No products in the cart.

News

Canada Imposes Visa Ban On Three Ebola-Hit Countries

Maple Leaf

Reuters can’t help but twist the story to make the Canadian government look evil for protecting the people of Canada. Like Australia, Canada is doing what will work to prevent the spread of Ebola into their Countries. If our government would come to its senses and follow their lead, we could be safer. Alas, our government is lacking in common sense. – Shorty Dawkins, Associate Editor.

This article comes from Reuters.com

(Reuters) – Canada will stop issuing visas to people from the three West African nations where Ebola is widespread, the government said on Friday.

The federal citizenship ministry, explaining the move, said in an official document that “the introduction or spread of the disease would pose an imminent and severe risk to public health”.

About 5,000 people have died in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone this year in the worst Ebola outbreak on record. Fears rose that the disease could spread beyond the region after a few cases were diagnosed in Spain and the United States.

Canada, which has not reported any cases of Ebola, is following in the footsteps of Australia, which on Tuesday became the first rich nation to issue such a ban. The country’s official in charge of the response to Ebola said the move was medically unjustified.

Under the new regulations, which come into force immediately, Canada will not process visa applications from foreign nationals who have been in an Ebola-affected country within the previous three months.

U.S. President Barack Obama is so far resisting pressure to impose similar travel restrictions.

The Conservative government’s decision drew fire from Canada’s official opposition New Democratic Party.

“The experts we’re relying on to fight Ebola are saying this is not the right approach,” the party’s health critic Libby Davies said in a statement.

Codie Taylor, the chief spokeswoman for Immigration Minister Chris Alexander, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

(Reporting by David Ljunggren and Jeffrey Hodgson; Editing by Meredith Mazzilli and Grant McCool)

0

ldiffey

Oath Keepers Merchandise

3 comments

  1. good for them, at least the Canadian government knows whats good for Canada. that can not be said for America, seems D C cronies only care about themselves and being pc, so as not to hurt anyones feelings, than to use common sense. maybe common core can explain it.

  2. “If our government would come to its senses and follow their lead, we could be safer. Alas, our government is lacking in common sense. – Shorty Dawkins, Associate Editor.”

    Dr. Edwin Vieira says it best. Look at it this way, when they broke the “contract” that defines the job they are occupying they no longer need to be kept in that position – we can fire them! (last sentence is my opinion based on my studies – it is why the Preamble says “We the People” and not “We the federal government or the state governments…”:

    Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr.: “This has nothing to do with personalities or subjective ideas. It’s a matter of what the Constitution provides…

    The government of the United States has never violated anyone’s constitutional rights…
    The government of the United States will never violate anyone constitutional rights, because it cannot violate anyone’s constitutional rights. The reason for that is: The government of the United States is that set of actions by public officials that are consistent with the Constitution. Outside of its constitutional powers, the government of the United States has no legitimacy. It has no authority; and, it really even has no existence. It is what lawyers call a legal fiction.

    … the famous case Norton v. Shelby County… The Court said: “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties. It is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

    And that applies to any (and all) governmental action outside of the Constitution…”
    What are the defining characteristics of a limited government? They are its disabilities; what it does not have legal authority to do. Look at the First Amendment… What does it do? It guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion. But how does it do that? I quote: “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press” etcetera. “Congress shall make no law;” that’s a statement of an absence of power. That’s a statement of a disability.”

  3. Basically we are letting a “legal fiction” run by a person impersonating a US President, assisted by corrupt and treasonous representatives and DoD – some of who joined to protect and defend our nation (and on the way to the top changed over to assisting to destroy our nation from within).

    Plus they are aided by bureaucracies whose creation was not lawful, making laws that cross the three BARRIERS that they are NOT allowed to cross, and doing or causing actions to be done
    that is PROTECTED from being performed by those in government. That are not even lawful, yet still they make laws that cause the arrest/incarceration of the People who are the source of the legitimacy of our government. Insult to injury – WE ALLOW IT.

    What is wrong with this above statements?


    [Editor’s Note: Cal, I cannot find one thing wrong with what you posted here. It seems to me that you have diagnosed the problem in nutshell version, and I salute you for your candid assessments. Thank you once again for posting here.

    Salute!
    Elias Alias, editor]

Comments are closed.