment to better help genuine refugees and keep Canada safe within her boarders from unsafe persons is a good thing, I believe.  Let’s see.