[Brandon716]

Just for the record, I was able to apply under the 0213 category, but I was rejected for "not having enough experience" since I don't have over 12 months of consecutive experience with one employer in that field. I do have 3 years of experience in the 2282 category, which is no longer eligible because of Harper's new stupid immigration rules.

 

[kEiThZ]

Just for the record, I was able to apply under the 0213 category, but I was rejected for "not having enough experience" since I don't have over 12 months of consecutive experience with one employer in that field. I do have 3 years of experience in the 2282 category, which is no longer eligible because of Harper's new stupid immigration rules.

I am sorry to hear that. You shouldn't give up. My parents were rejected the first time around. You are only 27. My dad was 40 when we moved here. He had a wife and two kids in tow as well. If your goal is migration try and tailor your job experience for the next few years to meet that immigration critieria. There's no guarantee of course that change won't happen if there's a change in the labour market or a change in government. Though, I just don't foresee a real change in any of this if the Liberals get in. They might add or subtract a few categories. But rejigging the system would probably be a step too far for them. It's actually proving quite popular in many quarters where those with the right quals are now getting PR in months instead of years.

Either way, I wish you well in your quest to become Canadian.

 

[afransen]

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.

I see a few problems here. Firstly, I have no faith whatsoever in the ability of a government bureaucracy to identify and flag employment categories as priorities. Command and control doesn't work very well, and I don't see why this would be any different. I predict that it will be slow, ineffective, ignore small sectors who don't have the ear of their local MP, and generally rife with political interference.

Secondly, to flatly refuse anyone without experience in a couple dozen employment categories is qualitatively different to giving preference to certain employment categories. It isn't reasonable to say that people who do not fit into these particular categories should be rejected out of hand, even if an employer is willing to hire them the moment they arrive.

 

[kEiThZ]

I see a few problems here. Firstly, I have no faith whatsoever in the ability of a government bureaucracy to identify and flag employment categories as priorities. Command and control doesn't work very well, and I don't see why this would be any different. I predict that it will be slow, ineffective, ignore small sectors who don't have the ear of their local MP, and generally rife with political interference.

Secondly, to flatly refuse anyone without experience in a couple dozen employment categories is qualitatively different to giving preference to certain employment categories. It isn't reasonable to say that people who do not fit into these particular categories should be rejected out of hand, even if an employer is willing to hire them the moment they arrive.

Yet, again I ask..how is this any different from the old system? In the old system the amount of points you got for your skills really made your application. Brandon's case notwithstanding, if you had less than significant experience in a bunch of categories, you would not likely have gotten enough points to migrate then either. Having a job that was not in demand resulted in 0 points which guaranteed that you would not get enough points to qualify. As I have said before, the change is cosmetic. Whereas they gave out large amounts of points to those with in demand skills before, today they simply state explicitly that you will qualify if you have these skills...no facade of pretending that others might qualify.

To use the example of my father. He did not qualify under the old system as a electrical engineer at the time. When he reapplied as a electrical inspector he did. That's really not too different then the challenges that some of the migrants will face under this system today. At least if they are grouping jobs, it might at least make it easier for some....for example my father would not have had to re-apply under this system. His experience in the group would have been sufficient.

I agree with you that there is potential for the system to be ineffective. But what would you propose? This is essentially the same system we have had for years with only some minor changes at the margins. The categories is the only significant 'restriction' made by the Conservative government. And that's debatable because there are some who will benefit (see my example above) and some who will loose out. The Experience class for temporary workers and students is a loosening of our immigration policy. The other categories have not changed at all. So it's pretty sketchy to say that we are dramatically curtailing immigration because of changes to just one category while the government has opened up a whole new path of immigration. It's particularly suspect to claim that immigration is being curtailed because none of these policies will change the numbers of migrants we get, just the type.

But again what's the alternative here? If we don't screen according to the job market, our government will effectively be screwing over native Canadians by saturating some sectors. The categories are fairly accurate (unless you happen to think Stats Can is completely off its rocker). They are not political. The policy analysts at Immigration use labour market stats and projections to define their categories. They aren't throwing darts at a board. And nobody has ever said that these categories are fixed for all time. These are the categories that are open today. Tomorrow it will be different.

 

[afransen]

I guess my point is that whenever you have a laundry list of skills an applicant must have, there will be some skills not on the list that would be useful. I can only imagine that there are 100 job groups that may have varying degrees of labour shortage and are not on the list.

I don't have any knowledge of how the categories are selected. One would hope that it is based on labour market statistics. On the other hand, small sectors would tend to be left out, and what is the lead time from sampling for statistical analysis to policy implementation? 18 months? Three years? I would favour a more laissez-faire system, so long as the prospective migrants are not dead weight.

 

[Brandon716]

Even RIM has laid off some staff.

At this point IT isn't even my passion anymore, I want to go into sociology and then eventually local government in service of people. Not sure if that would be in an urban planning capacity or maybe a capacity of other means, health or etc.

What I do know is that if RIM offered a job, I would take a RIM job right now.


...and that joke was too easy to make.

 

[kEiThZ]

I don't have any knowledge of how the categories are selected. One would hope that it is based on labour market statistics. On the other hand, small sectors would tend to be left out, and what is the lead time from sampling for statistical analysis to policy implementation? 18 months? Three years? I would favour a more laissez-faire system, so long as the prospective migrants are not dead weight.

The Liberals (Bevilacqua I think) had proposed that....basing the system solely on education instead of giving points for experience. The reason that idea was rejected (and by most Liberals at the time) was because it did not adequately meet the acute shortages we have for skilled jobs that don't require a university education (plumbers, carpenters, etc.)

 

[Brandon716]

I guess my point is that whenever you have a laundry list of skills an applicant must have, there will be some skills not on the list that would be useful. I can only imagine that there are 100 job groups that may have varying degrees of labour shortage and are not on the list.

I don't have any knowledge of how the categories are selected. One would hope that it is based on labour market statistics. On the other hand, small sectors would tend to be left out, and what is the lead time from sampling for statistical analysis to policy implementation? 18 months? Three years? I would favour a more laissez-faire system, so long as the prospective migrants are not dead weight.

Couldn't have said it better myself in regards to the 38 categories. They are too restrictive to work with the market's "needs"... But remember, these categories really weren't created with the market in mind. They were created to reduce backlog of applications. They are only being marketed as tools to help the Canadian job market, because its good PR to say so.

They've temporarily worked to reduce backlog, but in the process hundreds of thousands of potential Canadians are being rejected that are more qualified than many they will be letting in.

And that's at the core of the discussion. The particular problem I have with keith's argument, like many we've had before, is that he appears to be arguing for the sake of just having an argument. I feel he's genuinely just trying to find any reason to support the new immigration rules because he's fond of the Harper government.

That's what I really find disingenuous when told that he wants me to immigrate successfully, despite the fact that I'm being screwed while standing and treated like some ill-equipped applicant as I've had two applications denied since 2007, one a work permit, one a perm resident app. Every time I fail, I adjust my game and try something new with the information given.

Then the rules change and its back to ground zero.

 

[Brandon716]

The Liberals (Bevilacqua I think) had proposed that....basing the system solely on education instead of giving points for experience. The reason that idea was rejected (and by most Liberals at the time) was because it did not adequately meet the acute shortages we have for skilled jobs that don't require a university education (plumbers, carpenters, etc.)

And the Conservatives created the most restrictive immigration system in Canadian history by reducing the categories to 38 specific job titles to reduce backlog and give the immigration minister right to reject most applicants. They did not create it to promote Canadian industry. The Harper government wanted the immigration minister to have the right to hand down orders to reject applications without receiving a full review. That's the purpose of these rule changes you don't seem to understand.

These are facts.

And these 38 categories are extremely specific. For example, if you aren IT specialist with a different title than 0213, you cannot immigrate. Its not like 0213 is a generic IT category where anyone who has experience can immigrate.

Same for the other categories.

 

[kEiThZ]

So what's the alternative here? We can't keep throwing money at the problem. Ottawa would become one giant immigration application processing facility. Applications are continuing to rise. Either we create standards that screen them out quicker or we commit to constantly increasing our immigration staff in proportion to the applications we receive (which would be outsize growth in relation to the rest of the Government of Canada). Immigration has hired and grown in the few years I have been in Ottawa. However, that's still been insufficient to handle the backlog. If you have a way to solve the backlog, other than making every analyst in government transfer to immigration let's hear it. Otherwise, quick screens are not all that bad.

 

[Brandon716]

So what's the alternative here? We can't keep throwing money at the problem. Ottawa would become one giant immigration application processing facility. Applications are continuing to rise. Either we create standards that screen them out quicker or we commit to constantly increasing our immigration staff in proportion to the applications we receive (which would be outsize growth in relation to the rest of the Government of Canada). Immigration has hired and grown in the few years I have been in Ottawa. However, that's still been insufficient to handle the backlog. If you have a way to solve the backlog, other than making every analyst in government transfer to immigration let's hear it. Otherwise, quick screens are not all that bad.

You are being way overly dramatic. At least when I'm being dramatic I'm just invoking humor to get a laugh...

The "problem" only applies to certain countries. From the US applications only took 12-48 months to process, and that is reasonable. I'd say the Buffalo office wouldn't need many new employees. And the only reason it would take 48 months is if people didn't include their FBI security clearance with the report or something to that effect... People who hire immigration consultants/lawyers or read instructions properly get the service they deserve.

BTW, I have two FBI fingerprint cards that have been processed since 2007 stating I have no criminal record and they are thus far useless. They lay dormant in my closet since they weren't even given a chance at review.

Remind you the new immigration review officers would not be employed in Ottawa, they would be employed in the consular offices in the home countries from which people apply.

You seem to understand the immigration system very little to be such an outspoken person on the issue. Unfortunately, I've had to learn so much about it I could practically be an immigration consultant myself.

The real problem with wait times is India and nations in Asia where Canadian applications have went up ten-fold over the past 20 years or so.

And it would not take that many new agents to process apps, just enough to get the job done. If I had insider numbers I could do calculations, but here's what I can tell you. Based on the old numbers on the CIC web site, under the old system only a few countries had years and years of wait.

Under the old system I could have gotten my permanent application processed in a reasonable time period because my application is processed through the office in Buffalo.

Talking about the wait list for immigration is almost like when stupid Americans complain about Canada's health care "wait list" when each hospital has a different queue, because each hospital has a different work load. Its kind of hard to say the wait was too unbearable when it was really only a few nations who had the significant problem. Besides, it took me 2 months to see a doctor when I scheduled in January here in Pittsburgh for a pretty standard visit... Its not like WE don't have a wait system.

If this argument were about the health system, your prescription (and the Conservatives) would be just to limit patients and kick them out with denials of health service, American style. No more wait list! Problem solved!

BTW, speaking of American immigration, our system is BRUTAL. If you aren't a high-profile applicant (i.e. movie star, high level scientist) you are put in a lottery system and chosen at random. Qualifications and education mean nothing when applying for a green card for the vast majority of people.

So at least Canada has reasonable policies, despite the recent destruction of that reasonable policy somewhat.

 

[kEiThZ]

Couldn't have said it better myself in regards to the 38 categories. They are too restrictive to work with the market's "needs"... But remember, these categories really weren't created with the market in mind. They were created to reduce backlog of applications. They are only being marketed as tools to help the Canadian job market, because its good PR to say so.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/EnGLIsh/immigrate/skilled/apply-who-instructions.asp#list

Please point out which occupations on the list are there for PR. I am sure we have no need for more university professors in Canada.

They've temporarily worked to reduce backlog, but in the process hundreds of thousands of potential Canadians are being rejected that are more qualified than many they will be letting in.

Your racist claptrap about the Russian cook won't fly here. Just because someone does not have a university education or speaks english with 'moderate proficiency' does not mean that they are not adequate for our job market. Have you any idea about how badly our construction industry needs workers? Yet we have a system designed to bring us lawyers and accountants. The new Canadians who are being brought in will be eminently qualified by the one standard that matters: their ability to address the labour shortages in this country.

And that's at the core of the discussion. The particular problem I have with keith's argument, like many we've had before, is that he appears to be arguing for the sake of just having an argument. I feel he's genuinely just trying to find any reason to support the new immigration rules because he's fond of the Harper government.

I could say the same for you....You are bitter because the Harper government made changes that screwed your over. In fact, you are so bitter that you are now willing to state openly that you deserve immigration just because you speak less accented english. I am curious to know how you would feel if the Liberals had made similar changes. At the rate the backlog was growing, it's quite likely that the Liberals could well have adopted some similar policies. I doubt even the Liberal government would have been amenable to giving Immigration a perpetually growing budget.

I am not here arguing because I think Harper's the cats meow. I am sincerely passionate about my country....so much so that I willing to put on a uniform with its flag every morning. I want policies that are effective. I am not here debating the personal merits of these policies. I defend them because I consider them to be effective in addressing some severe problems that we had in our immigration system (which predate the current government).

That's what I really find disingenuous when told that he wants me to immigrate successfully, despite the fact that I'm being screwed while standing and treated like some ill-equipped applicant as I've had two applications denied since 2007, one a work permit, one a perm resident app.

I am able to separate my sympathy for you as a person from my genuine desire to see my country have the best immigration system possible. As a citizen I want a system that brings the best migrants into this country. As a person who happens to know you through this forum, and understand your passion for the land of the maple leaf, I do sympathize with your plight. However, I am not going to adjust my views based on the plight of one person I know. Imagine if we started making policies like that for every challenge in our country.

In cases like yours, in particular, I have mentioned this before...I'd support a Canada-US agreement allowing our citizens to work and live across each other's border. Unfortunately, the obstacle to that vision isn't my government. And Obama looks like he's going to thicken the border further.

 

[kEiThZ]

Remind you the new immigration review officers would not be employed in Ottawa, they would be employed in the consular offices in the home countries from which people apply.

Where do you think the immigration officers come from? We don't use locally engaged staff for immigration review. Aside from the immigration staff going over the applications, there are a number of other government agencies that vet applications as well for security reasons. It's not just a matter of increasing a few consular staff members. If it was that easy, we would never have had this problem in the first place. Immigration is certainly the biggest bottleneck but it's not the only one.

 

[Brandon716]

In fact, you are so bitter that you are now willing to state openly that you deserve immigration just because you speak less accented english.

I never said such a thing. I said because I speak the official language fluently and have an education, I should have an easy ride BECAUSE I AM QUALIFIED APPROPRIATELY. And when I say that, I apply that across the points based system they have to qualify. Its not like I should be allowed just because I speak native English.

And as far as the English thing, I'm lucky in that regard. But it doesn't mean I'm not more qualified than someone else applying to move to Canada.

You find this offensive, but its true. I wouldn't immigrate to Russia or China without knowing cyrillic or mandarin (or whatever is official in China).

Its amazing you were arguing that you wanted people who could assimilate to Canada easier, and you touted Harper's policy for doing that (without providing any details), yet now that I'm making the same argument for myself you find it offensive and anti-multi-cultural. POT. KETTLE. BLACK.

I'm not looking for a free ride, but I do qualify better than most applicants yet I'm getting rejected.

If you want me to extrapolate this point, I think someone from France who immigrates to Canada should also get priority. They are probably more qualified than most applicants because their French would be top notch, despite the accent differences between Quebec and France. The French education system is top notch, and I think Canada should welcome people who have used the resources of such an advanced nation yet would prefer to live in another advanced nation like Canada. Canada gets all the benefits, yet didn't spend anything to raise and educate that applicant. They speak the proper language, and they would be educated. Its pretty simple in my opinion.

That isn't a bigoted statement, its just the way things are. Someone who speaks native French is a better fit to immigrate than someone who is Persian or Tibetian or from Botswana and learns moderately-capable French in order to move to Quebec.

Mind you, I'm talking about people who only put an effort in to speak moderately viable language skills. My argument doesn't even apply to an immigrant who doesn't have native English or French, yet puts the effort to REALLY learn the language. There is such a category as an advanced, accented English or French speaker.

People who immigrate from lands that don't speak latin based languages will have an extra educational curve to overcome, but you know what, I think they should be required to learn the language fluently before applying as an indivdual skilled worker/independent class immigrant.

Its different if you have family, people can sneak in with less fluent English or French. But if you are independent, you should be required to communicate so you can live.

There are three immigrant categories: family based, independent based, and there is refugee based. If you are applying as an independent then English or French language should be required to be fully fluent. You aren't going to have a family member to interpret for you, and you aren't filing as a refugee running from something terribly bad.

That's not bigoted, its just life. I wouldn't move to Russia or China or some other land if I didn't know the local language enough to live. I wouldn't expect their system to pander to me because I refused to learn their culture.

Keith, its obvious you love to argue just for argument sakes. I really have nothing to prove to you, take my beliefs for what they are, but don't reduce my arguments to the idea that I only think english speaking Americans should immigrate to Canada. Part of the reason I like Canada is because its more of a multi-cultural mosaic and less of a hectic melting pot. I love hearing other languages being spoken, and the diversity of places like Toronto.

But that doesn't mean skilled immigrants in the independent class should not learn the native language. Its not good for someone to be allowed to immigrate and not be able to function in society.

 

[kEiThZ]

Its amazing you were arguing that you wanted people who could assimilate to Canada easier, and you touted Harper's policy for doing that (without providing any details), yet now that I'm making the same argument for myself you find it offensive and anti-multi-cultural.

Once again I made that argument for Citizenship not residency. And the argument that I made was that the Conservative government was right to enforce the policy on the books. There was no new law here. They merely stated that they would not give the citizenship tests in Punjabi, Mandarin, etc. any more. That's merely enforcing the rules on the books.

That's a far cry from saying that someone should or should not be given preference based on their language skills (above and beyond mandated requirements). That's nothing pro-multi-cultural about that at all. That kind of policy would bias our system to immigrants from the anglosphere and the handful of countries which still teach school in English (private schools in India and some of the commonwealth).