Mark my words. The convicted street racer (Bhalru) that by some miracle was actually deported will come back. He will apply form India to return on compassionate grounds and he will eventually return. Liberals need to cater to the Indian vote.(even though I think most Indians want him gone, too).
He'll Be Back
- Thread starter Cock Throppled
- Start date
Not a chance he'll be back
DS
After you have been deported from a country it is next to impossible to get back in on humanitarian grounds. There is a long line of Indians who have been trying to get into Canada who have never been deported and have legitimate applications. It's going to be 'back of the bus' for him.Cock Throppled said:
DS
Cock Throppled said:
This makes no sense. If the Liberals wanted the East Indian vote, why wouldn't they just have found a way to let him stay in the first place. What are they going to do? Arrange for him to return during an election campaign?
Fact is he's gone and there would be a huge political backlash if he was allowed to return. I think, that the average taxpayer is getting fed up with this countries soft approach on crimes such as vehicular homicide, grow-ops etc. I don't think most would advocate the American approach of throwing the key away, with respect to these crimes but they certainly want tougher sentences. It hardly makes sense to have a system in place where deciding to partake in a grow-op makes legitimate economic sense because the benefits outweight the costs, even if you get caught numerous times.
Last edited:
What possible similarity is there between killing someone, and growing benefical plants?noneasgood said:
Simple. Both are example of crimes that the general public believes that the punishment doesn't fit the crime. As you mentioned, he did kill someone, any idea of how much time he served?Herb_The_Perb said:
Also, grow-ops aren't harmless by any means. Think about the number of neighbours who have been terrorized due to criminals breaking into their homes thinking there's a grow-ops there. Do you think they are comforted by the fact it was an honest mistake?
Then are is the increased possibility of fire, and the general distruction that a landlord may end up being responsible for, and simple tax evasion.
I personally think they should legalize pot growing and tax the hell out of it, but the fact remains anytime you have an opportunity to make significant money, whether it be through grow-ops, meth labs, estasy labs, etc. organized crime gets involved, and like a cancer they create chaos in our society. And don't for a second think the profits of grow-ops aren't used for other illegal activities.
he should never have been deported this is a case of a witch hunt the guy made the mistake of driving fast and racing people do stupid things all the time he made a mistake he didn't intentionally kill anyone or sell drugs to anyone we have all these immigrant drug dealers and murderers who never get deported
When people accidently kill someone it's called manslaughter. It's a crime. A better perspective of what happened was he was driving reckless and endangering the lives of other people. This isn't a mistake, anymore than drinking and driving is a mistake. He, by his own actions, created a sitation that was likely, and in fact did, harm others. There's a big difference between an accident and purposely creating a situation where others are likely be harmed. Racing is reckless, plain and simple.snoopy said:
Now if this guy would have taken the time to get his citizenship, he never would have been deported. That's a combination of mistakes he made.
you're an idiot. ..."made the mistake of driving fast..."? He also made the mistake of killing someones sister, instead of someone that thinks like you do. That was the biggest mistake. Go jump in front of a bus and fix all this.snoopy said:
It's my understanding that the deportation only happened due to the victim's family's persistance and follow through. I honestly hope we'll see more of that in the future.snoopy said:
Canada shouldn't be viewed as a country where criminal acts go largely unpunished and immigrants can feel comfortable knowing that whatever law they break or whomever they happen to mow down while showing how fast they can drive their shiny new car, they'll always be welcome here. I think this sets a long overdue precedent. Far too many immigrants view Canada's tolerance as an excuse to shed any sense of responibility or respect and just play Wild Wild West.
If his story is that he can't return to his own country because in his opinion it's too brutal or uncivilized, then he should have had the good sense to adopt his own sense of civility while in Canada.
I'm not a total hard ass about immigration either. If someone wants to make this country their home, they should definitely have the opportunity to do so. It's a great country and an easy place to live which shouldn't be exclusive to those born here, BUT it should be made perfectly clear that the laws that made this place a great place to live are applicable to all and that the privelege to live in this country is contingent on a respect for it's laws.
Don't bet on it!
I had no trouble with her parents though as they met that criteria. On the days I attended the Canadian Embassy appointments, there were just as many people rejected as there were accepted. The Embassy staff are very aware about the Canadian public's opinion on this and are extremely alert during the screening process - to the point of annoyance. One poor French Canadian chap had been trying to get his wife of two years approved, and they were putting up blocks at every turn, even though his wife had visited Canada on two occasions with six month visas. He was fuming, but they were putting him through the wringer.
The only way this Bahlru chap could re-enter is if he does it illegally. And vigilant members of the Indian community, aware of his family, and the circumstances of his expulsion, will turn him in, as he became a source of embarrassment for the majority of them.
Anyone who's dealt with the Canadian Immigration offices overseas will agree with me. It ain't as easy as it used to be. I tried to get my wife's sister to come visit us in Canada, with me as the sponsor, and they rejected her - as I predicted they would, btw. Although she met all the qualifications set out in the application, she failed because she was an unemployed and un-married 35-year old woman with no assets in her home country. Canada Immigration saw her as trying to exploit our system as soon as she would land here - like finding a single guy, etc... I secretly applauded their decision.Cock Throppled said:
I had no trouble with her parents though as they met that criteria. On the days I attended the Canadian Embassy appointments, there were just as many people rejected as there were accepted. The Embassy staff are very aware about the Canadian public's opinion on this and are extremely alert during the screening process - to the point of annoyance. One poor French Canadian chap had been trying to get his wife of two years approved, and they were putting up blocks at every turn, even though his wife had visited Canada on two occasions with six month visas. He was fuming, but they were putting him through the wringer.
The only way this Bahlru chap could re-enter is if he does it illegally. And vigilant members of the Indian community, aware of his family, and the circumstances of his expulsion, will turn him in, as he became a source of embarrassment for the majority of them.
Snoopy, get real. If these two chaps had never been allowed into Canada in the first place, this good, "tax-paying citizen" would still be alive. I'm sure those two scums are a drag on their own family, and now have costs us as well. Put away your persecution complex. It's completely irrelevant in this case.snoopy said:
Is it possible to return after being deported? Yes it is. Need written permission
Here is somne information from the website of the Canadian Embassy in Washington, D.C.:
http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/can-am/washington/visas/inadmissible-en.asp
TEMPORARY RESIDENT PERMIT, APPROVALS OF REHABILITATION, AND PERMISSION TO RETURN TO CANADA:
Those who have been convicted of an offence IN CANADA who wish to return to Canada must first apply for a PARDON from the CLEMENCY AND PARDONS DIVISION OF THE NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD. A Pardon permanently erases the Canadian criminal record, and any consequences of inadmissibility resulting from it. Those unable to obtain a pardon may still apply for a TEMPORARY RESIDENT PERMIT. For more information on pardons, contact:
NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD,
Clemency and Pardons Division,
340 Laurier Avenue West,
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1A 0R1.
Those who have been convicted of an offence OUTSIDE CANADA, and have had 5 years elapse since the termination of the custodial portion (if any) of the sentence imposed (not the sentence served), may apply for a Minister's APPROVAL OF REHABILITATION. The Minister's Approval will permanently remove the inadmissibility caused by conviction.
If less than 5 years have elapsed, or if persons are only seeking entry to Canada for a single or limited period, then they may apply for a TEMPORARY RESIDENT PERMIT.
Those subject of a previous DEPORTATION ORDER FROM CANADA require PERMISSION TO RETURN TO CANADA before they can enter Canada. As well, those who have been subject of an EXCLUSION ORDER within the past 12 months require Permission to Return to Canada before they can re-enter Canada.
Here is somne information from the website of the Canadian Embassy in Washington, D.C.:
http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/can-am/washington/visas/inadmissible-en.asp
TEMPORARY RESIDENT PERMIT, APPROVALS OF REHABILITATION, AND PERMISSION TO RETURN TO CANADA:
Those who have been convicted of an offence IN CANADA who wish to return to Canada must first apply for a PARDON from the CLEMENCY AND PARDONS DIVISION OF THE NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD. A Pardon permanently erases the Canadian criminal record, and any consequences of inadmissibility resulting from it. Those unable to obtain a pardon may still apply for a TEMPORARY RESIDENT PERMIT. For more information on pardons, contact:
NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD,
Clemency and Pardons Division,
340 Laurier Avenue West,
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1A 0R1.
Those who have been convicted of an offence OUTSIDE CANADA, and have had 5 years elapse since the termination of the custodial portion (if any) of the sentence imposed (not the sentence served), may apply for a Minister's APPROVAL OF REHABILITATION. The Minister's Approval will permanently remove the inadmissibility caused by conviction.
If less than 5 years have elapsed, or if persons are only seeking entry to Canada for a single or limited period, then they may apply for a TEMPORARY RESIDENT PERMIT.
Those subject of a previous DEPORTATION ORDER FROM CANADA require PERMISSION TO RETURN TO CANADA before they can enter Canada. As well, those who have been subject of an EXCLUSION ORDER within the past 12 months require Permission to Return to Canada before they can re-enter Canada.
Possible, yes; probable, no!
It all comes down to your experience with the process. And I doubt if many here have any , or witnessed it outside Canada. We can quote all the laws we want, or quote all the hearsay that is out there, but the reality is in the trenches. Been there, done that. Have you?
It all comes down to your experience with the process. And I doubt if many here have any , or witnessed it outside Canada. We can quote all the laws we want, or quote all the hearsay that is out there, but the reality is in the trenches. Been there, done that. Have you?
Maury Beniowski said:
My wife's from Eastern Europe but I've alway been able to get her relatives and friends over for visits. But regardless, I do agree with you that I doubt this particular individual is going to be allowed back into Canada anytime soon. Not only did he legally get kicked out, but it's simply too political. And when discretion is involved, which I believe it is regarding pardons, then politics can come into play.
I'm not giving an opinion on whether or not Bahadur Bhalru is likely to ever return to Canada. I have no idea what he might want to do.Maury Beniowski said:
But on the question of whether it is possible for a person to return to Canada after they have been deported, all I'm saying is that yes it is possible. I can appreciate that you, or me, or alot of people may not be happy to learn that this is the case, but it is the case, however unlikely it may be in practice.
See the the Act (the IRPA) and the CIC website unless you are completely opposed to quoting laws (the very thing which governs these matters, not experience).
The relevant part of the IRPA is:
52. (1) If a removal order has been enforced, the foreign national shall not return to Canada, unless authorized by an officer or in other prescribed circumstances.
Note that even if Bhalru was a permanent resident, the deportation order removes that status and he becomes a foreign national.
Canada's Immigration Law:
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pub/imm-law.html
Deportation order. A deportation order permanently bars the individual from entry to Canada, unless given written permission by CIC to return.
Last edited:
Pardon if my post sounded a little bit curt, ghostie. I was rushing out the door when I put it up. No offense intended. Thanks for the links!
Hey no problem Maury. You're one of the good guys around here.Maury Beniowski said:
Personally I think it is just total b.s. that there is a possibility of him ever returning, but I think that the law is just written that way so that the government's hands aren't completely tied in some exceptional circumstance.
I agree with you that permission to enter isn't likely to ever be forthcoming for him. There is really no reason for it in his case. The government could have, over and above what any judge said, made it possible for him to stay in Canada now - and they didn't do that, in fact they did the opposite by vigorously pursuing his removal, so why would they change their minds in the future?
I think the general rule is that deportation is permanent, and only if he were to fulfill all the conditions (wait 5 years, get a pardon and then get a visa to enter Canada) would the permission question come into play.
Bhalru may well go thorugh that whole process, and at the end of it all it would still come down to whether CIC gave him written permision to enter. And, given the political and media dimension of this case (as people have mentioned), I think that the "call" on that would probably go all the way up to the Minister's desk, and the Minister of the day would really have no reason to give Bhalru permission to enter. It seems that it would be all downside and no real upside - not to mention that the government has a duty to protect it's population from persons who have proven to be a (in this case lethal) danger to the population and are entitled to use all legal means to do so, subject to the courts etc. The courts in this case said that there is no legal bar to the government pursuing the course of action that it did.
