# Medical refugee



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

Well, my post has been answered by being studiously ignored. The clear message is, as expected, that we should not be offended by any non-Canadians coming here by the device of a false marriage in order to obtain permanent resident status and medical coverage in Canada, when they have found such coverage too expensive at home. So, I'll do the right thing and forget that I met a self-described "medical refugee" from the US who gained permanent resident status through fraud. By Canadian standards, such conduct is quite excusable, if not to be encouraged.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Didn't see your 'alleged' LOL post on this topic. I would agree with discouraging it and in fact would say it is a civic duty for anyone who became aware of such a thing, to report it to the relevant authorities. But I would expect someone reporting such a case to have done some reasonable due diligence before calling Immigration.

When you say, 'self-described' medical refugee for example, I can imagine someone making a flip remark about, 'yeah, I couldn't afford medical care in the USA, so I married a Canadian and availed myself of Canada's great healthcare system.' More of a being a 'smart ***' remark rather than a serious admission of having married for the specific purpose of healthcare needs.

My wife is an ex-nurse and we married later in life. I have been known to jokingly say, 'I didn't marry her to nurse me in my old age, but it doesn't hurt.' Sometimes a wise *** remark can be taken as read when in fact it is just a throwaway remark. I guess I am finding it difficult to think that someone who did indeed become resident in Canada fraudulently ( I do know it does happen and don't question that at all), would be stupid enough to proclaim it to anyone.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

What I hate are all the Canadian Women and Men who are duped by immigrant wannabees on the internet. I mean do they not know what these people are after. Do they really think it is love at first email. Common ! Perhaps they are so desperate they do not care. Luckily for the rest of us, marrying a Canadian is not a direct pass into the country anymore. Thankfully our government understands the situation a little better and is trying to protect the rest of us, since the individuals are not thinking clearly at all. But usually all it takes for a spouse of a Canadian is just a little more waiting time and then they are in. Its always nice when they realize that you do not become wealthy the second you step into the country but by the time they realize that, they are then our problem. A little late.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Mukhang, patience (or is it patients)? Didn't have time for a well thought response, and a flippant one didn't seem appropriate.
I would act on knowledge of a marriage of convenience but as LTA notes, I suspect it could be very difficult to find hard evidence of their intentions, and I'm not sure what agency would act unless we were talking child bride or something criminal in addition?
Perhaps fate/karma will intervene, the groom will very shortly inherit the island property of his deceased 'spouse', and all will have been set right.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

Longtimeago said:


> Didn't see your 'alleged' LOL post on this topic.


Herewith the "alleged" post, complete with my own silly LOL.

_A few days ago, I pulled our boat into a marina here on the coast and, before I could lock the cabin door and go ashore, a woman (50s I would say) approached me started asking questions about our boat. She said she was moving here, full-time, from the US, onto a large island property that had been in her family for some years. So she asked about our boat, saying she expected to need a fairly stout, seaworthy craft to feel safe navigating around these islands, including in winter storms. So she wanted to know about our boat, where it was built, etc., as it looked like a good vessel for these waters (it is).

After some discussion, she told me that she was a "medical refugee" who had grown tired of paying $2,000 a month (I think that was the amount she said) for medical insurance stateside. Before she got to that point in the discussion was I quite sure I knew her identity. Telling me where her land was gave it away. In 2011, I was asked, on a "friend of a friend" basis, to provide her with some free legal advice related to the land. I even went to the land with the friend while she was in the US. After a few more questions and answers she extended her hand and said, nice to meet you, I am Susan (not her real name). I said "It wouldn't be Susan B....would it?" She was plainly surprised and asked how I knew. I explained. 

What was not mentioned in the conversation was what else I knew. I know (from her friend) that she recently married a local Canadian. She told the friend that it was a marriage of convenience, in order to become a permanent resident, thus able to live year-round on her island property. The friend also told me that the couple did not, in fact, live or spend time together, it was wholly a business transaction. 

For the past few days I have found myself a bit vexed by that exchange on the dock. I thought of coming here for thoughts, but put it off, knowing the reaction I would get. If I tell people here that it has crossed my mind to report this fraudulent marriage, I'll end up in the doghouse. We are, after all, Canadians. We are a generous, giving lot and the idea of ratting out someone seen (only by me) as taking unfair advantage of our essentially no-cost medical services is unthinkable. We should deny those free services to no one. It seems that many Canadians think we should not have any kind of "border protection" or immigration policies at all, as it makes us seem too American and downright parsimonious. We must share with all who want to come and enjoy.

At this point, I would appreciate being told why I am so wrong to even harbour some of these un-Canadian thoughts, so I can forget about it, and perhaps achieve a higher consciousness at the same time.

If, by any stretch, there be one of two others here who think medical refugeeism ought to be discouraged, please speak up. I'll feel less of an iconoclast.


_

I used the term "self-described" because that is what she called herself. I had never heard the term before. I did not think it to be a term of art. 

I did not construe her comment as a flip remark, being aware on good authority (someone who lives very close to her and talks to her) that she has never lived with the man she married and does not see him. He is known to someone I know who says he's something of a drinker who frequents a local pub. He has been heard to talk of his fake marriage, for which he has received certain benefits. Moreover, I doubt she saw any "admission" as being at her peril. When she made it, she did not know that I knew her identity. She was just having a moment of candour with some grizzled old fart out in the middle of nowhere. What were the risks? That I would whip out my cell phone, snap her photo, screaming "I am going to _report_ you!"

In this case it just might be that her true purpose in entering the marriage is that originally stated - a marriage of convenience, in order to become a permanent resident, thus able to live year-round on her island property. Pretty innocuous stuff, right?

In the end, I suppose I'll dismiss it as "fake news". It could be that it's a real marriage (a very elastic concept nowadays) but unconventional in that the parties are never together. 

Canada says it wants marriages of convenience reported:

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/protect-fraud/report-fraud.html

That is probably not really true. We want immigrants at any cost. If they are among those who have mastered the art of deceit, so much the better. They will likely fare well here and never be a burden on the public purse. 

In terms of "due diligence", no, I do not intend to hire a private investigator and seek to muster irrefutable proof before reporting. But I suppose that would be the prevailing view of Canadians in these cases. Unless you come with proof beyond a reasonable doubt, stay out. Even then, why bother? We just gained another liberal vote.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Mukhang, patience (or is it patients)? Didn't have time for a well thought response, and a flippant one didn't seem appropriate.
> I would act on knowledge of a marriage of convenience but as LTA notes, I suspect it could be very difficult to find hard evidence of their intentions, and I'm not sure what agency would act unless we were talking child bride or something criminal in addition?
> Perhaps fate/karma will intervene, the groom will very shortly inherit the island property of his deceased 'spouse', and all will have been set right.


Good comment, OMO.

I would have regarded it as pointless to even mention it, were it not for the striking feature that the parties to the marriage have made no effort to live together, or even spend time together. And I might even doubt that scenario, if I did not have it from such a credible source. I would think CIC could soon determine whether the parties are together or not, and, if not, why not?


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

We are aware of an acquaintance here in PV who offered us the use of his apartment in Malta which he had to maintain as his official tax residence. He lived tax free with a business in Vancouver and Seattle that he managed from here.

We did not fell any compulsion to report him. CRA seized his 63 foot yacht in Vancouver and that forced him to come clean. Maybe someone else reported him?

I know several Canucks who maintain addresses in their home provinces for tax and medicare reasons even though they live here full-time. I suppose as long as they pay their taxes to Canada, they are covering the medicare costs. And they pay for local medical care so it is just for major medical.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

I don't think that elderly wealthy island-owning hermit American women moving to Canada for some free medical services is the present-day immigration issue one should be worried about, if one were interested in taking it upon himself to be worried about Canada's immigration issues.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Yes immigration fraud is a thing

Marriage of convenience is specifically listed as immigration fraud that should be reported

How to report fraud


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Medical care isn't free. We pay for it in our taxes. If she is a tax paying Canadian citizen she is entitled to medical care the same as any other Canadian citizen. I'm not too happy about the way she got it, but I don't see what you could do about it.


----------



## STech (Jun 7, 2016)

Clearly your moral compass is very troubled by this, and it should. 

If you don't report it, sounds like you're gonna be bothered by it greatly, and there's a very good chance you're gonna make it known and cause issues, even if you didn't intend to. Next time you see her, you might say something unintentionally and make your feelings known. Or you might tell a friend, who will tell a friend, who will tell a friend, and everyone will know.

If you do report it anonymously, you might end up in "the dog house"? Even if the authorities don't do anything, your conscience will be clear.

Doesn't seem like such a tough choice to me.


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

Mukhang pera said:


> The clear message is, as expected, that we should not be offended by any non-Canadians coming here by the device of a false marriage in order to obtain permanent resident status and medical coverage in Canada, when they have found such coverage too expensive at home.


The clear message is that, in an age of acceptance and accommodation, we hesitate to make our true feelings known for fear of shaming. To say that I immigrated the 'normal' way by applying at a Canadian Consulate, then being rejected b/c I didn't have a job lined up - finding a job over a year later in Canada, then my application being approved before landing here, makes me a xenophobe when I get annoyed at those who jump the queue. Even more annoying than queue jumpers, who understandably might act out of desperation, are the fraudsters who purposely cheat the system for their own gain - in this case cheaper medical insurance for her - paid for by others ( it ain't free! ). The whole story of this lady is screwy. Does it make sense to move to another country just to save $24K/yr unless maybe she knows she has a serious health issue that might become very expensive in the future? Then, why tell anyone about your intentions and risk getting kicked out?

With the facts as stated, this person is a 'taker', and not likely to willingly contribute her fair share. What other schemes might she be hatching to avoid taxes, etc. 

Your dilemma now is not what the right thing to do is - obviously it's to report her - but now that you've met her, she knows where to find you, and you want to avoid the awkward situation of meeting up with her during her deportation proceedings.

Tough choice, but aren't you in the legal profession? What then is the expected action when becoming aware of a fraud being committed?


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Well now that you have re-provided more of the background, it seems pretty clear to me that she wanted to live in Canada whether the healthcare cost was a major factor or not and in order to do so she got married and entered on a 'spousal visa'. Presumably, she did that because she could not meet any other category qualifications. ie Skilled Worker for example. So yes, it certainly does appear that it is fraudulent although you would only have 'hearsay' evidence from her friend that you know, IF she had not said to you personally, that she was a 'medical refugee'. That certainly seems to back up what her friend told you was the case.

I have little doubt that Canadian Immigration would put 2 and 2 together and decide to investigate. I also have no doubt that it is enough for you to have a moral duty to report both the conversation you had with her friend and with her herself. 

I see nothing at all un-Canadian in doing so. In fact, I would consider not reporting it as un-Canadian. We Canadians are generally known as law abiding people. Being tolerant of immigrants etc. has nothing whatsoever to do with being intolerant of anyone who abuses our being tolerant.

I also agree with Userkare, who lays out the reality of someone who genuinely wants to emmigrate to Canada and become a productive citizen. Canada allows a specific number of Permanent Resident Visas each year. When someone fraudulently 'jumps the queue' in a case like this, that means that a genuine application is refused. 

By the way, if she is found to have indeed entered into a 'marriage of convenience', the guy she married is subject to criminal charges.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

Longtimeago said:


> Well now that you have re-provided more of the background, it seems pretty clear to me that she wanted to live in Canada whether the healthcare cost was a major factor or not and in order to do so she got married and entered on a 'spousal visa'. Presumably, she did that because she could not meet any other category qualifications. ie Skilled Worker for example. So yes, it certainly does appear that it is fraudulent although you would only have 'hearsay' evidence from her friend that you know, IF she had not said to you personally, that she was a 'medical refugee'. That certainly seems to back up what her friend told you was the case.
> 
> I have little doubt that Canadian Immigration would put 2 and 2 together and decide to investigate. I also have no doubt that it is enough for you to have a moral duty to report both the conversation you had with her friend and with her herself.
> 
> ...




agreed. She is a heinous criminal. Nothing could be more hideous, more appalling or more destructive to canada than a rich american who wants to live peacefully on a remote BC island where her family has owned land for generations. 

not sure - on that remote island where there's probably no doctor, no medical clinic, not even a registered nurse - where every resident has to possess the health of a centenarian tibetan monk plus the strength of an ox just to survive without medical care - i'm not sure exactly how this lady is going to defraud the canadian medical system though

what she is going to do is buy an expensive boat here, she's going to drop local $$ on her house (is she building a new house? is she renovating an existing dwelling that's fallen into disrepair? or did her family estate come with an existing residence in miraculously perfect condition, one that needs no renovation whatsoever?), she's going to pay income taxes in this country, she's going to support the local economy, she's certainly not looking for welfare handouts

it's all too outrageous for words. Deporting this noxious baggage & jailing her unsavoury spouse would be too kind. Victoria should put the cleanup of this sinister situation at the top of its priority list, right up there with consideration of what to do *NOW* with poor sir John A's uprooted statue.

if victoria won't punish this lady adequately then ottawa should step in ASAP. Follow donald trump's example. The army. Tear Gas. Get her out. Blow her up. 

.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

STech said:


> Clearly your moral compass is very troubled by this, and it should.


Yes, troubled indeed, and particularly so because my meeting on the dock came only one day I was released from a Canadian hospital (nothing serious, happily) where I saw first-hand the excellent, first-rate, care available to Canadians. 

Some years back, I had a close relative in hospital in BC. It was a case of auto accident injuries that saw the patient on total life support in ICU for about a week. Wonderful care is all I can say. The cost of such care I cannot even guess at. But, no charge. Those are my 2 experiences with Canadian hospitals and both leave me in admiration. Well, I had one more experience - an uncle who suffered what is sometimes called a "massive coronary" in about 1972. He was in East York General for a week or so. I went to visit. Pretty young then, so not really checking out the facilities too much. But he seemed to be in good hands and he lived about another 20 years after they were done with him, so something must have been done well. 

So I was a bit sensitive and my ears pricked up when I heard the term "medical refugee". From what I know (and it's a fair amount), the medical refugee long had the desire to move to her island property in retirement. She had well-paid work, based in the US, but taking her to Singapore and other places as well. My guess is that obtaining Canadian permanent residence was motivated initially and primarily to facilitate living here year round. I think the "medical refugee" concept is a more recent add-on although perhaps looming larger as our refugee ages. Here, we hear these stories about health care costs in the US for those over 65. Rather daunting. See, for eg.:

http://time.com/money/3985430/retiree-health-care-state-costs/

From what I see, Canada has a superlative medical care system. Perfect? Nope. But definitely among the best. But I also see it as fragile. Usually under some strain. The balance could easily be upset. As Americans like to point out, wait times for electives are long. So yes, I feel a bit miffed to see someone gain entry to Canada by trickery and deceit and very soon to be drawing on that system, particularly at a time in their life when they would not likely have a large taxable income in Canada and will probably suck more out of Canada (especially in health benefits) than they will ever come close to contributing. 

If all that I believe has occurred here turns out to be untrue, if I have called immigration and they turn up nothing untoward, has a monstrous evil been wrought? I know it's done in the US, that random checks are made in cases of people who enter by marriage and for other reasons. I would hope Canada does the same. If immigration goes out and checks to see, for example, if this couple is really living together, and if not why not, what's the harm?

If I came here on a spousal visa, I would fully expect immigration to turn up at my door at some point and say "Hi, is your wife here? No, where is she then? How come were see no women's clothing in the closet, only one toothbrush in the bathroom, etc." If we are a legit couple, I would not be offended. _Au contraire_, I would be gratified to see that my adoptive country takes these things seriously, that it is vigilant in protecting its borders and I would feel all the more privileged for being granted permanent resident status in such a place.

I should add that it was the "medical refugee" claim that set me off. But I find it equally offensive that one can come here by deceit - for whatever purpose - making a mockery of our immigration laws. I am adding this, partly in response to hp's post. hp and I agree on much. Here we part company. If being a hardy, aging rich gal, who is going to pay some GST and PST on goods and services here, then we should make that the standard for all. I say that especially because I do not think the US will let any of us settle there if all we have to offer is: I'll build a house, buy a car and some furniture, etc. But, if Canadians feel that should be the Canadian standard, then get on with making it law. Millions want to come here. Should not all play by the rules?


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

humble_pie said:


> agreed. She is a heinous criminal. Nothing could be more hideous, more appalling or more destructive to canada than a rich american who wants to live peacefully on a remote BC island where her family has owned land for generations.
> 
> not sure - on that remote island where there's probably no doctor, no medical clinic, not even a registered nurse - where every resident has to possess the health of a centenarian tibetan monk plus the strength of an ox just to survive without medical care - i'm not sure exactly how this lady is going to defraud the canadian medical system though
> 
> ...


Lol. Exactly.

At least let her pay for that new boat before you turn her in, Muk.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Canadian border agents do watch for people who might be coming to Canada just to use health care. One of my coworkers told me that in his last entry to Canada, he was held for over 45 minutes as the border agent interrogated him about whether he had health problems and was coming to use a clinic.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

Mukhang pera said:


> ...
> _A few days ago, I pulled our boat into a marina here on the coast and, before I could lock the cabin door and go ashore, a woman (50s I would say) approached me started asking questions about our boat. She said she was moving here, full-time, from the US, onto a large island property that had been in her family for some years. So she asked about our boat, saying she expected to need a fairly stout, seaworthy craft to feel safe navigating around these islands, including in winter storms. So she wanted to know about our boat, where it was built, etc., as it looked like a good vessel for these waters (it is).
> 
> After some discussion, she told me that she was a "medical refugee" who had grown tired of paying $2,000 a month (I think that was the amount she said) for medical insurance stateside. Before she got to that point in the discussion was I quite sure I knew her identity. Telling me where her land was gave it away. In 2011, I was asked, on a "friend of a friend" basis, to provide her with some free legal advice related to the land. I even went to the land with the friend while she was in the US. After a few more questions and answers she extended her hand and said, nice to meet you, I am Susan (not her real name). I said "It wouldn't be Susan B....would it?" She was plainly surprised and asked how I knew. I explained.
> ..._


_

Perhaps the reason you didn't get much response is that many were having trouble believing your description of events. If someone has successfully committed immigration fraud, what are they odds that they would walk up to a complete stranger at a marina and confess to it?

It seems more likely she was either making a bad joke, or you misunderstood her sincerity. Or your whole story is an attempted troll.

If it's true, she should be deported for being too stupid to live in Canada._


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

OhGreatGuru said:


> Perhaps the reason you didn't get much response is that many were having trouble believing your description of events. If someone has successfully committed immigration fraud, what are they odds that they would walk up to a complete stranger at a marina and confess to it?
> 
> It seems more likely she was either making a bad joke, or you misunderstood her sincerity. Or your whole story is an attempted troll.
> 
> If it's true, she should be deported for being too stupid to live in Canada.


I would dismiss out of hand the notion of a bad joke. The “confession” took on the aura of such only because of my peculiar knowledge of her circumstances, gained long before we met, that she had married in order to be able to live on her property year round. The person who imparted that knowledge to me knows her very well, over years. He knows me equally well, over years. He also says he knows her “husband” and is aware that he has admitted the same thing to others. He also says he lives not far from her, has never seen the husband around and has, in fact, been asked to help her find a small place at modest rent to hang out until she can move onto her own property. I think she confided in him because she regarded him as a long time friend who would be supportive. In that vein, he has been paid a fair amount by her over the years for services rendered, with the promise of more to come. He would be killing the goose that laid the golden egg if he ratted on her. Even to him, she did not say anything about motive apart from wanting to live here. It could be that our mutual friend has it all wrong, but that seems quite unlikely in all the circumstances.

Placing her “admission” to me in context, she did not say to me that she had married a Canadian to get here. Nothing at all was said about how she got here. She used the term “medical refugee”, and I think she did so quite candidly. And why not? Without my prior knowledge, for all I know, she could be a Canadian citizen who has been living abroad and returning home for medical benefits. To that, she would be entitled. Or, for all I know, she could be a US citizen who has gained Canadian permanent residence by any number of legitimate means. So, in short, it could be quite possible for her to be a legitimate medical refugee. I would guess that a fair number of Canadians who move abroad, to where they have to bear all their own medical costs or pay a lot for insurance, eventually move home, especially when older and require more medical care. They are, in fact, medical refugees, but with legitimate status.

It should be recalled that she gave me the “medical refugee” line before she gave me her first name. She apparently did not plan to give me her no last name. She did not know I had already guessed it. So, at the time she made the “admission”, it was hardly an act of sheer stupidity. It was something said in passing to what, to her, was a complete stranger she would probably never see again, who knew not who she was, so what risk did she take? As I said, at no point did me anything incriminating. Being a medical refugee is not wrong standing alone. Take away what I knew already, the comment was really quite innocuous. As well, I was some guy living out in the boonies who would be unlikely to go home and ponder the situation, wondering about her legal status here and calling immigration to report someone I could not begin to describe. And to report just what, pray tell? What could I report? “Hey, I just met “Susan from the US who called herself a medical refugee.” Immigration would certainly ask “Is that all you got?” Hardly enough to assign to an investigator. That would be a fair assessment from her perspective. Indeed, it would have been mine, but for my prior knowledge. The term “medical refugee” in the context of our conversation would probably have passed unnoticed. 

So I think you have grossly misunderstood some salient facts here. In no way could her actions fairly be described as walking up to a complete stranger at a marina and confessing to immigration fraud. Not at all.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Mukhang pera, I'm not sure you have enough reliable information here to determine that she's breaking laws.

You mentioned second hand (or possibly even third hand) information about the nature of her marriage to a Canadian. Surely you know, from your days as a lawyer, that this is nothing more than hearsay. Your friend (or friend's friend) _thinks_ the marriage is just a convenience or for purpose of residency... so what? Sounds like gossip to me.

As far as being a "medical refugee", this term can be used in so many contexts. It can be tongue in cheek, it can be a joke, or it might be a partial truth as it could, *legitimately*, be one reason that she left the US and immigrated to Canada.

If someone wants to move to Canada, and if one reason (among many) is that they want an easier time with health care, there is no problem in that. It's not illegal or morally wrong, assuming the person legally entered the country and legally obtained citizenship in good faith.

Am I opposed to people gaining citizenship for the wrong reasons, or to exploit generosity of Canada? Absolutely I am opposed to that. But from your description, I don't think you have enough reliable information on this matter to determine that she probably is breaking the law, and I think you should mind your own business instead of harassing your neighbours by ratting them out to the feds on nothing more than gossip.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

james4beach said:


> Canadian border agents do watch for people who might be coming to Canada just to use health care. One of my coworkers told me that in his last entry to Canada, he was held for over 45 minutes as the border agent interrogated him about whether he had health problems and was coming to use a clinic.


In BC, it was common for aliens to use the health card of a friend to get medical care. That is why they initiated the expensive photo ID card for health. When compared to that, I agree with HP. And I suspect that proving such an infraction could be difficult.

(BTW if you call 911 from an island, they dispatch a hovercraft with EMTs to get you to the nearest hospital.)


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

james4beach said:


> Mukhang pera, I'm not sure you have enough reliable information here to determine that she's breaking laws.
> 
> You mentioned second hand (or possibly even third hand) information about the nature of her marriage to a Canadian. Surely you know, from your days as a lawyer, that this is nothing more than hearsay. Your friend (or friend's friend) _thinks_ the marriage is just a convenience or for purpose of residency... so what? Sounds like gossip to me.
> 
> ...


What the guy who knows her and also knows Mukhang pera, said is indeed hearsay in a court of law. But no one is in a court of law at the moment. What she said herself to Mukhang pera is not hearsay, it is first hand testimony.

Keep in mind james4beach, that 'marriages of convenience' do occur and they are not legally acceptable as a means of getting a Permanent Resident Visa to live in Canada. Immigration can and does actively look for such breaches of our Immigration system. As part of their job to do that, they have in place a system that allows and in fact encourages any Canadian citizen who suspects such a case, to come forward and report their suspicions. It is NOT the citizen's job to PROVE a law has been broken to a judge and/or jury.

So put yourself in an Immigration Officer's shoes who gets a call from a citizen who says, 'I suspect a person has entered into a 'marriage of convenience' in order to circumvent our Immigration system.' What would you then ask that citizen?

For example:
'OK, tell me why you suspect this person has entered into a marriage of convenience.' So Mukhang pera would tell his story as he has here.
'OK, how reliable do you consider this guy who knows both her and you, in terms of what he has told you?' Mukhang pera says, 'I have no reason to doubt him and as far as I know he is a reliable kind of guy.'
'OK, and she herself referred to herself as as 'medical refugee', to you personally?' 'Yes, that is correct.
'OK, can you give me the details of her name; location of the property she owns; the name of the guy who told you she had married for convenience and his location; the name of the guy who she supposedly married and his location.'

All that is required is that there be enough for the Immigration Officer to consider it suspicious enough to WARRANT an investigation. There does not have to be enough 'evidence' acceptable in a court of law to PROVE anything. It is the job of the Immigration Officer to investigate, ascertain the real evidence if possible and then take that to the appropriate authorities if there is enough evidence found on which to justify any proceedings.

I have no doubt that Mukhang pera genuinely believes this woman has purposely circumvented our Immigration policy. That being the case, there is only one possible action a responsible citizen can take. You report it and let Immigration decide whether or not it merits further investigation. You do not have to have "enough reliable information to DETERMINE that she's breaking laws" as you put it. You have to have enough information to determine that you believe you should report it and that is all.

I agree with your statement that, "It's not illegal or morally wrong, assuming the person legally entered the country and legally obtained citizenship in good faith." to want an easier time with healthcare. But I am not in agreement with your statement that "don't think you have enough reliable information". Again, it isn't Mukhang pera's job to PROVE anything. But I do think he has more than enough to be suspicious and so enough to report that suspicion to Immigration. If it is simply 'gossip' as you seem to want to believe, then that will come out if it is investigated. If it is NOT just 'gossip' then what? It should be ignored because it MIGHT just be gossip? That is irresponsible.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

james4beach said:


> But from your description, I don't think you have enough reliable information on this matter to determine that she probably is breaking the law, and I think you should mind your own business instead of harassing your neighbours by ratting them out to the feds on nothing more than gossip.


I have already agreed with the proposition that one can be a "medical refugee" or a lot of other things if done according to law. That is, in part, why I said in my last post that I do not see that the woman I met on the dock could be said to have confessed to me that she was here illegally. Simply calling herself a medical refugee imports no wrongdoing. As I said, on that bald statement, she could be a returning Canadian citizen for all anyone knows.

As for hearsay, there is an element present. At the same time, if my friend tells me "Susan rents a room in my house and I know she lives there alone" that is not hearsay. That is first-hand knowledge. If I take that tidbit to immigration and say "Susan lives alone" and I am asked how I know that, it will be hearsay when I reply "My friend told me". 

Stripped it its essentials, the "evidence" of wrongdoing I have is that the woman married a Canadian and they live far apart. I have pretty solid grounds there. My friend knows her well, is a reliable sort and would have no reason to engage in loose talk that might be defamatory of another. That she told my friend the marriage was to facilitate passage to Canada, is double hearsay in my hands. 

So, before I go "harassing", what quality of evidence I am required to muster? A confession signed under oath? As I see it, there is significant evidence of "suspicious circumstances" that immigration might see as warranting an inquiry. I do not see the type of inquiry that might result as being particularly intrusive or harassing, nor should it be wholly unexpected. Those coming here on a spousal visa (as well as some other forms of visa) should expect occasional random checks in follow-up.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

LTA, you posted while I was plodding away at my response to j4b.

You and I and have not always seen things here through the same lens, but I have to give credit where credit is due. Your post offers a thoughtful, measured response and I appreciate you taking the time to form your analysis, which is as good as any I could cobble together.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

kcowan said:


> ... I agree with HP



really? you are agreeing that the baggage ought to be deported ASAP?

clearly, her criminal fraud is intolerable. The moral duty is obvious. MP should implore Citizenship & Immigration Canada to send out specialized investigator by helicopter to conduct emergency toothbrush search. LTA should also join the beseechings & contact CIC on the toothbrush matter, since 4th hand hearsay is good enough for LTA & he has diligently studied every word posted here about the perfidious scandal

no stone is to be left unturned. Every boat, sink, wench, wrench, bathtub, boathouse & travel kit bag is to be exhaustively strip-searched for the missing toothbrush

if one should turn up its bristles must be analyzed for DNA, to see whether it belongs to the lawfully wedded husband or (gasp) to a stray male visitor

any kind of toothbrush failure on Susan's part will lead to her instant removal from canada

although me i think the authorities could deport even without a toothbrush. They could deport on the grounds that the audacious baggage made a lewd, wanton, unsolicited overture to sweet unsuspecting mukhang pera while he was innocently engaged in tying up his boat at the marina


.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

humble_pie said:


> really? you are agreeing that the baggage ought to be deported ASAP?


No I was agreeing with your sarcasm. I will be more selective on future agreements.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

humble_pie said:


> really? you are agreeing that the baggage ought to be deported ASAP?
> 
> clearly, her criminal fraud is intolerable. The moral duty is obvious. MP should implore Citizenship & Immigration Canada to send out specialized investigator by helicopter to conduct emergency toothbrush search. LTA should also join the beseechings & contact CIC on the toothbrush matter, since 4th hand hearsay is good enough for LTA & he has diligently studied every word posted here about the perfidious scandal
> 
> ...


That has to be one of the most ridiculous posts I have ever read in any forum on any topic. Clearly, attempting any kind of reasoned rebuttal is beyond your ability. Your response is simply laughable.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Mukhang pera said:


> LTA, you posted while I was plodding away at my response to j4b.
> 
> You and I and have not always seen things here through the same lens, but I have to give credit where credit is due. Your post offers a thoughtful, measured response and I appreciate you taking the time to form your analysis, which is as good as any I could cobble together.


As they say Mukhang pera, regardless of whether or not I agree with everything you write, I will defend your right (not to the death though) to say it. I may not always agree with you but the operative words there are 'not always'. In this case I simply happen to agree for once. Don't let it give you any false hope. Hahahaha.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

Longtimeago said:


> That has to be one of the most ridiculous posts I have ever read in any forum on any topic. Clearly, attempting any kind of reasoned rebuttal is beyond your ability. Your response is simply laughable.




my laughing hypothesis of the day is that longtimeago might be an alternative username for mukhang pera


.


----------



## moderator2 (Sep 20, 2017)

humble_pie said:


> my laughing hypothesis of the day is that longtimeago might be an alternative username for mukhang pera


I can confirm that they are different users


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

moderator2 said:


> I can confirm that they are different users



i don't believe you can really conirm, though. Never mind that posh about the IP addys, they're too easy to circumvent.

one telltale sign they are not the same persona, though, is that LTA has no sense of humour. Whereas MP can be deliciously funny.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

moderator2 said:


> I can confirm that they are different users


Can you confirm that humble_pie is old enough to be posting in an adult forum? Does this forum have any age restrictions? What about intelligence restrictions? ie. a lack of


----------



## nortel'd (Mar 20, 2012)

Mukhang pera said:


> For the past few days I have found myself a bit vexed by that exchange on the dock. I thought of coming here for thoughts, but put it off, knowing the reaction I would get. If I tell people here that it has crossed my mind to report this fraudulent marriage, I'll end up in the doghouse. We are, after all, Canadians. We are a generous, giving lot and the idea of ratting out someone seen (only by me) as taking unfair advantage of our essentially no-cost medical services is unthinkable. We should deny those free services to no one. It seems that many Canadians think we should not have any kind of "border protection" or immigration policies at all, as it makes us seem too American and downright parsimonious. We must share with all who want to come and enjoy.
> At this point, I would appreciate being told _why_ I am so wrong to even harbour some of these un-Canadian thoughts, so I can forget about it, and perhaps achieve a higher consciousness at the same time


As a good Canadian you first need to be neighborly. Invite the American lady and her husband over for Christmas cocktails, good conversation and a game of Euchre. By the end of the evening your lawyer intuition should give you some idea of their predicament. 

If it turns out everything your friend has told you is the truth, let your friend be the one to alert the authorities. Who knows he may have already. 

So called friends discussing the comings and goings of their close friends behind their backs is a betrayal. 

I get the impression your new friend who professes to also be a friend of the American lady and her Canadian husband is a “gossip”. People like him spread gossip just to mess with friends they don't like or are jealous of.

By now he is probably telling tall tales about you too. With a friend like that who needs an enemy.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

nortel'd said:


> As a good Canadian you first need to be neighborly. Invite the American lady and her husband over for Christmas cocktails, good conversation and a game of Euchre. By the end of the evening your lawyer intuition should give you some idea of their predicament.
> 
> If it turns out everything your friend has told you is the truth, let your friend be the one to alert the authorities. Who knows he may have already.
> 
> ...


Great advice, and I agree entirely. First and foremost you should be a good neighbour.

As for the rumours and gossip, this is not a game one should get involved in. How would you feel if they go and report you to the police for something they suspect you of doing? Ridiculous.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

Okay, I get the idea. 

I guess the "good neighbour" principle is why no one wants to report a tax cheater or someone engaged in any kind of criminality. Indeed, our courts often craft criminal sentences to defeat immigration rules that would call from deportation of a criminal. For example, a sentence of two years or greater, means there is no right of appeal a deportation order, by virtue of s. 64 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, s. 64(2). 

S. 36(1)(a) of the Act provides:

36. (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality for

(a) having been convicted in Canada of an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years, or of an offence under an Act of Parliament for which a term of imprisonment of more than six months has been imposed.

Every day our courts strive to keep sentences under 6 months for foreign criminals, or make sure any indictment gets amended to reduce any charge to one that would not attract a maximum penalty of 10 years. After all, we are good sports here in Canada and it's un-Canadian and and downright unneighbourly to deport criminals. We need them. They must be encouraged. What's a little criminal misconduct among friends?

Just this morning I read a divorce case where the parties admitted to living very well off marijuana grow operations conducted in BC, Alberta and California over their 30-year marriage. They kinda' had to make the admission because they had accumulated significant assets, without otherwise being able to explain the source of the funds. They had no paper trail of any kind, all being dealt with in cash. The names were all removed from the judgment so that the CRA would not be able to identify them and to seek to collect tax on 30 years of sales, and so the cops could not trace the couple in order to lay criminal charges. That would hardly be neighbourly.

I guess it's time I fell in line.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

Mukhang pera said:


> Okay, I get the idea.
> 
> I guess the "good neighbour" principle is why no one wants to report a tax cheater or someone engaged in any kind of criminality. Indeed, our courts often craft criminal sentences to defeat immigration rules that would call from deportation of a criminal. For example, a sentence of two years or greater, means there is no right of appeal a deportation order, by virtue of s. 64 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, s. 64(2).
> 
> ...


I don't see what being a 'good neighbour' has to do with this at all. If my neighbour on one side is known to me to be a burglar, what is my responsibility to my neighbour on the other side of me? To tell them to keep their windows locked as there is a burglar living 'nearby' or to say nothing even after that neighbour has been burgled? Trying to suggest that a good neighbour should do nothing is ridiculous. For someone to earn my respect and my loyalty to a degree, that person has to be worthy of it.

If I see an obviously impaired driver driving down the road, am I not supposed to call 911 and co-ordinate with the police dispatcher to get a patrol car to intercept that driver? A good neighbour looks out for all of his neighbours, not 'shield' one of them from the law. I have a responsibility to report that impaired driver to protect all the other drivers on the road who are in that sense, my neighbours. It may be that the driver is in fact not impaired but having some kind of a medical issue. If that is the case, then the driver will not face any charges of being impaired but will still have been stopped from possibly causing an accident involving others. 

What is really being suggested under the guise of 'good neighbour' is that we should not get INVOLVED. Well, I don't buy that any more than the passengers on the August 2015, Paris Train or the 9/11 passengers on UA93 did. Never forget that, 'all it takes for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing.' To suggest that 'your friend' should be the one to report this issue is simply an attempt to 'pass the buck'. 'I don't wanna get involved, you do it.' Yes, the 'friend' should report it and NO, his not doing so does not take away anyone else's responsibility to report it if the 'friend' does not. I can't answer for someone else's actions but I must always answer for my own actions and 'he (the 'friend')should have done it' is not an answer for MY actions. What I see here is some people who are in the 'I don't wanna get involved' camp who are simply trying to justify their own likely actions. 

I agree you should 'fall in line' Mukhang pera. Fall in line with those who do what is right, rather than those who chose to stand by and do nothing.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

We could go on and on about which party is a reliable witness. But if she is now a factual resident, and paying taxes here, I wouldn't get too worked up about whether she found a way to get to the head of the immigration queue. After all, health care is funded from our taxes. Now, if she got a residence permit, and is not paying Canadian taxes, I would be more concerned. But we don't know that to date do we? And I don't know how you would check up on it.

Looking at the original post, there seems to be a sidebar about whether the woman in question would have been eligible to live full-time on this island if she did not have permanent resident status. This is a separate, but not unrelated, issue. But it would be a different government authority that would delve into it.


----------



## Parkuser (Mar 12, 2014)

Today, MP's moral dilemma came to my mind while listening to the CBC. Sometimes doing the right thing is impossible, says the author of _Moral Failure: On the Impossible Demands of Morality._
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/tapestry/s...s-impossible-says-moral-philosopher-1.4921298


----------



## Retired Peasant (Apr 22, 2013)

I don't know why folks seem to think it's mp's responsibility to gather hard evidence. Report it, the authorities are the ones to do the investigation.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

OhGreatGuru said:


> We could go on and on about which party is a reliable witness. But if she is now a factual resident, and paying taxes here, I wouldn't get too worked up about whether she found a way to get to the head of the immigration queue. After all, health care is funded from our taxes. Now, if she got a residence permit, and is not paying Canadian taxes, I would be more concerned. But we don't know that to date do we? And I don't know how you would check up on it.
> 
> Looking at the original post, there seems to be a sidebar about whether the woman in question would have been eligible to live full-time on this island if she did not have permanent resident status. This is a separate, but not unrelated, issue. But it would be a different government authority that would delve into it.


The problem with that OhGreatGuru is when you write, "I wouldn't get too worked up about whether she found a way to get to the head of the immigration queue.", you are saying that doing something CRIMINAL to get to the head of the queue is OK by you. Really? You condone FRAUD?

To me it is very simple. One person does something fraudulent to gain Residency while another person who applies in the RIGHT way does not. If you say, 'ah, it's no big deal', you need to understand that Canada has an Immigration quota, a fixed number per year and so when you say, 'ah, it's no big deal, let the fraudster in as long as she pays taxes', you are also saying, 'ah, it's no big deal the other person will in fact not get in', because that space has been taken by the fraudster. 

So which do you think we should want coming to live in Canada, a person who demonstrates their willingness to commit fraud or a person who demonstrates their willingness to do the right things? Bear in mind as I say, you get to pick ONE, not both, there is only ONE space available. So which do you pick?


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

some posts to this thread after 6 december/18 have gone missing, as of today. There was a recent good one from MP. Wtty as usual. Now it's gone.

has the cmf forum host reverted to its bad old ways of eliminating one or two recent days' worth of posts? tch


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

humble_pie said:


> some posts to this thread after 6 december/18 have gone missing, as of today. There was a recent good one from MP. Wtty as usual. Now it's gone.
> 
> has the cmf forum host reverted to its bad old ways of eliminating one or two recent days' worth of posts? tch


I've seen posts occasionally go missing ever since the forum switched to cloud-based hosting. I had hoped they fixed it, but it appears the problem continues


----------

