Posts filed in ‘legal terms’
Immigration, grammar, and a side of cheese
Here’s a current events topic that combines my interests in immigration and grammar. Earlier this month the New York Times published an article on how the Supreme Court justices came to rule unanimously from different interpretations. It’s timely because today the President announced his first choice for the Court.
So this case protects illegal workers who use fake IDs to get jobs but denies protection when the same workers knowingly use the same IDs to commit other crimes.
The government argued that the “knowingly” requirement applied only to the verbs in question. Justice Breyer rejected that interpretation, saying that “it seems natural to read the statute’s word ‘knowingly’ as applying to all the subsequently listed elements of the crime.”
And this is the part I like–where Justice Breyer cites examples from everyday life. “If we say that someone knowingly ate a sandwich with cheese, we normally assume that the person knew both that he was eating a sandwich and that it contained cheese.”…
Justice Breyer said the case should be decided by applying “ordinary English grammar.” Let’s see if “ordinary English” is overheard during the confirmation hearing.
Copyright New York Times, May 4, 2009
Justices Limit Use of Identity Theft Law in Immigration Cases
English as a second language
The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is legislation respecting immigration to Canada and granting refugee protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger.
The term “foreign national” refers any person other than a Canadian citizen or permanent resident. Oddly, the word “immigrant” doesn’t appear in the Act.
I was happy to read that the 2001 Act used simpler language and fewer cross-references. However, I had to chew on a 112-word clause before it made any sense.
Sole provincial responsibility — appeals
If a federal-provincial agreement gives a province sole responsibility to establish and apply financial criteria with respect to undertakings that sponsors living in that province may make in respect of a foreign national who applies to become a permanent resident, then, unless the agreement provides otherwise, the existence of a right of appeal under the law of that province respecting rejections by provincial officials of applications for sponsorship, for reasons of failing to meet financial criteria or failing to comply with a prior undertaking, prevents the sponsor, except on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, from appealing under this Act against a refusal, based on those reasons, of a visa or permanent resident status.
My take on sole provincial responsibility appeals is this:
The province can impose financial responsibility on the sponsor of a foreign national, and if refused for financial reasons the sponsor can appeal to the province or apply under the Act for a humanitarian and compassionate exception.
My hat goes off to ESL classmates who had to deal with breaking down and making sense of this provision.
Cross-border negotiations — table it
“I bring something to the table!”
This term ‘table’ has been bugging me since moving to Canada. Apparently, here, ‘to table‘ something means to formally propose or offer a topic for discussion. For example, the condo association tabled the discussion on landscaping. After the agenda items were covered they initiated a discussion so residents could gripe about dead shrubbery.
Whoa!
In the US you’d say ‘let’s table it’ to mean postponing any discussion or consideration of a motion or thing.
Knowing this difference is helpful before tabling anything with Americans and Canadians present.
The wisdom of skipping an exam you’re going to fail
Clip art licensed from the Clip Art Gallery on DiscoverySchool.com
Recently, Vancouver awoke to news that centered on obscure legal terms. The media spent the next news cycle explaining prorogue and in camera.
Oh to be a fly on the wall during the conversation between the Governor-General and the Prime Minister whose request was granted to suspend, or prorogue, Parliament rather than face a vote of no confidence. Over 300 comments accompany this prorogue article in the Globe and Mail.
One wonders why politicians meet privately, or in camera. Our city councilors did just that to approve $100-million for completing the 2010 Olympic Athletes Village. Word leaked and days later taxpayers voted in a different council.