[Brandon716]

You have a very, very hard time actually listening to anyone. Just go back and read what I've already said and you'll find all the answers you're looking for.

 

[kEiThZ]

^ Personal anecdotes do not equal statistics. While your situation is personally tragic, that does not translate into any proof that we are taking in fewer or less qualified migrants. If you have stats to that effect put them up. This is a policy discussion after all. Numbers will help move the debate.

 

[Brandon716]

What? I posted several links to the Citizenship and Immigration Canada web site way back in the discussion and only brought my personal story in afterwards.

Again, you need to go back and read the entire thread thoroughly if you have any more questions on why the government's immigration changes aren't good.

Key points:

*Reduction of skilled worker applications being reduced to 38 categories from the entire list.
*Because of this, applications for productive applicants are being denied before they get a fair, full review and are rejected.
*This is the method Harper's government has used to reduce the backlog instead of simply hiring more immigration officers to review cases.

And as far as attracting certain immigrant groups, because of the arbitrary code a cook in a restaurant can immigrate before someone who has spent years in college working in a field of study not on that list of 38.

This is not anecdotal, its the facts.

I don't even know if what you're saying is even relevant to the discussion at this point. You're just stating the government's doing a good job because you know a few personal friends who have had an easier time, hence your stories are just as anecdotal as mine. Only difference is that I've linked up the CIC and the actual rules.

 

[lordmandeep]

tell you the truth you should try to get in another family member and get them to sponsor you ever.

It may be wrong buts it is a 100% way...

 

[kEiThZ]

Brandon,

Your argument that the changes make for a poor immigration policy are based on the fact that there are now 38 categories in the experience class. As I have argued before, this is simply cosmetic. How is this any different than back in the old days when the government gave out more or less points (in sufficient amounts to really make or break your application) for jobs according to demand?

Next even if the criteria are more restrictive, that does not make it bad policy. The rejection rate could skyrocket and that still does not make it bad policy. There are only two measures with which one could judge an immigration policy by: the quality of immigrants it attracts and retains, and whether the level of migrant inflows is adequate (especially in relation to the absorption rate of the country). From that perspective, I consider the changes to be positive.

I deeply resent our old practice of merely letting in people without any serious effort to meet the needs of our labour market. It robs the developing world (largely) of talent, sets up these migrants to fail, and fails to adequately address the skilled labour needs of our country. Maybe those 38 categories are where we really need people? Are you saying that Canada should not screen migrants for occupations? We tried that before, and now we have taxi drivers with phDs.

 

[Brandon716]

Not sure how to be more direct and concise on this issue.

1) The old system of immigration gave every application a fair review. And don't forget the old system rejected quite a few applications as well, its not that "everyone was let in" but rather everyone who MET THE REQUIREMENTS of education/experience/no criminal background was let in.

2) The new system rejects any applicant who isn't in the list of 38 categories I linked to on the CIC site earlier in this discussion. It gets rejected in a pre-screening process before an actual full review is done.

3) This is how Stephen Harper's new system has reduced the backlog.

4) The alternative would be to hire more immigration reviewers to process applications.

5) The old system didn't allow "just anyone" in. You had to gain points and meet the system goals. You could apply under any job category, but you did have to have a certain level of education and/or job experience before you could be approved.

6) Again, some of the things you're saying are totally irrelevant, and I think you actually contradicted your own statement with the last post by stating the old system gave extra brownie points for priority jobs like doctors or IT managers so they basically were guaranteed entry (so long as there was no criminal background).

The old system didn't let anyone in, I can personally attest to that. I looked into immigration years ago when I was still taking college courses from 2002-2004. I didn't qualify even after graduating, I needed experience.

But the application could be reviewed fully.

Here's my argument in a nutshell: its unfair to reject every application that doesn't fit into those 38 categories. Its the most narrow pathway I've ever seen in Canadian history, and its also the most rediculous way to reduce backlog.

If you don't agree, its not about facts or statistics, its about your need to agree with Stephen Harper's policy. You've been on both sides of the issue just to support the Harper policy. In fact, keith, you will bring up any irrelevant point to support the Harper policy, because Harper's immigration policy is overall good in your estimation. Then you mention the obligatory "its not perfect" clause in your case.

For me its beyond party politics, but the Harper plan messed up my pathway and is adding huge amounts of debt, wait, and headache for me. In the end, the result should be that I can move to Canada. But I have to question whether my labor and paying taxes to a system that has rejected me this long is worth it. LOL For me, I don't understand how any nation would want to reject an educated, language-compatible applicant who is willing to begin their most productive labor years with zero health issues and zero baggage. I have no need to suck anything from the Canadian system. My case should be open and closed, and I should be given an instant entry. But not now, not with this new convoluded system. If a 27 year old cook (who has worked as a cook in a restaurant his entire adult life and can prove it) from Russia who passes an ITELS english (or french) course with only moderate proficiency applies, he stands a better chance at immigrating under Stephen Harper's rules than me, a 27 year old educated American who has managed employees, managed payroll, and worked in IT for a few years with a 3 year college degree.

This is absolutely hideous...

Its more complicated than that, but you've got my argument, you've got the facts linked earlier.

Shall we continue to walk around in circles, repeating the same thing over and over? You've been on every side to the issue, stating you resent the immigration policy because it "robs the 3rd world of talent" and then you say you want Canada to welcome everyone.

FYI, Canada is losing out on educated talent from the world's industrialized nations as much as its grabbing anything from the 3rd world.

And to address another issue: applications submitted won't be going down, they are going up. The amount of rejections are what is going up. The amount of people they are letting into Canada probably won't go down, it may even go up. BUT, the problem is that they are only letting in people on that list of 38.

Personally, I don't see what the problem is with doubling the amount of immigrants per year. Canada is the second largest country on earth with only 35 million people. Sure, a lot of that land is between Yellowknife and northern Labrador, but the southern tier of Canada is still pretty empty and quite available.

Besides, Canada becoming popular is a good thing, right? That's why the backlog grew, not because the Liberals did ANYTHING in the 1990's really. So I could care less about political arguments. The backlog really didn't become an issue until well after 2000 from most stories I've read. In the year 2000 most countries still had applications processed within months to a year, not years.

 

[afransen]

In other words, reducing the backlog is desirable. But dropping applications through a pre-screening process like the one in use is no more useful than dropping every application from a person born in an odd numbered year.

 

[kEiThZ]

I still don't see what's wrong with restricting immigration to only 38 employment categories if those are the migrants we need. The key thing to keep in mind is that the categories and the number of categories are and will remain fluid. It is really no different than the old days when the government gave out points based on demand for the applicant's trade. As changes happen in the labour market the government will add or remove categories.

Brandon, your argument is that this is bad. I get that. But you still have to show why it is bad to restrict the intake of skilled migrants to only those employment categories where we actually need migrants. For example, my brother finishing up his master's in biomedical engineering (undergrad in aerospace) is having a tough time finding a job. Given the saturation in the job market for his fields of employment I see no reason why we should be importing more aerospace or biomedical engineers. I could see an argument that the 38 fields don't adequately cover skilled labour shortfalls in the Canada. But I fully reject the notion that we should accept workers we don't need. That's essentially been your argument; that the government is wrong to impose categories and that it should accept migrants outside those categories.

I really don't see why it matters where that rejection is done at the pre-screening process or after a full review. It is the applicant's responsibility to prove their case. It should not be the job of the Government of Canada to figure out which category they should be pegged into. If they meet the requirements and filled out the paperwork properly, they'll pass pre-screening quite easily. If they don't they get rejected. Why is it important whether they get rejected at pre-screening or after a full review? And why should the government of this country dedicate vast resources to give a detailed screening to every applicant. If we didn't have tons of applicants, perhaps that policy would be different. As it is, we have tons of potential migrants to choose from. And I don't think the government should be wasting resources on fully screening many marginal files who would get rejected later anyway. This is no different than HR at most companies who toss out piles of resumes after a single glance.

Also, keep in mind that all this is only for the Experience Class. The changes for students will add migrants over time. There has been no real changes to family class immigration and that's where a good chunk of the backlog is. There's also been no real changes to those seeking entry as entrepreneurs, etc. I am more concerned about those categories being addressed properly. We should not be making an investor wait 6 months to invest in Canada. Likewise, it's rather inhumane to separate newlyweds for over a year while they wait for their PR.

Your example shows exactly why you are taking the changes personally. You consider it improper that Canada would give immigration to a 27 year old cook with less than perfect english while rejecting a 27 yr old IT manager. The question for policy analysts at immigration (and i have met a couple of them) is quite simple. Who do we need more? Having a girlfriend who is a chef and several friends in IT, I must say that I am not surprised by the decision. My gf routinely gets unsolicited offers for jobs. Her father who was an IT manager with a decade of experience, took nearly a year to find a job when he got laid off. So in that scenario, who should we be giving immigration to?

Lastly, it's quite offensive to suggest that an American with 'good english' should be given preferential treatment over a Russian who passes language standards for immigration laid out by the Government of Canada. If he meets the required standard, the only distinction in my mind (and I suspect that of most Canadians) should be about whether his job skills are needed in Canada. You could argue that the language bar should be higher. But whatever the bar is, if the applicant has met it, I see no reason why they should continue to be penalized through the rest of the evaluation for not having the fortune to be born and brought up in an English speaking country.

 

[Brandon716]

^^Absolutely, of course.. There is a better way than this pathetic list of 38 jobs to reduce the backlog.

 

[Brandon716]

Lastly, it's quite offensive to suggest that an American with 'good english' should be given preferential treatment over a Russian who passes language standards for immigration laid out by the Government of Canada.

If anyone on this forum chooses to read all of my comments, I clearly compared native-speaking English to only a moderately capable applicant AND the fact that I have education and work skills in IT vs low wage labor.

Weren't you just making the argument that Stephen Harper's new immigration plan helps assimilate immigrants easier? Which side of the fence are you on, keith? I think you're on the side of "i'll say anything to make Harper's policy look good" which isn't that hard to see for the rest of us reading your comments.

Knowing fluent English or French, not just moderate enough to "get by", and having an education is a start.

Again, keith, your saying things that are contradictory. People can read them, I don't need to prove a bigger case than I already have. My beliefs are quite simple, and I have the information to back it up.

I dare you to make an argument that an English speaking American with a college education and several years of experience is harder to assimilate than a Russian who has broken English or French with no education and low wage skills.

If you're offended that I ask, I can't say I understand. We're talking about qualified immigration applicants, nothing more.

Personally I value multi-culturalism, but lets face it, I should be allowed in Canada and my app is being denied.

I'm not making the case that Russians shouldn't be given a chance - or any nationality - but my app should be reviewed and I should be let in. Period.

Afterall, despite the fact that I dislike the Harper government, I also respect their right to govern if the Canadian people vote them into office. Despite the fact that I've went through all this b.s. I still like Canada and what it stands for, and the way Canadian cities feel.

Immigration isn't clear cut, many applicants have other goals in mind. I.E. they may not like Canada, but family moved there. They may want to move to the US so they choose Canada as a "gateway" location, in other words they don't care about the country.

I genuinely like the damn country. Yet with Harper's new rules my years of work are useless. But as I've stated, I'm willing to try this college pathway if I can take some courses and get in, so be it. But what guarantee do I have that rules won't change in the next 3 years? It'll take 1 year to get a college certificate - at which I'm going to be paying dearly for - and another 2 years of work experience before i could be guaranteed a permanent resident application.

...and if the rules change again I could be deported if this new plan even works and apply after working and going to school in Canada.

You tell me, whats fair keith? I'm hardly sad you're offended at anything I've said.

 

[kEiThZ]

I have made the argument that higher language standards should be applied to attaining Citizenship, not to those seeking residency.

It's quite easy to make the argument that a fluent english speaking American with a college degree is not to be preferred over the cook. The cook has skills our economy needs. Even the Liberals were trying hard when they were in power to attract more migrants in trades (plumbers, electricians, etc.). And the stats bear it out. We have severe shortages in the trades. And our trades workforce is aging as well (which will only make things worse). Meanwhile, we have many an unemployed IT consultant or financial analysts. So why should we be passing over cooks (who we need) and taking in IT consultants (who we'd add to the unemployment lines)?

 

[Brandon716]

I wonder why you even bother to participate in this discussion, the arguments you're putting forth are so weak they don't really say much.

I say let both me and the Russian in. BUT, for the sake of argument, if it has to be either/or, I say choose me.

BTW, I didn't know the IT industry has huge unemployment. Last time I checked, manufacturing is where the problem is and that's the sector hurting Ontario's employment numbers. RIM, for example, has employment centers all over Ontario and they are mostly short staffed trying to find people. They seem to ignore applications like mine since I have no Social Insurance Number and no official status, but they still are short staffed.

But because some Harper immigration minister decided only certain parts of IT should be accepted, I have no chance.

Yea, that's fair keith. Real fair...

And I have to listen to you say YOU are offended? LOL

What do you have to be offended at? That you can't prove Harper's policy is awesome and get people to agree with you that Harper is just awesome, snazzy, cool?

 

[kEiThZ]

I dare you to make an argument that an English speaking American with a college education and several years of experience is harder to assimilate than a Russian who has broken English or French with no education and low wage skills.

If you're offended that I ask, I can't say I understand. We're talking about qualified immigration applicants, nothing more.

Personally I value multi-culturalism, but lets face it, I should be allowed in Canada and my app is being denied.

I'm not making the case that Russians shouldn't be given a chance - or any nationality - but my app should be reviewed and I should be let in. Period.

Afterall, despite the fact that I dislike the Harper government, I also respect their right to govern if the Canadian people vote them into office. Despite the fact that I've went through all this b.s. I still like Canada and what it stands for, and the way Canadian cities feel.

Immigration isn't clear cut, many applicants have other goals in mind. I.E. they may not like Canada, but family moved there. They may want to move to the US so they choose Canada as a "gateway" location, in other words they don't care about the country.

I genuinely like the damn country. Yet with Harper's new rules my years of work are useless. But as I've stated, I'm willing to try this college pathway if I can take some courses and get in, so be it. But what guarantee do I have that rules won't change in the next 3 years? It'll take 1 year to get a college certificate - at which I'm going to be paying dearly for - and another 2 years of work experience before i could be guaranteed a permanent resident application.

...and if the rules change again I could be deported if this new plan even works and apply after working and going to school in Canada.

You tell me, whats fair keith? I'm hardly sad you're offended at anything I've said.

You are personalizing a debate about policy. Yes, you love Canada. So do I by the way (that's I am on here debating what I think is best for my country). However, loving a country does not form the basis for immigration policy anywhere. Could I move to the US or the UK if I am in love with New York or London?

Yes, immigrants can have many goals and some of them can be nefarious. I personally know somebody who moved to Canada, took citizenship then moved to the US. For that scenario, I have argued that residency requirements need to be lengthened to dissuade those who would do that (and several folks on here have disagreed with me on that point). In the end, however, we can only design immigration policies to meet certain testable criteria. There is no way to test an immigrant on how much he/she 'loves' Canada, support multi-culturalism (which few would understand without living in Canada) or guarantee that they aren't using Canada as a gateway (there might still be those willing to wait 7 years even to get a Canadian passport for a trip out). In the end the only thing the government can screen for as some basics that ensure quick integration into the labour market, and we generally hope the rest works out. That's been a fairly consistent approach for most of the post-war era (regardless of the party in power) and one that I strongly support.

 

[Brandon716]

So I'm not allowed to discuss personal experiences, after talking stats and facts, because it doesn't fit your criteria for a discussion? You do realize this isn't a board room or a discussion panel in Ottawa, right? People like me and you have little effect on how to shape policy, and we're not policy makers. That is, unless you're a secret Conservative sleeper cell who lurks UT for fun.

I happen to be a voice of where this policy has direct effect, and if you don't want to hear about the direct effects of the policy then you aren't really interested in the policy, its end result, or the people it effects. And in the long term I'm not sure how avoiding the facts helps Canada if that's what you're interested in.

One thing I've learned in this experience is what a transsexual feels like. I'm a Canadian trapped in an American's personal identity/body.

I'm glad I love my penis. If I felt trapped in the wrong body, I would certainly have been insane by now. Its hard enough with the desire to be Canadian when that decision is out of my control, yet seems so simple in concept. I live 250 miles from downtown Toronto and have no choice, yet I could move 2500 miles to San Francisco tomorrow if I WANTED to....

I've also become much more sympathetic to the Mexican and latin immigrants right here in the United States, which if you haven't been paying attention to US domestic politics lately, they've become pretty much the scapegoat for all of blue collar and anti-multi-cultural America's haste and disdain over the past few years.

So if anything, this ordeal has made me even more in tune with the transsexual and latin american community.

 

[kEiThZ]

BTW, I didn't know the IT industry has huge unemployment. Last time I checked, manufacturing is where the problem is and that's the sector hurting Ontario's employment numbers. RIM, for example, has employment centers all over Ontario and they are mostly short staffed trying to find people. They seem to ignore applications like mine since I have no Social Insurance Number and no official status, but they still are short staffed.

Even RIM has laid off some staff. And yes, according to many of my friends who are in IT, the slowdown has most certainly impacted them. Although, manufacturing has been hardest hit in Ontario, that does not mean the recession has been limited to only one sector. What do you think happens to GM's IT contractor when GM starts closing plants? Even the banks and insurance companies, which all have large IT units, are downsizing a little (that's how my gf's father lost his job earlier).

But because some Harper immigration minister decided only certain parts of IT should be accepted, I have no chance.

Although, I sincerely feel sorry for your predicament (since you really are sincere about moving here), I don't see this as a political decision. Yes, some policy analyst at immigration did his job and found the holes in the labour market for IT and decided to lump those into a category. Those who don't have the skills will have a rough time getting in today. In 5 years from now, however, you could well be under a category that is getting fast-tracked and you'd get a visa within 6 months. That's why I don't see this as a political decision. It's the unfortunate reality of crafting policy for an area that will create winners and losers regardless of any decision.