[kEiThZ]

My point is not that we should be less favourable to migrants from the rest of the world, but that people like Brandon should not have to jump through so many hoops if he could come here, get a job within six months, and pay his way. People like Brandon are less of a drain on Canada than people with less than flawless language skills who intend to return 60% of their wages in remittances (a drain on our local economy). Not to say we should not admit people like that, but if we do, people like Brandon are a slam dunk.

It's not that I have anything against Brandon but I am always weary about creating exceptions to rules. Eventually, you get swiss cheese. What you are proposing is indeed different standards. If you come from an anglophone country (essentially there are about 5) you get entry easily. But if you are a fluent English speaker from say Helsinki, then you have to wait in line?

My issue is our absolutely insane barriers against individuals from culturally similar, wealthy nations--these are people who have the easiest time assimilating, and require the least government support to get established.

Less barriers for some than others?

I don't think 'working proficiency' is anything approaching flawless fluency. And it does make a difference in terms of economic success. But I don't have any particular issue with language proficiency of non-family class migrants.

We can quibble about the standards used to judge proficiency. But I am skeptical that the principle should be changed. Our system today is impartial and does not impart preferential treatment based on where someone is born or where they are applying from. I'd like it to stay that way. If you want to ensure that incoming migrants have higher chances of success simply change the criteria to reflect that. You don't need to give one group preferential treatment to achieve that. I presume that most applicants from Anglo countries could pass a higher language bar.

Of note though, can you point out what barriers anglo applicants have that other applicants don't? They are judged the same on every criteria and more lightly on some (education, language skills, etc.). Moreover, I am fairly certain that if you were to look at the stats that these applicants probably already qualify fairly easily today. And you want to give them an even easier time?

 

[afransen]

I'm not saying that the barriers are different, but that the barriers are excessive and absurd.

Frankly, I'm not happy with the reforms that have been put into place. Creating a laundry list of a handful of narrow job classes that one must have experience in to even be considered for entry is just stupid. Especially so when we let unskilled people into the country who sometimes show little to no interest in participating in Canadian society through family class. Beyond that, if our immigration system was less insane, perhaps we wouldn't have the issues we see with the refugee system.

As it is, the system we have now is swiss cheese. You can't immigrate to Canada--except for a handful of job categories. You can't freely travel to Canada--except for those residents of countries without visa requirements.

 

[afransen]

Additionally, what I am advocating for is greater labour mobility particularly with the US, but also a few other culturally similar countries. This is no different than the labour mobility allowed within the EU. I see absolutely nothing wrong with given preferential access to residents of our primary trading partner.

 

[kEiThZ]

Additionally, what I am advocating for is greater labour mobility particularly with the US, but also a few other culturally similar countries. This is no different than the labour mobility allowed within the EU. I see absolutely nothing wrong with given preferential access to residents of our primary trading partner.

I am supportive of that. However, I don't think the barrier there is Canada.

 

[kEiThZ]

I'm not saying that the barriers are different, but that the barriers are excessive and absurd.

Frankly, I'm not happy with the reforms that have been put into place. Creating a laundry list of a handful of narrow job classes that one must have experience in to even be considered for entry is just stupid. Especially so when we let unskilled people into the country who sometimes show little to no interest in participating in Canadian society through family class. Beyond that, if our immigration system was less insane, perhaps we wouldn't have the issues we see with the refugee system.

You know as well I do that the family class is difficult to touch. You can thank the Liberals for making it that way. I wholly agree that this class needs serious reform. I too, would rather see the country rely less on family class immigration and more on economic or entrepreneurial migrants.

As it is, the system we have now is swiss cheese. You can't immigrate to Canada--except for a handful of job categories. You can't freely travel to Canada--except for those residents of countries without visa requirements.

Here I will disagree with you. These requirement are unfortunately needed in the real world. If we did not screen for the needs of our labour market the applicant we did get would be the leftovers of global oversupply in any given employment field. As for travel, seeking a visa is hardly that much of a hinderance. And the only countries we really apply it to are the ones where we worry about security, overstaying of the visitor, etc. I don't consider it all that unfair. Visas are generally granted if the applicant has no worrisome traits. It'd be nice to be able to drop visa requirements to be able to visit Canada but you can imagine what would happen if Canada did that. You can't reform this without reforming some other parts of the system (for example, the refugee claims process).

 

[jade_lee]

Critics blame Ottawa for refugee backlog

SPECIAL TO THE STAR

Janet Dench of the Canadian Council for Refugees says the Harper government has "a lot of nerve."




Crackdown on visas stands, Harper says
Prime Minister Stephen Harper says his government was forced to introduce visa requirements for Mexican visitors to Canada because of the rise in illegitimate refugee claims.
Aug 11, 2009 04:30 AM
Joanna Smith
Ottawa Bureau

OTTAWA–The refugee system is only broken because the federal government has taken too long to give it the resources needed to tackle a growing backlog of claims, critics argued yesterday.

They were reacting to a statement by Prime Minister Stephen Harper that a dysfunctional refugee system, which he said encourages illegitimate claims, is the reason behind a new visa requirement straining Canada-Mexico relations.

Auditor General Sheila Fraser said in her March report that the Immigration and Refugee Board saw a significant decrease in its number of decision-makers beginning in the second quarter of the fiscal 2006/2007 and at one point was operating with a 35 per cent vacancy rate.

Critics say the shortage is to blame for a backlog of pending refugee claims the Treasury Board expects to grow up to 94,000 by the end of 2009/2010.

"The government has really got quite a lot of nerve to attack the system for having a backlog when they themselves are the key reason that a backlog exists," said Janet Dench, executive director of the Montreal-based Canadian Council for Refugees.

Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney told the House of Commons in April appointments to the board "slowed down for a certain period of time" because of a new pre-screening process involving exams and interviews for candidates.

There has been a flurry of appointments in recent months but there is still an 11 per cent vacancy rate with 18 out of 164 positions unfilled.

"When you allow a backlog to develop, then it creates more of an incentive for people who don't need protection to enter the system, so they have in fact been attracting claimants that don't need Canada's protection by allowing a backlog to develop," Dench said.

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said Harper should try to fix the system before blaming it for a politically controversial decision.

"Don't go to a foreign conference and make excuses for your own government's inaction," Ignatieff told CTV News in London, Ont., yesterday.

Harper told reporters covering the Three Amigos summit in Guadalajara, Mexico, that Parliament would have to fix the refugee system before the visa crackdown would end.

A current government bill that proposes amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is meant to tackle human trafficking and ignores this issue entirely.

 

[kEiThZ]

^ Propaganda from the CCR. I agree that the backlog needs to be tackled. But that's not the reason the refugee system is broken. It was broken long before the Conservatives came to power. The fact that Roma (citizens of EU countries) and Mexicans (citizens of one of our best trade and security partners) can claim refuge shows how broken the system. Getting the backlog down to 0 won't fix any of that.

 

[jade_lee]

^ Propaganda from the CCR. I agree that the backlog needs to be tackled. But that's not the reason the refugee system is broken. It was broken long before the Conservatives came to power. The fact that Roma (citizens of EU countries) and Mexicans (citizens of one of our best trade and security partners) can claim refuge shows how broken the system. Getting the backlog down to 0 won't fix any of that.

Don't forget the American soldiers.

 

[afransen]

^ Propaganda from the CCR. I agree that the backlog needs to be tackled. But that's not the reason the refugee system is broken. It was broken long before the Conservatives came to power. The fact that Roma (citizens of EU countries) and Mexicans (citizens of one of our best trade and security partners) can claim refuge shows how broken the system. Getting the backlog down to 0 won't fix any of that.

What's interesting is that a decent proportion of these refugee claims succeed. So perhaps they are not so unfounded.

It is also true that the government has left many vacancies at the IRB, something like a third of all positions. That smells to me like saboutaging the system, which is a pattern we seem to see repeated by this government to justify politically unpopular action. 'If it aint broke, break it.'

 

[Brandon716]

I'm not saying that the barriers are different, but that the barriers are excessive and absurd.

Frankly, I'm not happy with the reforms that have been put into place. Creating a laundry list of a handful of narrow job classes that one must have experience in to even be considered for entry is just stupid. Especially so when we let unskilled people into the country who sometimes show little to no interest in participating in Canadian society through family class. Beyond that, if our immigration system was less insane, perhaps we wouldn't have the issues we see with the refugee system.

As it is, the system we have now is swiss cheese. You can't immigrate to Canada--except for a handful of job categories. You can't freely travel to Canada--except for those residents of countries without visa requirements.

Thanks for sticking up for me. Keith loves a good argument and will go on and on about things, but the bottom line is that the US and Canada should have an reciprocated immigration policy where its as easy as applying for a passport or license to be able to live in the other nation.

I repeat: the US has preferential rules that allows Canadians to easily apply and gain access to the US market. Canada does not have the same kind of system set up for Americans.

 

[Brandon716]

The biggest problem with the immigration 'reform' bill that passed last year was that it limited immigration to so few categories and is so super restrictive. Most people immigrate for either skilled worker or family class. Family class is one thing, its always been relatively easy as it can be processed in Canada, but for the rest of us who want to apply as an independent worker class its hell. The reduction of applications to only 38 categories is one of the most restrictive systems in the western world. Its not as bad as when Germany required blood lineage to gain citizenship back years ago, but its bad enough.

Canada should not be limiting immigrants to such a small trickle of categories. Its simply not healthy.

 

[salvius]

I repeat: the US has preferential rules that allows Canadians to easily apply and gain access to the US market. Canada does not have the same kind of system set up for Americans.

Can you tell me what these are? I applied and interview for a job two or so years ago which was over the other side of the border. While the TN visa was zero problem, the employer explained to me that it could never convert into anything more than that. I didn't end up taking the job for other reasons and I certainly never cared to check thoroughly and see what the process outside the TN visa was so I'd be interested to know, should the need ever arise.

 

[kEiThZ]

Keith loves a good argument and will go on and on about things…

I don't argue about this stuff for the sake of arguing. I genuinely care about my country and I genuinely want to see good policies in place that advance the interests of Canadians.

There are many exceptions that have been discussed here that would benefit family members or friends that I have. However, I would still speak out against them because if and when I believe that such policies are bad for the country at large.

I repeat: the US has preferential rules that allows Canadians to easily apply and gain access to the US market. Canada does not have the same kind of system set up for Americans.

What kind of visas other than the TN does the US provide specifically for Canadians? I have never known a Canadian who moved to the States through a straight application for residency. Most have moved as a result of marriage or through securing employment under TN or H1 and progressing from those visas/permits to get Green Cards. I daresay that the US system is far more byzantine than the Canadian system. However, I would honestly like to know what preferential rules there are so that I can pass them on to those who may be interested. Please post them when you get the chance.

Can you tell me what these are? I applied and interview for a job two or so years ago which was over the other side of the border. While the TN visa was zero problem, the employer explained to me that it could never convert into anything more than that. I didn't end up taking the job for other reasons and I certainly never cared to check thoroughly and see what the process outside the TN visa was so I'd be interested to know, should the need ever arise.

That's exactly the problem with the TN visa. You have to leave when you are done. I'd like to see what Brandon digs up on alternate entry paths for Canadians because I would not count the TN as some sort of great portal for Canadians seeking residency in the US.

...but the bottom line is that the US and Canada should have an reciprocated immigration policy where its as easy as applying for a passport or license to be able to live in the other nation.

I have said before that I would not accept a policy that exempts immigrants from english speaking countries from the majority of the immigration criteria simply because I believe that such a policy is discriminatory and quite frankly racist. The criteria should be whether the person speaks English and their level of fluency, not how familiar they are with Anglo culture.

However, I have always supported what you propose here. I would not limit it to just the US. I would throw in other close trading partner like Mexico and the EU nations. However, I highly doubt that the intrasigent party here is Canada. Could you ever see the US crafting an immigration policy where it would be "as easy as applying for a passport or license" for Canadians could take up residency in the US? Heck, there's a Democratic administration in Washington now and they want to fly Predator droners along the US-Canada border. The key here is reciprocity. Why should Canada open its doors wide open to Americans without the US according Canadians the same treatment?

There are issues that need to be worked out too. There are some major threats to Canada here. I for one, would be weary of Canada becoming a dumping ground for Americans seeking free health care. If the sheer amount of drugs being siphoned off from Canada was any indication in recent years (until the feds clamped down), is it not reasonable to believe that much worse would happen. Today, we screen potential immigrants for health issues and do deny them residency if they were to be an undue burden on the health care system. I would want some kind of check against these kinds of problems if we want to make it as easy as you suggest to seek residency from our partner countries.

In sum, I am not opposed to make it far easier for citizens of our partner nations to take up residency in Canada. However, I feel it's only fair that Canadians be accorded full reciprocity (not some kind of half-assed work permit thingy if we are handing out PR cards). And when it comes to giving out residency, I would want the same protections that are in place now when we screen potential immigrants today.