Immigration changes unfair, critics charge

[Leafless]

Proposed changes to the Immigration Act may allow the overhaul of Canada's immigration system, but critics fear they could also allow Immigration Minister Diane Finley to ram through changes without parliamentary – and public – oversight.

Since Bill 50 was introduced this month, Finley has been touting it as a way to reduce the 800,000-case backlog and cut long waiting times for immigration applications.

The bill would allow the minister to discard applications from specific countries, reject applicants who otherwise meet all immigration criteria, and accelerate some applications, allowing queue-jumping.

To all those advocating Canada needs skilled labour, what better way is there to accomplish this RATHER than allow public servants to allow into this country any immigrant that happens to meet conditions under the current law utilizing 'objective criteria'.

'Objective criteria' process of course is flawed and leaves the skilled immigrants Canada requires lost in the masses of immigrants wanting to immigrate to Canada.

How any national federal party can object to this must have there own secret immigration agenda they are not telling Canadians about.

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/350074

[normanchateau]

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/350074

Your link included the following statement by Immigration Minister Diane Finley:

"We have to make it easier to get more people here faster. We have a backlog right now that the previous government ballooned from 50,000 to 800,000. It has since grown to 900,000."

Sounds to me like what the Minister is saying is that the Liberals slowed down immigration and we Conservatives are now going to speed it up. Wasn't it just a few years ago that the chameleon-like Harper complained how the immigrant vote was helping to elect Liberal MPs east of Manitoba?

[Leafless]

Sounds to me like what the Minister is saying is that the Liberals slowed down immigration and we Conservatives are now going to speed it up. Wasn't it just a few years ago that the chameleon-like Harper complained how the immigrant vote was helping to elect Liberal MPs east of Manitoba?

So you are implying that the Conservatives will use the same Liberal tactics to help the Conservatives East of Manitoba or other parts of the country.

I think the Liberals did use third world immigration by catering to that type of immigrant who by far formed the majority of immigrants wanting to come to Canada.

I think the Conservative plan is a good and with emphasis on the more educated and skilled type of immigrant, this will not be a problem, as they will adapt and assimilate/integrate easier and will not cater to any particular political party with preferences based on culture.

[normanchateau]

So you are implying that the Conservatives will use the same Liberal tactics to help the Conservatives East of Manitoba or other parts of the country.

I think the Liberals did use third world immigration by catering to that type of immigrant who by far formed the majority of immigrants wanting to come to Canada.

I think the Conservative plan is a good and with emphasis on the more educated and skilled type of immigrant, this will not be a problem, as they will adapt and assimilate/integrate easier and will not cater to any particular political party with preferences based on culture.

Now I get. Increased immigration is a good idea when the Conservatives do it because they'll pick good immigrants.

[scribblet]

The totally inept vote buying-Liberals used immigration as a tool to bolster their own ranks, therefore, they mand immigration advocates would not accept any changes to the act that would reduce their chances of recruiting ethnic votes when they eventually get back in office in the distant future.

Then there's the big problem of politicians too afraid to reform or even debate policies because the immigration and refugee industry -- mostly lawyers and ethnic leaders paid by government grants -- label all critics and criticism as racist. This is a step in the right direction towards standing up to these people porking at the immigrant trough. The opposition and those suffering from HDS (Harper derangement syndrom) would never agree to anything put forward by the CPC, no matter how good it might be for the country.

The current point system rewards a year of studies at Imperial College in London, or a year at Harvard, with the same points as a year at a third-rate school in Pakistan [or some other Third World country, the whole system needs reforming, as we need to tie our economy and needed job skills to the those applying for immigration.

[Leafless]

Now I get. Increased immigration is a good idea when the Conservatives do it because they'll pick good immigrants.

Yes, immigrants that the country needs:

Finley said the changes will help fill jobs that go empty while qualified people wait, as well as provide the option of faster processing for applicants from troubled areas.

Its about time an immigration minister is responsible for immigration rather than allow irresponsible immigration.

[Borg]

Here we go again.

Seems to me that any time we allow people to enter this country that can:

1. Speak one of the official languages

2. Provide a recognized and useable skill

3. Do not require pubblic funds to keep them afloat

4. Do not come with medical baggage

5. Come with money of their own

6. Plan to live and work in a place other than their "national enclave"

7. Actually plan to fit into our society as future proud canadians

8. Leave their personal and political troubles behind

9. Stop complaining about how corrupt western society is

10. Stop preaching hatred

........ and a whole bunch more .......

Well, that is a good thing. Tired of this country warehousing known and wanted criminals or refugees that expect life in the Hilton.

Now, if he would only address those "canadians of convenience"!

I wish him luck when the special interest groups start attacking and using MY tax dollar to sue.

Borg

[mikedavid00]

How any national federal party can object to this must have there own secret immigration agenda they are not telling Canadians about.

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/350074

Thanks for starting the topic. I was going to start the topic a couple of days back and am VERY, VERY excited about this news!

Like all things in Canadian politics, you have to look past the window dressings and then look out that window for motives.

What's happening? They are simply going to cap applications (70% of those family sponsorship to use services and assistance.. also thousands of HIV postive) and choose those who best meet the demands 'of Canada'. Yeah it's an old line, but Finley was talking about shortages in the 'true' term of what our shortages are - low paid labor. She gave examples of sandwich factory workers, line cooks, etc when she was on CBC radio earlier this week.

Motives? I don't think there is any. Even Monte Soleberg in several interviews dropped hints that they were going to have to limit applications and change the system becuase the current system was written by a bunch of idiots. Sorry.. an idiot.

Here is a good article on the issue:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=370894

Canada accepts about 250,000 immigrants a year, a figure that has increased since the Conservatives took office. The backlog of applications grew from 50,000 when the Liberal party took office in 1993 to around 500,000 in 2000. By the time the Conservatives came to power in early 2006, it was around 800,000 and in the past two years that number has grown to around 875,000.

Some estimates suggest that as many as one-quarter of current applications are more than six years old.

The Liberals made a number of attempts to eat into the backlog. For example, when Liberal MP Dennis Coderre was immigration minister in 2002, he raised the total number of points required for admission to 75 from 70 (points are allocated on the basis of language skills, education and job offers).

However, under pressure from the Liberals' ethnic voting base, the party backed down and reduced the number of points required to 67.

In 2005, with an election pending, then Liberal immigration minister Joe Volpe announced he would increase the number of immigrants by 100,000 a year -- a rise of 40% from existing levels at that time.

The Conservatives have long argued the Liberals allowed political, rather than economic, factors to dominate their immigration and refugee policy.

A report by the Fraser Institute in 2005 suggested that only 23% of immigrants are net fiscal contributors to Canada at a cost to the taxpayer every year of more than $18-billion (although 60% of immigrants are from the "economic class," fewer than half that number pass the points test -- the remainder are spouses and children).

Eventually, something has to be done about it.

But the Liberals don't care about Canada. They only care about getting eleceted.

Edited March 26, 2008 by mikedavid00

[Sean Hayward]

There was already a thread on this exact issue, wasn't there? Anyway, my position is clear. I support immigration to the extent that it benefits Canada, and this proposal by the Conservatives will further that principle in the immigration system. Is there a real debate on this proposal or do we all agree that it's a good thing?

[normanchateau]

Is there a real debate on this proposal or do we all agree that it's a good thing?

Sounds like Conservatives agree that increased immigration is a good idea when the Conservatives do it because they'll pick good immigrants and a bad idea when the Liberals do it because they'll pick bad immigrants.

[Leafless]

But the Liberals don't care about Canada. They only care about getting eleceted.

Bang on!

And here is proof:

McGuinty warns feds not to shut out less-skilled immigrants

http://canadianpress.google.com/article/AL...Qja0XzthEOesmPw

[scribblet]

There was already a thread on this exact issue, wasn't there? Anyway, my position is clear. I support immigration to the extent that it benefits Canada, and this proposal by the Conservatives will further that principle in the immigration system. Is there a real debate on this proposal or do we all agree that it's a good thing?

I think we are in agreement for the most part, but there will never be a 'r eal' debate unless the Harper haters are willing to look at the issue in terms of what is good for Canada and not whether or not the Liberals are the 'natural party for new Canadians' and only they can implement good immigration policy etc. etc.

The Frazer report quoted an Australian academic as "We are in awe at the ineptitude of the Canadian immigration selection process."

It is time to get past Harper Derangement Syndrome and discuss immigration rationally along terms of what is best for Canada, not what is best for the Liberal party, or the immigrant.

[scribblet]

BTW, this bill is a confidence matter - so will the Liberals stay away or let it pass

[Sean Hayward]

BTW, this bill is a confidence matter - so will the Liberals stay away or let it pass

It's part of the budget bill, C-50. It will be passed unless the Liberals want an election (which they don't).

[Leafless]

It's part of the budget bill, C-50. It will be passed unless the Liberals want an election (which they don't).

So what are you saying?

That the Liberals approve of this proposed immigration bill or they are not in the postion to do anything about it, thus allowing the Conservatives to rule as a de facto majority government.

[Wilber]

A report by the Fraser Institute in 2005 suggested that only 23% of immigrants are net fiscal contributors to Canada at a cost to the taxpayer every year of more than $18-billion (although 60% of immigrants are from the "economic class," fewer than half that number pass the points test -- the remainder are spouses and children).

As far as immigrants go, so what, they expect people to immigrate without their spouses and children? What makes them any different from Canadian born citizens in this respect? Children are the country's future so I don't see how they are even an issue when it comes to the economics of immigration, other than a positive one.

If we just need people to help out in certain sectors, why not contract foreign workers with certain skills that are in short supply until we can supply our own needs either through immigration or training residents. During my career, I worked offshore a couple of times in that capacity. It was a good opportunity at the time and all I was offered was a contract. Suited me fine. Why does everyone have to be an immigrant?

[normanchateau]

But the Liberals don't care about Canada. They only care about getting eleceted.

And therefore the Conservatives obviously do care about Canada because they don't care about getting elected.

If they did care, they'd dump Harper and pick a leader who could actually win a majority by appealing to centrist voters.

[scribblet]

As far as immigrants go, so what, they expect people to immigrate without their spouses and children? What makes them any different from Canadian born citizens in this respect? Children are the country's future so I don't see how they are even an issue when it comes to the economics of immigration, other than a positive one.

If we just need people to help out in certain sectors, why not contract foreign workers with certain skills that are in short supply until we can supply our own needs either through immigration or training residents. During my career, I worked offshore a couple of times in that capacity. It was a good opportunity at the time and all I was offered was a contract. Suited me fine. Why does everyone have to be an immigrant?

Spouses and dependant children are and should be allowed in, but no other family members should be allowed in under the family re-unification. They should have to apply annd qualify on their own merit.

Good point about contracting foreign workers, maybe part of the reason for not using them more is that many of them would stay and not go home, then we would have a much larger illegal immigration problem.

[Argus]

Now I get. Increased immigration is a good idea when the Conservatives do it because they'll pick good immigrants.

Who has proposed increasing immigration?

[Argus]

Bang on!

And here is proof:

http://canadianpress.google.com/article/AL...Qja0XzthEOesmPw

"I wouldn't want to shut out folks who don't have a skill. I wouldn't be here," McGuinty told a news conference.

LOL. That's for sure. If McGuinty has any skills no one has ever noted them.

And once again, we have a bleeding heart, spineless political hack snivelling about the old days of immigration. Yes, Mcguinty, we did indeed take lots of unskilled laborers in the last century. It didn't matter back then that people couldn't read, write or use a computer. Now it does.

Then again, having no skills doesn't seem to have harmed McGuinty much.

[normanchateau]

Who has proposed increasing immigration?

Immigration Minister Diane Finley: "We have to make it easier to get more people here faster."

[normanchateau]

Who has proposed increasing immigration?

Monte Solberg. The 2007 immigration target was a 5.2% increase over the 2006 target according to Finley's predecessor:

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/politics...464&k=65299

[scribblet]

Liberals seek to sell scandal to an uninterested public - is right, it isn't taking, the public isn't buying into Liberal partisanship smear job attempts...

http://tinyurl.com/63yrrx

There should be a lesson in this, if Liberal High Command were open to learning. Several lessons, in fact.

First, you can’t sell scandals if the audience isn’t buying. You can flail away at an issue for months on end, but if voters aren’t perturbed in the first few days they aren’t likely to become so simply through repetition.

Second, voters aren’t naive, nor are they without memories. Maybe Mr. Dion’s party can’t distinguish between Brian Mulroney, Karlheinz Schreiber and Stephen Harper, but Canadians can, and they know the last of the three isn’t responsible for the first two. Similarly, acting all shocked that the Tories may have dangled goodies before Mr. Cadman might have been more convincing if the Liberals hadn’t been busy buying up Belinda Stronach at the same time.

Third, if you’re going to attack your opponent, pick a topic for which they’re actually culpable. Mr. Van Loan’s ease in deflecting Mr. Dion’s immigration barrage this week derives from his ability to throw the Liberals’ record back in their face. The Liberals let the line-up of applicants grow from 50,000 to 800,000; they tried several times to remedy the mess themselves but failed, too fearful of losing immigrant votes to take the measures necessary. So where do they get off criticizing Tory attempts to clean up the mess?

[mikedavid00]

What makes them any different from Canadian born citizens in this respect?

That only 23% of them are net contributors to Canada.

Every other coutry on earth will only allow temporary workers in under employment sponsorship. Some will let you immigrate eventually.

Canada (and possibly australia) are the only countries that just allow people to wander in on some points test.

[Topaz]

My understanding is this won't come into being until the 800,000 is let into Canada then the minister will pick and choose who she wants in. Let's hope that Canadian don't suffer lost of jobs because of the increase. There could be a increase of terrorists who want to harm Canada or the US getting in here and won't show up as a security risk. One question that he Cons haven't answer is why put it part of the budget??