1st personal attack
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 have come on here claiming to be an authority by virtue of your expertise. And you have come on here making political claims rather than discussing the impact of a policy change without presenting any evidence. I have questioned your neutrality (not in the least because you seem to have a political agenda) and because this policy change may directly impact your livelihood (causing you to speak irrespective of whether the changes are positive). How is that a personal attack?
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.
2nd attack in response to this:
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.
In this case it has to to with the people in charge meaning the minister (this shows you don't know the policy otherwise you'd know that it deals with instructions given by the ministers office w/o having to pass a law effectively giving the ministers office to change a law without having to pass it in parliament) and those parties close to him 'cause that was what the chain of thought was.
Please point out again where you said it was the minister. 'Someone he works for or with' could be anybody from the filing clerk to a staff member who approves the visa, to the immigration officer at the counter in an airport. As for my 'attack'. It stands and I don't apologize for it. If you are going to toss out random smears against some very hard working and good people without any evidence whatsoever to back it up, you should not be surprised if someone calls you out on it. It's not an attack to challenge your smears. And if as you say, you have evidence that somebody is being given special treatment because they are related to the minister (Jason Kenney has relatives outside Canada?) then you should definitely share that information with the opposition, the media and the RCMP. It is after all illegal for any civil servant to break policy because of political interference. Certainly, most of the folks I know at immigration would not be that susceptible to the whims of a politician...it would not pass what we in government service call the 'globe and mail' test.
As to your assertion that I don't understand the policy....as someone who works in government and has plenty of colleagues who work at immigration and border services, I fully understand the policy change and its implications. I simply dispute your assertion that the minister has done something wrong. You, on the other hand, are already showing the limits of your comprehension by being unable to distinguish between the law passed by parliament and its policy outcomes. Parliament has passed a law empowering the minister to create policies which fast-track or reject applications. So far all that's being done is fast-tracking. If you have evidence that says a new policy of mass rejections is in place please put it up. And even if that came to pass, that would not be illegal. It would merely be a question of fairness, which of course, could be settled politically. To wit, you should note there has not been too much of a public uproar about the government's suggestion that immigration should be scaled back during this recession. It's evidence that the public may not see the conspiracy you see.
As I said before, I'm not allowed to disclose confidential information but the law is being challenged by Immigration groups (via lobbying) and lawyers (via the courts). It is however a very costly procedure for individual immigrants to challenge. On one hand, the government is allowed to make laws but on the other hand, this particular law is unfair because it goes against precedence.
Good luck with that. Thankfully, lobbying won't work because it's a sensible law and the government has the common sense not to give up the powers parliament just gave it. The law merely empowers the minister to make policy. The results of the use of those added powers could be positive or negative depending where one stands. Hence, it is not an unfair law. You can quibble about the policy but you can't quibble about the laws. I am also willing to bet good money that the Liberals won't reverse this ruling when they come back into power.
And please do put up the docket number for a court challenge to this law. I'd love to see the courts overturn a law passed by parliament particularly one that was voted on by parties on both sides of the aisle. It would be quiet entertaining.
If someone manages to finally get a court date and decision (you would need someone who is normally qualified with the money and balls to do this) it would be reported in the newspapers. Right now successful challenges in private tribunal hearings cannot change the law and it is impossible to bring things to the forefront because of what a tribunal is. If I talked about it freely, I could be arrested for breaking another law but it is well documented that people are passing under tribunal because the law is unfair.
So first you are complaining about the new immigration law. Then you mix up confidentiality rules (which were present before the new immigration law) and slam both. There is absolutely no law that prevents you from speaking about a case (in the courts or in front a tribunal) as long as you leave out identifying information and as long as there's no gag order on the case. Given that, I am willing to bet that you don't have a shred of evidence that the Minister has misused his powers
On that note, how many qualified migrants that have been rejected could afford to challenge the law in federal court? They would need money that they don't have as well as they would have to wait for a trial date and if they stay in Canada, they would not be able to work (no work permit).
Boo hoo. As an immigrant, I know first-hand that immigration is expensive. And I will tell you without batting an eye, that a person who cannot afford the few thousand dollars to launch an appeal (which by the way can be done without being resident in Canada...making your point about needing to work while living here moot) in federal court is probably not the type of person who would qualify for immigration anyway.
Moreover, if they are qualified why would they get rejected? This country is not in the habit of declining immigrants who meet all the criteria to come here. More than likely I suspect that they have quibbles with Immigration Canada about their qualifications.
To suggest why YOU don't know about it doesn't mean others don't and that it isn't happening.
This is an internet forum. If you claim confidentiality on everything, there is no discussion. Are we just supposed to take your expert opinion on everything and stop discussing it altogether? If you can't add the discussion stay out of it.