Immigration of religious fanatics

[Argus]

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

Canadians said a big no to the Harper bigotry of so called "Canadian values", we saw that it was just a front for the Northern Foundation.

How is it bigoted to examine foreigners who want to come to Canada to determine which ones are most likely to fit in properly?

And Canadians said a big yes to screening potential immigrants for Canadian values.

Two-thirds of Canadians want prospective immigrants to be screened for “anti-Canadian” values, a new poll reveals, lending to idea stirring controversy in political circles.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/09/10/canadians-favour-screening-immigrant-values-poll-shows.html

 

[Argus]

For those actually interested in the mess our immigration system is, and just how much 'effort' is put into checking them over.

 

This email contains comprehensive information that the media will NOT report on and almost every other leadership candidate refuses to talk about. Kellie Leitch has been raising these issues.   

 

This email is to inform you on exactly what Kellie has been talking about in full detail.

 

Points of Entry (Canada’s newest book on the Canadian Immigration System):

 

Dr. Satzewich’s book, “Points of Entry”, is about how Canadian visa officers make decisions about potential immigrants on a day-to-day basis. Canada has one of the most open immigration policies in the world, and immigration is one of the most researched subjects in Canada today, yet what goes on in visa offices is clouded in secrecy” (page 7).

 

In writing this book, Dr. Satzewich has provided a valuable service in casting light on what he describes as a government department that “could have written the manual on how to design a truly nameless and faceless bureaucracy” (page 8).

 

That Dr. Satzewich, through perseverance and tenacity managed to get inside the “black box” of the immigration system, something very few could do before him, is a testament to his commitment to his research.

 

One of Dr. Satzewich’s key findings is that far fewer interviews are conducted today than were conducted before the introduction of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in 2002. The result is that immigration officers meet “only a handful” (page 240) of the people whose applications they process and lose “opportunities to assess credibility and risk” (page 216).

 

This is not the fault of these officers but rather a bureaucratic and policy structure that is obsessed with numbers. Of the hard-working immigration officers of whom more is regularly demanded, “some still regard themselves as nation-builders whose mandate is to select good immigrants for Canada [and] many officers lament the fact that so little of their job involves personal contact with applicants” (page 242).

 

Immigration is an important issue and Dr. Satzewich provides us with an important look at how immigration decisions are made. This is an important book and one that we urge all with an interest in this issue to read very carefully!

 

Kellie spoke with Dr. Satzewich about his book. Dr. Satzewich told Kellie that he did not support the idea of values testing. That’s fine. Dr. Satzewich’s research is still very important.

 

Dr. Satzewich does not, however, answer the question of how many people seeking to come to Canada are interviewed.

 

That number comes from Vigilance, Accountability and Security at Canada’s Borders, a report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, dated June 2015, in which the committee states that it is “concerned that only between nine and fifteen percent of immigrants are interviewed by a visa officer before they come to Canada” (page 14).

 

Only 9% to 15% of immigrants are interviewed by a trained immigration official before they are awarded permanent residency status in Canada!

 

The full report can be found here:

 

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/412/secd/rep/rep16jun15a-e.pdf

 

The Senate Committee goes on to recommend “[w]ith respect to those seeking to immigrate to Canada (e.g. students, temporary foreign workers, refugees and permanent residents), Immigration Canada should establish a pilot project to examine the feasibility of using secure video conferencing and mobile teams of experienced immigration officers to conduct fully recorded face-to-face interviews, in the applicant’s country of residence” (page 15).

 

Here are some of the findings from Dr. Satzewich’s book:

 

On the move away from face-to-face interviews

 

Prior to the 2002 introduction of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, most applicants for permanent resident visas were interviewed by an officer. Though the trend to waive interviews in relatively ‘straightforward’ cases arose during the late 1990s, officers were progressively cut off from the immigrants (and visitors) whom they selected. Their face-to-face interactions with applicants became increasingly rare, with the result that most now see only a handful of the thousands of people whose files they will process during their careers” (page 240).

 

“…in isolating themselves from applicants, officers may be foregoing opportunities to assess credibility and risk” (page 216).

 

Triage of Cases

 

Dr. Satzewich points out in his field notes that the security guards and receptionists at visa offices play a role in collecting information on those potential immigrants who arrive for an interview. Their impressions about applicants, their body language, mannerisms, and behaviour, are passed on to the officers who make the decisions on the case. (page 225)

 

Time Pressures

 

Satzewich’s interviews with employees of CIC repeatedly point out that the CIC organization is obsessed with numbers. There are constant demands for more and more approvals meaning an effective demand for fewer refusals since, refusals take more time and therefore make it more difficult for them to meet the approval quotas.

 

“Time and target constraints, and the prospect of an appeal, seem to end up benefitting marginal, potentially undeserving applicants” (page 185).

 

“In a busy Asian office, an officer who dealt exclusively with visitor visas said that she was expected to make seventy-five decisions a day, which translated to about three minutes per file, not including the time she devoted to writing up her notes in the database.

 

In the same office, another officer who handled temporary foreign workers said, ‘I spend about five to seven minutes per file’…. In another Asian office, a Canada-based officer said that she makes about 100 decisions a week on all types of temporary resident files but was being pressured to increase that to 75 a day. She noted that a locally engaged non-immigrant officer in her office made over 14,000 decisions in 2011 alone, compared to her own 4,400. As elsewhere in the system, time and productivity pressures provided the overarching context for decision making. A Canada-based officer remarked:

 

“There’s so much pressure. They want the numbers. They don’t want the waiting times … It’s always about the numbers” (page196).

 

“A Canada-based officer explained that ‘the targets generally work to the advantage of the client. If we didn’t have the demands that are on us, the refusal rate would be much higher. If I had enough time, I would at least triple my refusal rate. Another Canada-based officer said much the same thing: ‘In some cases, you are “feeding the target beast.” The big buzzword is “risk management.” You just can’t take the time to verify every document. Sometimes you have to overlook things to get the program numbers. That is why quality assurance exercises are very important. Risk management means closing your eyes” (page 136).

 

Interviews

 

“One consequence of the pressure to meet targets is that visa offices and officers limit their direct contact with applicants and reduce the number of interviews with them. Interviews slow the decision-making process, so International Region encourages officers to ‘waive interviews whenever possible’ (Citizenship and Immigration Canada, 2011, OP 2: Processing Members of the Family Class). As a result, they are used sparingly and only if an officer has concerns about the credibility of an application or if the risks of making a wrong decision are high” (page 135).

 

“Before the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act was introduced, nearly all applicants for a permanent resident visa were interviewed by an officer, no matter how strong or weak their paperwork. Interviews for ‘good cases’ might last just a few minutes, but those for refusal cases could consume an hour or two. In the early 2000s, hoping to improve efficiency, the department began to encourage officers to make more decisions solely on the basis of the paper application: strong ones could be accepted without an interview, and certain categories of weak ones could be rejected without an interview, on the grounds that nothing significant would be learned by talking to the individual. Today, interviews are no longer expected or required….” (page 170).

 

“In most cases, an officer’s contact with applicants is solely via their ‘paper’ application. As a result, much of the assessment of credibility and risk occurs without any face-to-face interaction. Though officers interview far fewer applicants than they did before the introduction of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in 2002, they still use interviews to clarify ambiguities and inconsistencies, to assess truthfulness, to gauge credibility, and to measure risk. In a face-to-face interview, credibility is determined by verbal responses but also by demeanor and body language: how individuals enter an interview booth, how they answer questions, and how they address an officer’s concerns can factor into the decision to issue or refuse a visa” (pages 55-56).

 

Interviews and Personal Suitability

 

“Before 2002, language proficiency was not measured via a standardized test. Instead, applicants rated themselves on their spoken and written language abilities, and visa officers were responsible for confirming whether those self-assessments were accurate. Almost all applicants for a permanent resident visa in what was then called the ‘independent category’ were required to attend an interview, which officers used to determine whether their language skills matched what they had stated on their application” (page 167).

 

Further, prior to the introduction of the Act, applicants were evaluated on “an explicitly discretionary criterion called ‘personal suitability.’ The stated rationale for this category was that the grid should leave room for officers to exercise their professional judgment about an applicant. It was believed that certain intangible factors, such as ‘adaptability, motivation, initiative and resourcefulness played a role in whether applicants could ‘successfully establish’ in Canada” (page 167).

 

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

No, I am against the absolutes.  I don't want to argue those extremes and nobody else does either.

Yet we have people putting out strawmen for the other side, ie. "you want to say Islam has nothing to do with..." etc.

I think Islam has always been a political ideology in addition to a religion. That political ideology has had a great deal of influence on countries and cultures where Islam is prevalent in that it contains laws and rules of government behavior, family law, criminal law, commercial law and relationships with non-Muslims. The cultures of those countries cannot be extricated from this influence in terms of judging why they are as they are.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

How would you do that?  What kind of questions would you ask or tests would you give?

Already asked and answered. I have provided a number of cites in how personality/personal suitability tests are put together, and their affect.

[drummindiver]

19 hours ago, Rue said:

 

Do you have a point?

 

 

 

 

You yourself posted  countries of concern re immigration. Philippines was one if those. They are number one by a mile of who immigrates here.

Ergo......

[GostHacked]

20 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I submitted an offer for people to agree that religion has neither EVERYTHING nor NOTHING to do with Islam problems but people didn't want to let go of the entertainment value of arguing absolutes I guess.

I don't thin it's entertaining. When dealing with absolutes, there is really no dialogue to be had with certain people.

[GostHacked]

15 hours ago, Argus said:

I think Islam has always been a political ideology in addition to a religion. That political ideology has had a great deal of influence on countries and cultures where Islam is prevalent in that it contains laws and rules of government behavior, family law, criminal law, commercial law and relationships with non-Muslims. The cultures of those countries cannot be extricated from this influence in terms of judging why they are as they are.

Same can be said for Zionism/Judaism (political/religion) and the political movement to create the modern Israel.

[Michael Hardner]

And yet, they all claim to be reasonable.  My offer lays out a way for us to banish two strawmen from this particular discussion.

[GostHacked]

On 12/29/2016 at 2:47 AM, kactus said:

I think generalising it for the whole muslim population at large shows ignorance...

I don't believe it is ignorance. You see the same lines being put forth without much thought about what goes into the reply.  If it's not ignorance, what is it?  There are only a few here who deal with absolutes.

[Michael Hardner]

On 12/29/2016 at 2:47 AM, kactus said:

I think generalising it for the whole muslim population at large shows ignorance...

The idea of assessing people on a single variable is just wrongheaded in my opinion.  We wouldn't do that based on race - people would be aghast.

[dialamah]

16 hours ago, Argus said:

For those actually interested in the mess our immigration system is, and just how much 'effort' is put into checking them over.

 

This email contains comprehensive information that the media will NOT report on and almost every other leadership candidate refuses to talk about. Kellie Leitch has been raising these issues.   

 

This email is to inform you on exactly what Kellie has been talking about in full detail.

 

Points of Entry (Canada’s newest book on the Canadian Immigration System):

 

Dr. Satzewich’s book, “Points of Entry”, is about how Canadian visa officers make decisions about potential immigrants on a day-to-day basis. Canada has one of the most open immigration policies in the world, and immigration is one of the most researched subjects in Canada today, yet what goes on in visa offices is clouded in secrecy” (page 7).

 

In writing this book, Dr. Satzewich has provided a valuable service in casting light on what he describes as a government department that “could have written the manual on how to design a truly nameless and faceless bureaucracy” (page 8).

 

That Dr. Satzewich, through perseverance and tenacity managed to get inside the “black box” of the immigration system, something very few could do before him, is a testament to his commitment to his research.

 

One of Dr. Satzewich’s key findings is that far fewer interviews are conducted today than were conducted before the introduction of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in 2002. The result is that immigration officers meet “only a handful” (page 240) of the people whose applications they process and lose “opportunities to assess credibility and risk” (page 216).

 

This is not the fault of these officers but rather a bureaucratic and policy structure that is obsessed with numbers. Of the hard-working immigration officers of whom more is regularly demanded, “some still regard themselves as nation-builders whose mandate is to select good immigrants for Canada [and] many officers lament the fact that so little of their job involves personal contact with applicants” (page 242).

 

Immigration is an important issue and Dr. Satzewich provides us with an important look at how immigration decisions are made. This is an important book and one that we urge all with an interest in this issue to read very carefully!

 

Kellie spoke with Dr. Satzewich about his book. Dr. Satzewich told Kellie that he did not support the idea of values testing. That’s fine. Dr. Satzewich’s research is still very important.

 

Dr. Satzewich does not, however, answer the question of how many people seeking to come to Canada are interviewed.

 

That number comes from Vigilance, Accountability and Security at Canada’s Borders, a report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, dated June 2015, in which the committee states that it is “concerned that only between nine and fifteen percent of immigrants are interviewed by a visa officer before they come to Canada” (page 14).

 

Only 9% to 15% of immigrants are interviewed by a trained immigration official before they are awarded permanent residency status in Canada!

 

The full report can be found here:

 

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/412/secd/rep/rep16jun15a-e.pdf

 

The Senate Committee goes on to recommend “[w]ith respect to those seeking to immigrate to Canada (e.g. students, temporary foreign workers, refugees and permanent residents), Immigration Canada should establish a pilot project to examine the feasibility of using secure video conferencing and mobile teams of experienced immigration officers to conduct fully recorded face-to-face interviews, in the applicant’s country of residence” (page 15).

 

Here are some of the findings from Dr. Satzewich’s book:

 

On the move away from face-to-face interviews

 

Prior to the 2002 introduction of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, most applicants for permanent resident visas were interviewed by an officer. Though the trend to waive interviews in relatively ‘straightforward’ cases arose during the late 1990s, officers were progressively cut off from the immigrants (and visitors) whom they selected. Their face-to-face interactions with applicants became increasingly rare, with the result that most now see only a handful of the thousands of people whose files they will process during their careers” (page 240).

 

“…in isolating themselves from applicants, officers may be foregoing opportunities to assess credibility and risk” (page 216).

 

Triage of Cases

 

Dr. Satzewich points out in his field notes that the security guards and receptionists at visa offices play a role in collecting information on those potential immigrants who arrive for an interview. Their impressions about applicants, their body language, mannerisms, and behaviour, are passed on to the officers who make the decisions on the case. (page 225)

 

Time Pressures

 

Satzewich’s interviews with employees of CIC repeatedly point out that the CIC organization is obsessed with numbers. There are constant demands for more and more approvals meaning an effective demand for fewer refusals since, refusals take more time and therefore make it more difficult for them to meet the approval quotas.

 

“Time and target constraints, and the prospect of an appeal, seem to end up benefitting marginal, potentially undeserving applicants” (page 185).

 

“In a busy Asian office, an officer who dealt exclusively with visitor visas said that she was expected to make seventy-five decisions a day, which translated to about three minutes per file, not including the time she devoted to writing up her notes in the database.

 

In the same office, another officer who handled temporary foreign workers said, ‘I spend about five to seven minutes per file’…. In another Asian office, a Canada-based officer said that she makes about 100 decisions a week on all types of temporary resident files but was being pressured to increase that to 75 a day. She noted that a locally engaged non-immigrant officer in her office made over 14,000 decisions in 2011 alone, compared to her own 4,400. As elsewhere in the system, time and productivity pressures provided the overarching context for decision making. A Canada-based officer remarked:

 

“There’s so much pressure. They want the numbers. They don’t want the waiting times … It’s always about the numbers” (page196).

 

“A Canada-based officer explained that ‘the targets generally work to the advantage of the client. If we didn’t have the demands that are on us, the refusal rate would be much higher. If I had enough time, I would at least triple my refusal rate. Another Canada-based officer said much the same thing: ‘In some cases, you are “feeding the target beast.” The big buzzword is “risk management.” You just can’t take the time to verify every document. Sometimes you have to overlook things to get the program numbers. That is why quality assurance exercises are very important. Risk management means closing your eyes” (page 136).

 

Interviews

 

“One consequence of the pressure to meet targets is that visa offices and officers limit their direct contact with applicants and reduce the number of interviews with them. Interviews slow the decision-making process, so International Region encourages officers to ‘waive interviews whenever possible’ (Citizenship and Immigration Canada, 2011, OP 2: Processing Members of the Family Class). As a result, they are used sparingly and only if an officer has concerns about the credibility of an application or if the risks of making a wrong decision are high” (page 135).

 

“Before the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act was introduced, nearly all applicants for a permanent resident visa were interviewed by an officer, no matter how strong or weak their paperwork. Interviews for ‘good cases’ might last just a few minutes, but those for refusal cases could consume an hour or two. In the early 2000s, hoping to improve efficiency, the department began to encourage officers to make more decisions solely on the basis of the paper application: strong ones could be accepted without an interview, and certain categories of weak ones could be rejected without an interview, on the grounds that nothing significant would be learned by talking to the individual. Today, interviews are no longer expected or required….” (page 170).

 

“In most cases, an officer’s contact with applicants is solely via their ‘paper’ application. As a result, much of the assessment of credibility and risk occurs without any face-to-face interaction. Though officers interview far fewer applicants than they did before the introduction of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in 2002, they still use interviews to clarify ambiguities and inconsistencies, to assess truthfulness, to gauge credibility, and to measure risk. In a face-to-face interview, credibility is determined by verbal responses but also by demeanor and body language: how individuals enter an interview booth, how they answer questions, and how they address an officer’s concerns can factor into the decision to issue or refuse a visa” (pages 55-56).

 

Interviews and Personal Suitability

 

“Before 2002, language proficiency was not measured via a standardized test. Instead, applicants rated themselves on their spoken and written language abilities, and visa officers were responsible for confirming whether those self-assessments were accurate. Almost all applicants for a permanent resident visa in what was then called the ‘independent category’ were required to attend an interview, which officers used to determine whether their language skills matched what they had stated on their application” (page 167).

 

Further, prior to the introduction of the Act, applicants were evaluated on “an explicitly discretionary criterion called ‘personal suitability.’ The stated rationale for this category was that the grid should leave room for officers to exercise their professional judgment about an applicant. It was believed that certain intangible factors, such as ‘adaptability, motivation, initiative and resourcefulness played a role in whether applicants could ‘successfully establish’ in Canada” (page 167).

 

Thanks Argus, that was an interesting read.   I am going to do some research over the next few days in the hopes of facilitating conversation instead of polarization.  

[Argus]

1 hour ago, GostHacked said:

Same can be said for Zionism/Judaism (political/religion) and the political movement to create the modern Israel.

Israel, for all its religious nature, still has built a secular society with democratic institutions, a free press, and the rule of law as interpreted by independent courts.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

The idea of assessing people on a single variable is just wrongheaded in my opinion.  We wouldn't do that based on race - people would be aghast.

What if that variable is demonstrated behaviour?

 

[Michael Hardner]

That sounds like a good variable, then, I admit.

[GostHacked]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

The idea of assessing people on a single variable is just wrongheaded in my opinion.  We wouldn't do that based on race - people would be aghast.

But yet we have clear examples of people doing just that here in this thread.

[DogOnPorch]

14 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

But yet we have clear examples of people doing just that here in this thread.

 

The Nazis built some fine highways. And the trains ran on-time.

[GostHacked]

6 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

The Nazis built some fine highways. And the trains ran on-time.

You are free to think that all Germans are Nazis.

[DogOnPorch]

25 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

You are free to think that all Germans are Nazis.

Since that went over your head and out of the park...one more time.

Using your own logic re: Islam: why just focus on National Socialism's murderous genocidal nature? Let's just focus on the good things about it...like the Autobahn.

Wir fahren, fahren, fahren auf der Autobahn...

[GostHacked]

10 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Since that went over your head and out of the park...one more time.

Using your own logic re: Islam: why just focus on National Socialism's murderous genocidal nature? Let's just focus on the good things about it...like the Autobahn.

Wir fahren, fahren, fahren auf der Autobahn...

So I guess you are right, there are good Muslims out there.  Right?

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, GostHacked said:

So I guess you are right, there are good Muslims out there.  Right?

Doesn't matter. Oskar Schindler was a nice Nazi. Dresden still burned.

[GostHacked]

3 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Doesn't matter. Oskar Schindler was a nice Nazi. Dresden still burned.

Based on your logic of the previous post to this, it does matter. But you are free to believe all Muslims are evil. You'd be wrong, but it's your right to be wrong.

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, GostHacked said:

Based on your logic of the previous post to this, it does matter. But you are free to believe all Muslims are evil. You'd be wrong, but it's your right to be wrong.

 

Islam is the 'evil bit'...as I've always maintained. People don't have to follow cults.

[GostHacked]

Just now, DogOnPorch said:

 

Islam is the 'evil bit'...as I've always maintained. People don't have to follow cults.

So all Muslims are evil?

[DogOnPorch]

1 hour ago, GostHacked said:

So all Muslims are evil?

Islam is the 'evil bit' as I've already stated. People do not HAVE to follow cults. Islam isn't a DNA strand.

[Army Guy]

No, not all Germans were Nazi's, In fact history has shown us thousands of examples of Germans, being sent to prison or concentration camps or escaping to other countries for speaking out, or refusing to take part in Nazi Ideology. History has also shown us that a far larger number took part in Nazi activities out of fear, fear of being sent to prison, the front, or concentration camps if they did not take part.

Does this mean that because you take part in Nazi activities that you are a survivor or a Nazi ?...I thought that argument was shot down in Nuremburg as a defense statement , I was just following orders if I did not I or my family would be endanger from other Nazis. The very fact they took part in Nazi activities, be it out of fear, or survival still made they NAZI's, or supporters of that cause.  That they would be held accountable in some form or another. By mid war most of Germany's citizens, were supporting the Nazi war effort in one form or anther....making them NAZI's.

And if in your mind it just makes them survivors, then what of the German citizen that refused to work for or partake in Nazi rule, and paid for that decision with their lives...are they just unfortunate or did they simply make the wrong choice. 

 

Could the same argument be made about muslims in some of the extremist countries in the world....