[nfitz]

Ah, yes - major issues there. I work as an engineer, and I see very variable quality coming out of other countries. I've seen some really good engineers coming out of India and China - but some other countries I've really wondered how they could have graduated. And within certain countries there is a lot of variability as well - even in the USA there is a massive lack of control and inspection of universities graduating engineers compared to here.

It's a difficult issue. By the time you go through 20 different professions, 200 countries, and perhaps 50 schools in each country (or 1000s in some) you've got about 200,000 combinations right there. Which doesn't seem manageable. I'd think the government could spend a few billion just studying the issues.

 

[nfitz]

You made no differentiations. You wrote of racism and bigotry, and identified by skin colour. Your statements point to your belief that all Conservative party members are racist bigots.

1 - I never spoke of ALL members, or even of member, but merely of founders. 2 - I never referred to them as being racist, but spoke of racist beliefs - frankly it's never crossed my mind that the founders of the Alliance and Reform parties were racists, simply that they've pushed policies that racists have pushed in the past.

Many are clearly bigots though. And that's beyond debate, as anyone who out there speaking against same-sex marriage is a bigot.

No, it suggests that you think it's a good idea. Period. Now you're just running and hiding.

Actually I think it's a dreadful idea - I was merely trying to give the facists who currently run the country the benefit of the doubt until I see what they are proposing in writing.

Yes you have.

Well to be fair you have me there ... I forgot about that comment, where I was speaking of the policies, but not the people. Splitting hairs perhaps, but as I don't fundamentally believe that most of those who started the party are racist, there is a big difference - even I wasn't clear. (I'm sure there are some that are though - but that's probably true in most parties).

It isn't my problem, it's your problem - the one where you slander an entire political party because you disagree with their politics.

Ah, but I haven't slandered them about what you think I'm slandering them about. I'm slandering them not because I think they are racist, or because I disagree with their politics - but because they have clearly evidences that they are bigots by many, many, statements that many of their members, including their leader, have made on the same-sex issue. But it's a big boat - the current American president has also shown he is a bigot.

Maybe you should consider things more carefully before you type them.

As you are the one who keeps lying about what I have written, perhaps you should think more carefully.

 

[Hydrogen]

Listen nfitz, trying to dance around your own statements comes off sounding not only ignorant, but also pathetic.

When you state that a party has been founded by people who you claim to be bigots with a hidden racist agenda, you are knowingly making an attempt to cast all members with that stain. I know it and you know it. At least have the character to own up to it. Moreover, if you are going to accuse people of being racist, you better have evidence.

Actually I think it's a dreadful idea - I was merely trying to give the facists who currently run the country the benefit of the doubt until I see what they are proposing in writing.

In an earlier post you mused that "perhaps this is a good idea." So in reality you are evidently clueless about both the policy and your own thoughts on it.

Can you show that all members of the present government are fascist as you stated?

Well to be fair you have me there ... I forgot about that comment, where I was speaking of the policies, but not the people. Splitting hairs perhaps, but as I don't fundamentally believe that most of those who started the party are racist, there is a big difference - even I wasn't clear.

You really can't decide what to think or what you know. You have not once shown this policy to be racist because it is clear that have absolutely no knowledge of it. It's also clear that you have no knowledge of past immigration policy, either.

As for "splitting hairs," people typically construe racist policies as being the product of racist thinking. That's what you want to transmit here, but now apparently don't want to own up to it. But again, you have not actually proven that the recent past and present immigration policies were or are racist, or that all the founding members of the Conservative/Alliance/Reform parties were all bigots with intentions of shrouding their racist beliefs.

I gotta say nfits, if you are going to parade your ignorance, do it with bright lights:

Ah, but I haven't slandered them about what you think I'm slandering them about. I'm slandering them not because I think they are racist, or because I disagree with their politics - but because they have clearly evidences that they are bigots by many, many, statements that many of their members, including their leader, have made on the same-sex issue.

Is it that you are ignorant of the fact that slander alludes to making false and malicious statements? Then again, I'll take your statements at face value and accept that you are purposefully and knowingly making false and malicious statements here.

As you are the one who keeps lying about what I have written, perhaps you should think more carefully.

Just what I'd expect from someone who has admitted to slander.

 

[jade_lee]

http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/607282

We need to get more people enrolled in English and/or French lessons. Hire some more teachers.

 

[rpgr]

No offense but that article is just an editorial mouthpiece. If you actually see the work in immigration, it's a different story.

The backlog is lessened but for a different reason; they are just fast-tracking rejection. More and more people are getting rejection letters even though they've been here for quite awhile. The problem with the new rules is that it's arbitrary. Do you really think "common sense" as that article so describes is equal to everybody (*hint: it's not)? Have you seen the manuals and laws for immigration?

The new rules leaves too much *unwritten* power in the hands of the minister. That's the problem and it's causing the worry that the current increase in processing rejection letters is just a backroom instruction from the Minister to the many immigration officers.

What this leads to is unchecked power to discriminate against certain people.

How would you feel if you had to go to court to defend yourself against a charge which can be arbitrarily changed at any time?

For example, say you got a ticket for going 50 in a 45 zone but the guy in front of you was going 70. You go to court to fight this but the law states that it's within the right of the officer to ignore the guy in front of you.

What's unknown to you is that the other guy got a free pass because he was a relative to someone the officer works for yet it is still perfectly legal even though it's an abuse of power.

The letter of the law is supposed to help people decide if they can or can't immigrate to Canada but if the rules are just made-up without having them down in some form (or if they change too often, like every few months) then that breeds unfairness and inconsistency which is against our Charter.

Immigrants are always fighting an uphill battle as public opinion is never in their favour no matter what. It should be up to the law to help them immigrants and not be swayed by popular opinion which is what all politicians are apt to do (allow themselves to do what is popular rather than what is right).

 

[Brian69]

No offense but that article is just an editorial mouthpiece. If you actually see the work in immigration, it's a different story.

The backlog is lessened but for a different reason; they are just fast-tracking rejection. More and more people are getting rejection letters even though they've been here for quite awhile. The problem with the new rules is that it's arbitrary. Do you really think "common sense" as that article so describes is equal to everybody (*hint: it's not)? Have you seen the manuals and laws for immigration?

The new rules leaves too much *unwritten* power in the hands of the minister. That's the problem and it's causing the worry that the current increase in processing rejection letters is just a backroom instruction from the Minister to the many immigration officers.

What this leads to is unchecked power to discriminate against certain people.

The letter of the law is supposed to help people decide if they can or can't immigrate to Canada but if the rules are just made-up without having them down in some form (or if they change too often, like every few months) then that breeds unfairness and inconsistency which is against our Charter.

Immigrants are always fighting an uphill battle as public opinion is never in their favour no matter what. It should be up to the law to help them immigrants and not be swayed by popular opinion which is what all politicians are apt to do (allow themselves to do what is popular rather than what is right).

You are indicating people are being rejected for no reason at all but also hinting that they are being rejected for very particular reasons (the differing meaning of "common sense" or the "unchecked power to discriminate against certain people"). I'm just curious which is the case--is this a pattern of rejecting certain types of immigrants based on not meeting a tighter immigration standard or a truly capricious and arbitrary rejection of those who are not connected? I'm not rejecting what you say but I just wanted some clarification as this is a pretty strong charge to make.

 

[kEiThZ]

rpgr. Fine words from an immigration consultant. My guess is that you are unhappy because business might be starting to decline as the immigration process gets reformed.

You know as well as anyone else that a good majority of applications for immigration to Canada would not qualify under the points system. That's why they get rejected. Why should the government wait years to reject them? Some applications have such obvious deficiencies that these folks should have known they would not qualify to begin with. Yet, we allow those applications to clog up the system while holding up the truly qualified migrants our country desperately needs. I couldn't give a hoot if someone's grandma waits 5 years for immigration as long as the computer engineer, the doctor, the entrepreneurs this country wants and needs get visas in less than 6 months. The new policy has accomplished that. So where's your evidence that qualified migrants are being turned away?

 

[kEiThZ]

What's unknown to you is that the other guy got a free pass because he was a relative to someone the officer works for yet it is still perfectly legal even though it's an abuse of power.

Lovely. Accusing our immigration staff of being corrupt. If you have evidence of this, please do pass it on to the RCMP, otherwise please stop with the baseless accusations. These are hard working civil servants who put in long hours to get the best and brightest into Canada as quickly and painlessly as possible.

 

[Tewder]

This notion that immigration policy is 'discriminatory' is silly. Of course it's discriminatory! Any selection process is discriminatory, and rightfully so. A 'racist' policy is a different issue but look around and you see that this is simply not the case in Canada.

It's natural that Canada's immigration needs will decline in a recession when there are already so many people out of work. Why would you bring more people into this situation, and more people potentially into an already stretched welfare system? Doesn't make any sense. As Keithz says, we do need doctors and people with certain skilled trades and professions and they are the ones we should be fast-tracking, and this is nothing to do with language, ethnicity or race.

I'm not sure how I feel about the whole language issue. Many great immigrants have come to Canada who didn't speak either of our 'national' languages. Maybe it's more an issue of adequately assimilating those whom we do select.

 

[lordmandeep]

the corruption in the system is not with the Canadian civil servants.

Its in the place they come from where they likely pay money and falsify documents and marriages to get in.


One of my cousins wanted to fake a marriage with a Canadian Girl in India to come here.

However, I told him that you and are father own hundreds of acres of land have servants doing everything for you, why would you want to come here and spend 10hrs a day making 10 bucks a hour in a factory. It makes no sense.
Really my family could go to India and live like Kings, but we have become to attached to Canada...

Also of course we told him, we would disown him if he does such a thing...

 

[rpgr]

rpgr. Fine words from an immigration consultant. My guess is that you are unhappy because business might be starting to decline as the immigration process gets reformed.

You know as well as anyone else that a good majority of applications for immigration to Canada would not qualify under the points system. That's why they get rejected. Why should the government wait years to reject them? Some applications have such obvious deficiencies that these folks should have known they would not qualify to begin with. Yet, we allow those applications to clog up the system while holding up the truly qualified migrants our country desperately needs. I couldn't give a hoot if someone's grandma waits 5 years for immigration as long as the computer engineer, the doctor, the entrepreneurs this country wants and needs get visas in less than 6 months. The new policy has accomplished that. So where's your evidence that qualified migrants are being turned away?

I'm not at liberty to disclose confidential information but I do have proof/am saying that rules are not consistent for all people in similar situations.

 

[kEiThZ]

I'm not at liberty to disclose confidential information but I do have proof/am saying that rules are not consistent for all people in similar situations.

If that's the case, I do hope you would pass on information about malpractices at a government agency to our law enforcement authorities.

Aside from that, this thread has to do with policy. What you are discussing are practices in contravention with existing laws and policies. You still have not shown how the policies are flawed.

 

[rpgr]

Lovely. Accusing our immigration staff of being corrupt. If you have evidence of this, please do pass it on to the RCMP, otherwise please stop with the baseless accusations. These are hard working civil servants who put in long hours to get the best and brightest into Canada as quickly and painlessly as possible.

Oh bother, you're an idiot an a rather mouthy and stupid one. I'm just highlighting the fact that rules are not consistent for people in similar situations/ For your information, yes i am an immigration Consultant but no, I do not rely on that for my bread and butter. I'm a programmer by day with some part time IT work as well on the side on contract. Immigration is just something if I can run my own business with I'll switch to someday but I hold no illusions that it is even possible.

For your information, many cases go to tribunal just because cases are inconsistent (there are records but they are confidential) which further exacerbates the problem, instead of passing people that should pass you're now rejecting them and they go to tribunal. Sure you process people faster in the front end but then a backlog grows in the appeals end which is *gasp* far more costly and time consuming to both the Immigrant and the taxpayer, yet for those that are good enough in speaking english and are experienced enough, it's a huge profit. Services for going to tribunal to appeal is costly as only lawyers and Immigration consultants that are allowed to do so.

I'm learning to do that so I can make more money hopefully but likewise

FYI our system is based on a combination of written and common law. Further problems arise because jurisdiction is split between provinces and federal (and sometimes they contradict each other). What the current rules state, it allows the minister to change rules arbitrarily.

I don't condone lying to get into Canada, after all, I pay taxes too and I don't depend on Immigration to live, Lordmandeep so that point is moot. In fact, I probably will give up my license if there is no business because the fees are way too high for me to profit off of (you're looking at 7-8K a year plus I need to spend my vacation time to go to seminars to update my law knowledge).

Individual officers may not be corrupt but I have no faith in a Minister's office that can't commit instructions to paper and gives instructions that contradict common law. To accuse me of saying that it's bad in the individual offices, well you're arguments are shallow, I'm not gonna give away my contacts just to wave my e-peen on a messageboard to some half-wit like Keithz. Looking at all your posts, all you seem to do is troll, it's so obvious.

As I said before, the new laws give too much power to the Minister's office. If you're not gonna commit something to writing and you're not gonna follow precedent, well, that's just as bad as any corruption in my book.

 

[kEiThZ]

Oh bother, you're an idiot an a rather mouthy and stupid one.

Personal attacks will get you nowhere. Notice, that I did not attack you. I challenged your assertion that our immigration staff are corrupt. Your refusal to back up your assertion with evidence is noted.

I'm just highlighting the fact that rules are not consistent for people in similar situations…

Again, you haven't shown any evidence here to further debate on this point. This is a discussion forum after all…saying its confidential puts it out of the realm of discussion and shuts down debate. I have no doubt there are some cases like that….otherwise we would not need an immigration appeals process. However, I have yet to see numbers which say that most of the appeals come from an uneven application of standards.

For your information, many cases go to tribunal just because cases are inconsistent (there are records but they are confidential) which further exacerbates the problem, instead of passing people that should pass you're now rejecting them and they go to tribunal. Sure you process people faster in the front end but then a backlog grows in the appeals end which is *gasp* far more costly and time consuming to both the Immigrant and the taxpayer, yet for those that are good enough in speaking english and are experienced enough, it's a huge profit. Services for going to tribunal to appeal is costly as only lawyers and Immigration consultants that are allowed to do so.

The backlog is caused by processing applications. Obviously, the issue you highlighted is important: rejected applicants filing appeals which grows the appeals backlog. However, that does not make the government's efforts to tackle the backlog any less relevant. The appeals backlog will grow in the short-term as some of those in the queue appeal when they get their rejection. The recent changeovers will of course create lots of grounds for appeals. In the long term, once this mess is cleared, hopefully, our system will come out stronger and more efficient.

Individual officers may not be corrupt but I have no faith in a Minister's office that can't commit instructions to paper and gives instructions that contradict common law. To accuse me of saying that it's bad in the individual offices….

Your original post made no reference to the minister's office. What other conclusion were we supposed to draw? Here it is again:
"What's unknown to you is that the other guy got a free pass because he was a relative to someone the officer works for yet it is still perfectly legal even though it's an abuse of power.."

well you're arguments are shallow, I'm not gonna give away my contacts just to wave my e-peen on a messageboard to some half-wit like Keithz.

Second personal attack.

Looking at all your posts, all you seem to do is troll, it's so obvious.

Third attack in a single post.
Your assertion that I am trolling in a thread that I have engaged in serious debate in and one which I started is hilarious!

As I said before, the new laws give too much power to the Minister's office. If you're not gonna commit something to writing and you're not gonna follow precedent, well, that's just as bad as any corruption in my book.

First real line on topic.
On this point I'd partially agree with you. Obviously, I'd like to see the policies better annuciated. However, all I have seen thus far is the minister use his powers to help some applicants queue jump. It's not like they are issuing blanket rejections. One can argue that fast-tracking is unfair. But then again, any immigration policy is unfair. It's supposed to be. Immigration policies are supposed to get us quality immigrants not simply hand out visas to anyone who wants to live in Canada. If they are fast-tracking qualified migrants, I don't see any issue with that. I seriously hope that every entrepreneur is being fast-tracked so that we can get more folks to help us get out of this recession.

 

[Hydrogen]

Oh bother, you're an idiot an a rather mouthy and stupid one. I'm just highlighting the fact that rules are not consistent for people in similar situations/ For your information, yes i am an immigration Consultant...

Then you owe it to the people who are your clients to go to the appropriate authorities and file a complaint. Coming here to this board and suggesting some sort of corruption and conspiratorial activity without anything to back it up comes off sounding a little suspicious, to say the least. And as for the response above, it comes off very poorly and makes one question whether your clients are getting the services they have hoped for.

As you are a citizen, you have a responsibility to report questionable practices or obvious wrong-doings. Have you done that?


Finally, as Tewder correctly noted, immigration is "discriminatory" in that there is a selection process. To select is to discriminate. All too often people simply assume the most negative of connotations. In any process that selects people, making everyone happy is virtually impossible. But that process was never about making everyone happy.