This story is just astounding. Apparently an American teacher in Buffalo convicted of having sex with a 15-year-old female student was given a choice of punishment: go to prison or leave the U.S. and spend three years in exile in Fort Erie, Ontatio. He choose Fort Erie.
Now I was born in Fort Erie, or Fort Dreary as we sometimes call it, and while I never lived there my grandparents, aunts and uncles and so on still do, and I visit regularly. It's not exactly a garden spot, but nor is it a place to send child abusers into exile.
But what the hell kind of plea bargain is this? Are we now the dumping ground for all the United States' undesirable criminals? I'm sorry Buffalo, but we don't want your child abusers. Did they bother asking Canadian authorities for our opinion before they decided to ship this child abuser over the border? How do they think the people of Fort Erie feel about accepting a child abuser into their community?
I know he hasn't been heard from much since February, but if someone could please page Monte Solberg to the white courtesy phone his services are required. There's no reason we have to let this guy into Canada. Send him back to Buffalo. I've been there. It's a lot like prison.
Associated Press
BUFFALO — Jail or Canada? Malcolm Watson chose Canada.
In an unusual sentence that has immigration lawyers questioning its legality, Watson, a U.S. citizen, has agreed to stay out of the United States for the next three years as punishment for having sex with a 15-year-old female student.
The exile starts Monday for the 35-year-old former Buffalo Seminary teacher, who was arrested in April after a mall security guard noticed him and the girl sitting in a parked car for two hours.
(more)
7 comments:
It's official then, insanity has spread throughout the US???
I have never read anything more ridiculous, (well nearly:).
Surely this man will be stopped at the border, given his record.
I guess the "new and improved" cross border relationship is not quite the Harper government envisioned.
Send us a billion dollars and we'll send you our child predators.
Solberg had better get out ahead of this, but I won't hold my breath.
Read the article, illiterati. The man already LIVES in Canada. On what planet would this be considered exile?
Yeesh. You WOULD beleive the US could send a convicted felon into exile in any country of its choosing, without asking permission of its host.
Talk about insanity.
illiterati. Funny. I gather that you're trying to sound cool while calling be illiterate, alas you failed on both counts.
I can read just fine. He is an American citizen living in Canada with his Canadian family, but was working in the U.S. His crime took place in the U.S. He was tried and convicted in the U.S. He's not a Canadian citizen.
Certaintly a conviction for child abuse should be sufficent grounds to revoke whatever residency this American citizen has, and send him back to the U.S. Or do you think we should allow foreign child abusers to reside in Canada?
Anon, you said: You WOULD beleive the US could send a convicted felon into exile in any country of its choosing, without asking permission of its host.
Hmmm, if what you suggest is true, (you've got your facts wrong btw as BCer pointed out), you're just fine with our government granting permission???
Geesh, I've heard/read conservatives defend this government for the most bizarre things, I never thought I hear a defense for importing pedophiles.
BCer, did you hear anything on this today? Solberg was in the House, but I don't know if he was asked about it. It should be a huge issue here...St. Catharines afterall is not that far away.
“Surely this man will be stopped at the border, given his record.” – KNB
“Stopped at the border.” That can only mean going north from the US, and that certainly doesn’t sound like you knew he was a Canadian resident, knb. So, stop trying to pretend otherwise.
“[G]o to prison or leave the U.S.” – BCer in T.
“Leave the US.” That doesn’t sound like you knew he is a Canadian resident, either, BCer. So, stop trying to pretend otherwise.
I never said he was a Canadian citizen. He is, however, a Canadian resident – and a legal one by all accounts. So, he has rights under Canadian law, despite his being convicted of a crime in the US.
“I never thought I hear a defense for importing pedophiles.” – knb
There you go again. You cannot “import” that which is already there. And stop putting words in my mouth, liar and illiterato. I never defended him or pedophiles. You Lefties love to do stuff like that, but where I come from it’s, at best, called building straw men but, in this case, calling it lying is more accurate.
You are certainly a bunch of oversensitive crybabies, to want to believe the US could or would export its worst criminals to Canada.
You so funny, anon. Getting all worked up, convinced you're making such a solid case when really it's your house that's made of straw.
Rather than (barely) huffing and puffing it down though, let me ask you this. Do you think he should be allowed to REMAIN in Canada?
He's not a citizen, he's here at the pleasure of the government. We don't need to let criminals stay here. The Right regularly rails against criminals from overseas being allowed to live here. The list is long.
So, I ask you, should we allow non-citizens convicted of child abuse overseas to live in Canada, or should they be deported? How about murders? Where would you draw the line?
You are certainly a bunch of oversensitive crybabies, to want to believe the US could or would export its worst criminals to Canada.
So, then I guess it would be wrong of me to read this as you saying child abuse and teachers sleeping with 15-year old students isn't that bad?
Fantastic, maybe he can move in with your family then.
“You so funny, anon.”
Comment: Thank you.
“Getting all worked up …”
Comment: I think it’s you who’s getting all worked up about this non-issue. I’m laughing at you.
“… convinced you're making such a solid case when really it's your house that's made of straw.”
Comment: Don’t you mean “cards”? But never mind. You have failed to demonstrate how my house is “made of straw.” BCer, I have pointed out facts: The man is a legal resident of Canada. He lives in Canada. He has rights under Canadian law. You have failed to give me one fact. You have failed to tell me how I am wrong. You have even failed to admit you had no idea that the man is a resident of Canada, not the US. You have failed to meet my argument. Instead you do this:
“Rather than (barely) huffing and puffing it down though, let me ask you this. Do you think he should be allowed to REMAIN in Canada?”
Comment: Which is called a “red herring.” What I think about the man’s being in Canada is irrelevant to the argument that the man has (1) not been exiled or “imported” to Canada by the US, (2) the man is a legal resident of Canada, (3) as such, the man has legal rights under Canadian law, and (4) you lied about your knowing these facts.
“He's not a citizen …”
Comment: Bingo! Finally a fact. And it’s a fact that I never denied … so … so what? He lives in Canada, not the United States. That is THE salient fact, BCer.
“… he's here at the pleasure of the government.”
Comment: Your implication is not exactly true. As I said, he has certain rights as a legal resident of your country.
“We don't need to let criminals stay here.”
Comment: Your needs, BCer, are irrelevant to his rights.
“The Right regularly rails against criminals from overseas being allowed to live here.”
Comment: Then get rid of him – lawfully. I don’t care.
“The list is long.”
Comment: If you say so. But what list are you talking about?
“So, I ask you, should we allow non-citizens convicted of child abuse overseas to live in Canada, or should they be deported?”
Comment: As I said. I don’t care. Not my country. Do what you want. As a matter of fact do it unlawfully, if you want. Kill him. Cut off his ‘nads. You’re a sovereign country … more or less.
“How about murder[er]s? Where would you draw the line?”
Comment: At the 49th parallel.
“So, then I guess it would be wrong of me to read this as you saying child abuse and teachers sleeping with 15-year old students isn't that bad?”
Comment: Yes it would be wrong … as I said before. Do you think I’ve changed my mind already?
“Fantastic, maybe he can move in with your family then.”
Non sequitur, BCer. But try it. Let’s see what happens.
Post a Comment