Close Reading

Pierre Poilievre’s Immigration Hypocrisy: A Study in Convenient Principles Disguised as Conviction Pierre Poilievre has never met a border he did not want to fortify, a refugee claim he did not want to scrutinize, or an irregular crossing he did not want to turn into a national morality play. For years, he has warned Canadians that the country is being overrun by “illegal border crossers,” “queue jumping asylum seekers,” and “abusers of the system.” He delivers these warnings with the solemnity of a man announcing a biblical plague, not a handful of exhausted families walking across a ditch in Quebec. In Poilievre’s political universe, Roxham Road is not a rural footpath. It is a symbol of national decline. It is chaos incarnate. It is the place where the rule of law goes to die. It is, in short, the perfect stage upon which he can perform his favorite role: the lone defender of order in a world gone soft. At least, that is the story he tells the public. The private story, as publicly reported, is considerably less heroic. The Public Record That Refuses to Behave: According to reporting from The Breach and the National Observer, someone described as the uncle of Poilievre’s spouse has an immigration history that reads like a greatest hits compilation of everything Poilievre claims to oppose. The reporting outlines that he entered Canada and made a refugee claim. That claim was refused. A deportation order was issued. He later re-entered Canada through Roxham Road. He then filed a humanitarian and compassionate application. Poilievre’s spouse reportedly helped prepare that application. This is not fringe gossip. This is what journalists documented through correspondence, interviews, and immigration records. In other words, the exact pathway Poilievre condemns as “abuse of the system” is the same pathway publicly reported to have been used by someone connected to him. And suddenly, the man who treats Roxham Road like a national security breach becomes quieter than a library at midnight. The slogans stop. The outrage evaporates. The border, once a sacred line, becomes a flexible suggestion. The Rhetoric: A Symphony of Outrage: Poilievre’s immigration rhetoric is a carefully orchestrated performance. He warns that irregular border crossings undermine the rule of law. He insists humanitarian and compassionate applications are loopholes. He claims the system is being gamed. He declares that Canada must “take back control.” He delivers these lines with the moral certainty of a man who believes compassion is a gateway drug. In his speeches, asylum seekers are not people. They are symbols. They are props. They are the raw material from which he fashions his political identity. He is the sheriff. They are the threat. The border is the battleground. And Canada is the damsel in distress. It is a compelling narrative. It is also a narrative that collapses the moment it becomes personally inconvenient. The Reality: A Study in Elastic Principles: When someone connected to Poilievre uses the very same system he condemns, the rules change with breathtaking speed. Irregular border crossings are no longer a crisis. They are a misunderstanding. A technicality. A regrettable but understandable choice. Humanitarian and compassionate applications are no longer loopholes. They are legitimate pathways. Necessary tools. Evidence of a compassionate system. The border is no longer a sacred line. It is a suggestion. A guideline. A flexible concept open to interpretation. It is a remarkable transformation, like watching a man insist that jaywalking is a crime against humanity until his friend does it, at which point it becomes a misunderstood act of civic expression. The Political Convenience of Shifting Standards: Poilievre’s political identity is built on the idea that he alone will restore order. He alone will enforce the rules. He alone will protect Canada from the chaos of irregular migration. But the moment the rules become inconvenient, they are no longer rules. They are preferences. They are vibes. They are whatever he needs them to be in the moment. This is not a minor contradiction. It is a fundamental collapse of the moral architecture he has built his political brand upon. If irregular crossings are a crisis, then they are a crisis for everyone. If humanitarian applications are loopholes, then they are loopholes for everyone. If the system is broken, then it is broken for everyone. But Poilievre’s version of justice is not universal. It is conditional. It is situational. It is deeply, profoundly personal. The Broader Pattern: Institutions Are Sacred Until They Are Not: This is not the first time Poilievre’s principles have proven to be more flexible than advertised. He has attacked the Supreme Court of Canada when its rulings do not align with his political needs. He has accused the justice system of being too lenient when it suits him and too harsh when it does not. He has framed himself as the defender of institutions while undermining them whenever they become inconvenient. It is a pattern. It is a habit. It is a worldview. And it reveals something essential about his politics. For Poilievre, institutions are not pillars of democracy. They are tools. They are props. They are instruments to be used when helpful and discarded when not. The Satirical Truth: A Philosophy in One Sentence: Pierre Poilievre’s immigration philosophy can now be summarized with clinical precision: Canada must crack down on irregular border crossings, except for the ones that are fine. And he will decide which ones are fine. It is a stance that bends so far backward it could qualify for a gymnastics medal. It is a stance that reveals more about political convenience than national security. It is a stance that exposes the gap between what Poilievre says and what Poilievre does. And it is a stance that makes one thing abundantly clear. Polievre's Hypocrisy

Are these deportation court orders or actual physical removals? Historically, none of these are enforced.

Trump strike me as the type of President that will use the military in an attempt to save money instead of paying 10900 per illegal immigration and in another attempt to bypass the court he can declare a state of emergency put us under martial law executive order to bypass the court keep us in a state of martial law until his deportation plan complete and blame the illegal immigrants for us being under martial law in the first place to create discontent and cooperation from all Americans who no longer want to be under martial law which will probably be everyone

Biden missed his chance. With complete immunity given to the President by the corrupt Supreme Court, to defend democracy, Biden could have ordered the deportation of all MAGA voters, Congressmen, etc under the pretext of keeping Democracy safe from MAGA. ?? ??

Treat them the same as a citizen who doesn't show up on their court date. No show = guilty = deportation order.

Just think folks once all of the illegals are out of our country we can start helping our homeless citizens. I know imagine that happening instead of catering to these illegals like they're royalty. I'm not just talking about Spanish I'm talking about Haitians-romanians,Chinese,africans,indians,EVERYONE who is here that's not supposed to be here. The executive order must give police a direct order from the commander and chief of the USA stating the police are ordered to ask for identification on all people's in this country on spot without cause. If you're a citizen you don't have anything to worry about if you're illegal you get deported within 24 hours after arrest NO NEED FOR A COURT CASE they will be put onto busses in every city loaded to the gills driven to the boarder and yes folks the NATIONAL GAURD might have to be used to show everyone how fkn serious we are about taking our country back. Enough is Enough democrats have proven they can't be trusted to run our country. What a nightmarish mess President Trump has to clean up.

Remain in Mexico applies to arriving aliens applying for asylum, not asylum seekers who have already been admitted. The latter contravenes federal immigration law, and that's something that a President can't do via executive order. As well, if we deport asylum seekers to a different country, or make asylum seekers wait in another country as their asylum cases are adjudicated, the US government is STILL responsible for providing essential resources and ensuring their safety (this includes providing migrant centers) and the US cannot impede on their right to counsel - and by virtue of making them stay in another country that doesn't HAVE US immigration attorneys, this DOES impede their access to legal council, which is an immediate infringement on civil rights and a key reason why Remain in Mexico was challenged up to the Supreme Court and was kept from fully going into effect.

A functioning immigration system must remove illegal aliens \n \nRecent disclosures by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that hundreds of thousands of criminal immigrants are at large in the United States raise the question of why the Biden-Harris administration isn’t doing more to remove them. Increasing deportations is a necessary part of fixing what Vice President Kamala Harris refers to as “our broken immigration system.” She is right to describe it that way. But the administration in which she serves was the one to break it, not least by impeding ICE deportations. \n \nCurrently, about 1.3 million aliens under final orders of removal — those who have received due process and been ordered deported — are on ICE’s “non-detained docket” of 7 million individuals. These individuals include criminal aliens, whom Congress has directed ICE to detain and remove. But ICE can’t remove many of them because they’re from so-called recalcitrant countries — nations that refuse to provide the U.S. government with the travel documents it needs to facilitate the return of their nationals. The Supreme Court has held that, with only narrow exceptions, even detained criminals due to be deported must be released after six months absent a “significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.” If ICE can’t get their travel documents, there’s no likelihood of removal. \n \nFortunately, Congress gave the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) a tool to force recalcitrant countries to comply. Unfortunately, the Biden-Harris administration won’t use it. Under section 243(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), once DHS notifies the State Department that a foreign country “denies or unreasonably delays” the return of its nationals, the secretary of state must “order consular officers in that foreign country to discontinue granting immigrant visas or nonimmigrant visas, or both,” to nationals of that country. The George W. Bush and Obama administrations used that authority sparingly, each restricting visa issuance to just one country in order to force compliance. As my colleague Mark Krikorian recently noted, “Trump made much wider use of it, and got results.”\nSOURCE, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES

I felt for that guy jc he’s been punished enough there’s no “order” (fkn nonsense) that can ever punish him more than what he already experienced and feels for those kids the courts aren’t proving anything by deporting him they’re only coming across as scared and incompetent. And BTW why is he getting hammered for everything when he wasn’t the only one involved in that the business also took part cutting corners so typical it put everyone’s lives at risk.

What can be done at this stage? They are already here and no one rarely ever gets deported from Canada. All they have to do is to invite a left-leaning media, some phot-ops and that's it - a stay order from the court, back to square one.

If your first act in this country is an illegal one, I don't have high hopes for you as a citizen. Stop calling it immigration. It's unlawful entry!\n\n“Illegal Entry”/8 U.S.C. § 1325 makes it a crime to unlawfully enter the United States. It applies to people who do not enter with proper inspection at a port of entry, such as those who enter between ports of entry, avoid examination or inspection, or who make false statements while entering or attempting to enter. A first offense is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine, up to six months in prison, or both.\n\n“Illegal Re-Entry”/8 U.S.C. § 1326 makes it a crime to unlawfully reenter, attempt to unlawfully reenter, or to be found in the United States after having been deported, ordered removed, or denied admission. This crime is punishable as a felony with a maximum sentence of two years in prison. Higher penalties apply if the person was previously removed after having been convicted of certain crimes: up to 10 years for a single felony conviction (other than an aggravated felony conviction) or three misdemeanor convictions involving drugs or crimes against a person, and up to 20 years for an aggravated felony conviction.\n\nCombined, violations of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1325 and 1326 became the most prosecuted federal offenses in recent years. Indeed, as of December 2018, they constituted 65 percent of all criminal prosecutions in federal court. Prosecutions for entry-related offenses subsequently declined when the government began expelling migrants back into Mexico rather than prosecuting them