I am the New Minister of Immigration!

[Argus]

I am now about to remake our immigration system. Here are a few of my likely policy changes.

Immigration numbers will be cut back to 200,000

Family immigration will be eliminated except in humanitarian cases.

Investor class immgiration will be eliminated entirely.

All potential immmigrants must pass basic language tests given at the embassy or consulate.

All potential immigrants must have a job offer for a job which cannot be easily filled by Canadians in order to immigrate to Canada (which is the requirement in the US)

The requirement that immigrants attest to their desire to reside in Canada will be reinstated. The period of residency before acquiring citizenship will be raised back to 5 years. 

All potential immigrants will be interviewed, which will allow an immigration officer to assess their language skills as well as their personal suitability and willingness to adapt and assimilate into Canada. They will also be required to answer, in writing, a series of fairly routine questions related to the profession they claim to be a member of in order to weed out those with fake documents and degrees. They will also be given a version of the 'personality' tests Canadian business routinely use to assess people's values and beliefs to see if they will fit in.

In addition for a potential immigrant getting points for language ability, education, job skills, etc., the potential immigrant's spouse will also be able to add points to his score if he/she also has language skills, education and job skills. 

Canada will prioritize immigration from countries and areas in order to prevent the build-up of ethnic ghettos in Canada. For years Canada has taken a large number of immigrants from certain countries and areas which has supplied a continuing stream of that group to help enlarge and sustain such ethnic communities. Changing the focus of our immigration will allow those ethnic groups to more readily assimilate. This would mean targeting places like South America and Europe which have supplied minimal numbers of immigrants over the past few decades and which, consequently, do not have large ethnic communities here which retain the values and beliefs of their homeland.

Every refugee applicant will be kept in custody pending their hearing. Every refugee applicant's story will be checked out by the embassy/consulate in the country where they reside (Which means if you claim to be persecuted because you're gay your family and friends better know about your being gay). Canada will only grant temporary asylum for a perdiod of five years. After which the condition of their country or situation will be reassessed to see if they can return home.

Canada will adhere to the UN definition of refugee. This definition does not consider people living in a war torn counry like syrian (except minorities being persecuted) as refugees. Nor does it consider poverty, ie, Hait, to be a justification for asylum claims. Nor would it allow women who claim their husbands beat them to make asylum claims.

Immigrants/refugees who have met the residency requirements and wish to apply for citizenship must pass language tests (more than basic) and must demonstrate the efforts they have made to assimilate, as well as having been self-supporting and having no criminal record. (this is the case in most western countries).

Citizenship will be automatic only to those born to Canadian citizens. It will not be granted to those who happen to be flying overhead at birth, or to people who come here to give birth, or to visitors or refugees or students (except in the case where the resulting offspring would otherwise be stateless). If refugees become Canadian citizens then any child born to them in Canada automatically becomes a citizen.

Edited September 9, 2018 by Argus

[Guest]

Seems reasonable to me.  I can't imagine anyone objecting to that.

 

[Michael Hardner]

10 minutes ago, Argus said:

1) Family immigration will be eliminated except in humanitarian cases.

2) Investor class immgiration will be eliminated entirely.

3) They will also be given a version of the 'personality' tests Canadian business routinely use to assess people's values and beliefs to see if they will fit in.

4) This would mean targeting places like South America and Europe which have supplied minimal numbers of immigrants over the past few decades and which, consequently, do not have large ethnic communities here which retain the values and beliefs of their homeland.

5) Every refugee applicant will be kept in custody pending their hearing.  

 

Just highlighting the problems:

1) Ok but you have no idea how many 'good' immigrants you will lose because they can't, say, bring their mother also.  There's a baked-in assumption here that may be wrong.

2) Leaving money on the table.  Why ?  Makes no sense, as more wealth and investment is good for everyone.

3) Devil is in the details.  We don't know why hiring companies throw people out, and the reasons are varied anyway.

4) I doubt you are basing this on numbers.  How many Poles and Russians live in Toronto right now ?  Also, how do you know what the potential supply of immigrants is from other areas ?

5) Detention camps ?  Is that what it is ?  Ok, but if the purpose of this plan is to help Canada, what is the value on spending billions on detention ?  What is the problem you are trying to fix ?  You spend money to save money, or because we can afford to spend money on something that has personal value to us.  

 

 

 

[Argus]

39 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Just highlighting the problems:

1) Ok but you have no idea how many 'good' immigrants you will lose because they can't, say, bring their mother also.  There's a baked-in assumption here that may be wrong.

Perhaps true. But bringing their mother brings additional costs to Canada which erodes the economic value of the immigrant. And if we can get another similar immigrant who isn't so worried about his mother then we're ahead. All of these policy proposals would have to be examined and tested of course.

Quote

2) Leaving money on the table.  Why ?  Makes no sense, as more wealth and investment is good for everyone.

I have long been opposed to the idea of selling passports. The lax rules around it make it the playground for fraud.

https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/society/article/2158716/special-report-how-canadian-immigration-fraud-saw-860-rich-chinese

https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/2125153/many-millionaire-migrants-are-exiting-canada-leaving

Quote

3) Devil is in the details.  We don't know why hiring companies throw people out, and the reasons are varied anyway.

And the reasons immigrants might be rejected would also be varied. But I continue to see assessing immigrants as similar to assessing new employees, where we have many applicants and can afford to screen out all but the best.

Quote

4) I doubt you are basing this on numbers.  How many Poles and Russians live in Toronto right now ?  Also, how do you know what the potential supply of immigrants is from other areas ?

Because of word of mouth and family class, immigration from certain regions builds on itself. That's why, year after year, our major immigration source countries tend not to change that much. There are probably Poles and Argentinians in Toronto, but the size of their communities (excluding those who arrived a generation or more ago and are fully assimilated) is comparatively small. How does a community, say of Tamils or Pakistanis, assimilate with a large, continuing stream of newcomers arriving every year to reinforce old world languages, customs and values?

Quote

5) Detention camps ?  Is that what it is ?  Ok, but if the purpose of this plan is to help Canada, what is the value on spending billions on detention ?  What is the problem you are trying to fix ?  You spend money to save money, or because we can afford to spend money on something that has personal value to us.  

This would be done under the notwithstanding clause to keep the courts away and to assure hearings could be held relatively quickly. We're not speaking of holding people for years or even months in most cases, but days or weeks. Most cases could be reasonably easily tossed on the grounds that they fail to meet the UN definitions. The cost to hold someone for a month or two is bound to be cheaper than the cost of paying their bills for the next X years, and we'll definitely know where to find them when we want to deport them.

Similarly the up-front cost of investigating claimants backgrounds is cheaper than the lifelong cost of caring for them in Canada.

I forgot one more policy change. Asylum seekers would have to prove their identity. No more of this flushing your papers and documents down the airplane's toilet before arrival. If you arrive from somewhere with no documents you'll be put on the same plane going back there without a hearing.

Edited September 9, 2018 by Argus

[capricorn]

I applaud your appointment as Immigration Minister and agree with your plan of action. I would add one more step, preferably right at the beginning of the process. Make it mandatory for all prospective immigrants and would-be refugee to view a short film depicting our harsh Canadian winters. Show plenty of ice and freezing rain, and blinding snowstorms. That should make some think twice about choosing Canada as a desirable destination weather wise.

[Michael Hardner]

6 hours ago, Argus said:

1) But bringing their mother brings additional costs to Canada which erodes the economic value of the immigrant. And if we can get another similar immigrant who isn't so worried about his mother then we're ahead.

2) All of these policy proposals would have to be examined and tested of course.

3) I have long been opposed to the idea of selling passports. The lax rules around it make it the playground for fraud.

https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/society/article/2158716/special-report-how-canadian-immigration-fraud-saw-860-rich-chinese

https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/2125153/many-millionaire-migrants-are-exiting-canada-leaving

4) Because of word of mouth and family class, immigration from certain regions builds on itself.

5) This would be done under the notwithstanding clause to keep the courts away and to assure hearings could be held relatively quickly.

1) Maybe this is the immigration equivalent to 'loss leader'.  You are assuming that we have an unlimited queue of excellent applicants from every area.

2) Ok.

3) The first article was painful to read.  It's replete with stories of cheating but says nothing about how much foreign investment the program brings in.  I don't care about flashy frauds making money - I want to know if the program works.

4) Ok.

5) That's an abuse of the notwithstanding clause, and if you break the seal on that kind of use of it you will be opening governments in the future to ignore the constitution.  Given that Liberals run the country for 2/3 of the time, be ready for "some scary shit, hombre".  You can look at how 'executive orders' are being used haphazardly to see how this goes.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) Maybe this is the immigration equivalent to 'loss leader'.  You are assuming that we have an unlimited queue of excellent applicants from every area.

Do you want 100 great employees or 150 so-so employees? Clearly the wider we cast the net the lower we have to make our standards. Taking in fewer immigrants means we get the cream of the crop.

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

3) The first article was painful to read.  It's replete with stories of cheating but says nothing about how much foreign investment the program brings in.  I don't care about flashy frauds making money - I want to know if the program works.

Michael, 2 million is chump change, especially in Vancouver. This is hardly the first report to detail how many rich Asians own large houses in Vancouver yet say they have little or no income, nor the first to mention how the 'investor' parks his family here while he continues to work in China (and report no income).

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

5) That's an abuse of the notwithstanding clause, and if you break the seal on that kind of use of it you will be opening governments in the future to ignore the constitution.  Given that Liberals run the country for 2/3 of the time, be ready for "some scary shit, hombre".  You can look at how 'executive orders' are being used haphazardly to see how this goes.

I don't have any respect for the Charter to begin with and never have. The legal system is a damn mess and if we let it cover asylum seekers we'll have to keep each of them here for several years of hearings, court cases and appeals, regardless of the merits of the case. It would be unreasonable to keep them in some sort of detention through all that, but if we don't they don't show up for deportation.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

5) That's an abuse of the notwithstanding clause, and if you break the seal on that kind of use of it you will be opening governments in the future to ignore the constitution.  Given that Liberals run the country for 2/3 of the time, be ready for "some scary shit, hombre".  You can look at how 'executive orders' are being used haphazardly to see how this goes.

As always, the dearest policy wishes of conservatives eventually run headlong into the Charter or the SCC.  Wouldn't it be easier for them to just focus on one issue, getting rid of the Charter, and then tackle all the other things they want to do?  Theoretically and given the rise of populism all they'd have to do is hammer away at it and let things get worse to underscore their point.

[Michael Hardner]

10 minutes ago, eyeball said:

 Wouldn't it be easier for them to just focus on one issue, getting rid of the Charter, and then tackle all the other things they want to do?  Theoretically and given the rise of populism all they'd have to do is hammer away at it and let things get worse to underscore their point.

They don't like process, that much is clear.  It wouldn't be tough for the Liberals to invoke proportional representation and a permanent centre-left government in Canada... It's times like this when permanent changes happen.  The great depression brought social modifications to capitalism, the aftermath of WW2 saw the rise of global pacts... and now we may see constitutional changes also.

[Michael Hardner]

27 minutes ago, Argus said:

1. Do you want 100 great employees or 150 so-so employees? Clearly the wider we cast the net the lower we have to make our standards. Taking in fewer immigrants means we get the cream of the crop.

2. Michael, 2 million is chump change, especially in Vancouver. This is hardly the first report to detail how many rich Asians own large houses in Vancouver yet say they have little or no income, nor the first to mention how the 'investor' parks his family here while he continues to work in China (and report no income).

3. I don't have any respect for the Charter to begin with and never have.

 

2. I think my question is still unanswered, though.  $2M per person - what is the impact ?  How is it being used ?  Your study should look at that too, rather than you just saying you're not going to allow it.  It contracts your general pragmatic approach, and also the complaint that immigrants are poor/don't add to the econom.

3. Well, it's a founding principle... then again we're in fantasy with this convo anyway.

[eyeball]

8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

They don't like process, that much is clear. 

I don't really have a lot of good to say about process either, especially when so much of what really matters is conducted behind closed doors.

Fix that and we probably wouldn't need a Charter to protect us.

[Zeitgeist]

10 hours ago, Argus said:

Perhaps true. But bringing their mother brings additional costs to Canada which erodes the economic value of the immigrant. And if we can get another similar immigrant who isn't so worried about his mother then we're ahead. All of these policy proposals would have to be examined and tested of course.

I have long been opposed to the idea of selling passports. The lax rules around it make it the playground for fraud.

https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/society/article/2158716/special-report-how-canadian-immigration-fraud-saw-860-rich-chinese

https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/2125153/many-millionaire-migrants-are-exiting-canada-leaving

And the reasons immigrants might be rejected would also be varied. But I continue to see assessing immigrants as similar to assessing new employees, where we have many applicants and can afford to screen out all but the best.

Because of word of mouth and family class, immigration from certain regions builds on itself. That's why, year after year, our major immigration source countries tend not to change that much. There are probably Poles and Argentinians in Toronto, but the size of their communities (excluding those who arrived a generation or more ago and are fully assimilated) is comparatively small. How does a community, say of Tamils or Pakistanis, assimilate with a large, continuing stream of newcomers arriving every year to reinforce old world languages, customs and values?

This would be done under the notwithstanding clause to keep the courts away and to assure hearings could be held relatively quickly. We're not speaking of holding people for years or even months in most cases, but days or weeks. Most cases could be reasonably easily tossed on the grounds that they fail to meet the UN definitions. The cost to hold someone for a month or two is bound to be cheaper than the cost of paying their bills for the next X years, and we'll definitely know where to find them when we want to deport them.

Similarly the up-front cost of investigating claimants backgrounds is cheaper than the lifelong cost of caring for them in Canada.

I forgot one more policy change. Asylum seekers would have to prove their identity. No more of this flushing your papers and documents down the airplane's toilet before arrival. If you arrive from somewhere with no documents you'll be put on the same plane going back there without a hearing.

You cannot do some of these things because they're inhumane.  Let's suppose you are targeted by a local warlord or tribe or political faction and you need to flee the country for your very survival.  This kind of thing happens in Africa, South America, Central America and Mexico, not to mention multiple east Asian and Middle Eastern countries ALL THE TIME.  How many of these refugees will arrive with their documents in order like tourists going on a pleasant trip to Club Med?  People cross oceans in crowed boats with tremendous risk to their very survival because they feel a tremendous need to do so.  Are some of these refugees economic refugees instead of legit refugees?  Perhaps, but you can't fully separate economics from personal safety.  We live in countries of immigrants.  Yes we need good screening and fast processing, but all of that is no small affair.  It's very expensive.  Immigration Canada thinks it is pretty hot stuff and doing a great job as it is.  In the end, you need to take a certain amount of risk letting refugee claimants in, because taking the extreme screening position of requiring excessive "evidence" brings its own potential dangers. 

On the point of immigration applicants (as opposed to refugees), we need to maintain the ability to sponsor people, including family members.  Let's suppose I am the foremost computer guru in my home country, which has political problems.  I can go anywhere and literally create a Fortune 500 company because of my talent.  If I'm choosing between multiple countries where to immigrate, I want to immigrate to a country that will let me sponsor all of my relatives to come over.  And why not?  If I bring so much to the table in Canada that I create enough wealth, I should be able to use it to support my family and bring them with me.  If Canada won't let me do that, I'll emigrate to a country that will.

I also agree with Hardner about the detention camp approach.  It's better to let these applicants try to get on their feet economically, working and paying for their own groceries and accommodation, while they are in the country, than paying to incarcerate them.  Yes people can try to disappear and live and work illegally, but living like that today, with all of the labour laws and monitoring, would be a job in itself.  How many false refugee claimants are willing to take that risk?  Yes, people who pull stunts like that must be found and deported, but I certainly don't think that happens in epidemic proportions.

I don't mind a residency requirement (say, five years; and perhaps for a new category of citizenship, residency within only certain parts of Canada for up to five years) and a graduated form of citizenship, understanding that if these residents start families, their kids become Canadian.  If the applicant for some reason does not achieve citizenship, he or she must be deported once the children reach age 18, at which point the failed applicant can reapply to return if sponsored by Canadians under a family class application.

In terms of continuing to have an Investor Class applicant, I don't have a problem with it subject to certain screening.  You don't just get in because you have a pile of money.  We let in investors who are on the level and meet our immigration targets for skill areas, etc.

Finally, you need a Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  When the shit hits the fan folks, and it bloody might in our lifetimes, you want to know that you have certain protections.  Desperation can make people do terrible things.

Edited September 10, 2018 by Zeitgeist

[Michael Hardner]

9 hours ago, eyeball said:

I don't really have a lot of good to say about process either, especially when so much of what really matters is conducted behind closed doors.

Fix that and we probably wouldn't need a Charter to protect us.

Did you see the article by CBC This is That ?  There is hope.

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Did you see the article by CBC This is That ?  There is hope.

No, which article?

[Argus]

14 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

You cannot do some of these things because they're inhumane.  Let's suppose you are targeted by a local warlord or tribe or political faction and you need to flee the country for your very survival. 

Then you would qualify as a refugee under the UN definition.

Quote

How many of these refugees will arrive with their documents in order like tourists going on a pleasant trip to Club Med? 

You can't get here without documents. Period. You can't get on an airplane to get here without documents, and that is how most asylum claimants arrive. The ones who show up at the US border had to have documents as well. If you tear up your documents in the airplane on the way over then you're clearly going to be dishonest with us so you're going back. End of story.

Quote

On the point of immigration applicants (as opposed to refugees), we need to maintain the ability to sponsor people, including family members.  Let's suppose I am the foremost computer guru in my home country, which has political problems.  I can go anywhere and literally create a Fortune 500 company because of my talent.

Then go somewhere else.

Quote

I also agree with Hardner about the detention camp approach.  It's better to let these applicants try to get on their feet economically, working and paying for their own groceries and accommodation, while they are in the country, than paying to incarcerate them.

Most of them can't find work anyway since they rarely speak much English, and if the hearings are done speedily it's better they be kept in custody to ensure they don't go astray.

Quote

Finally, you need a Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  When the shit hits the fan folks, and it bloody might in our lifetimes, you want to know that you have certain protections.  Desperation can make people do terrible things.

We never had a Charter until Pierre Trudeau decided he wanted one. We got along fine without it, relying on the BNA act, and we'd get on fine again if it disappeared. Except for the lawyers. There'd be fewer lawyers and they'd be making less money.

Edited September 10, 2018 by Argus

[turningrite]

On 9/9/2018 at 11:32 AM, Argus said:

Every refugee applicant will be kept in custody pending their hearing. Every refugee applicant's story will be checked out by the embassy/consulate in the country where they reside (Which means if you claim to be persecuted because you're gay your family and friends better know about your being gay). Canada will only grant temporary asylum for a perdiod of five years. After which the condition of their country or situation will be reassessed to see if they can return home.

Canada will adhere to the UN definition of refugee. This definition does not consider people living in a war torn counry like syrian (except minorities being persecuted) as refugees. Nor does it consider poverty, ie, Hait, to be a justification for asylum claims. Nor would it allow women who claim their husbands beat them to make asylum claims.

 

I agree with the gist of your immigration proposals with a few exceptions and/or modifications. In particular, I don't agree with keeping refugee claimants in custody and I'm not sure this would even be legal. I think it prudent to adhere to the UN definition and to process claims much more quickly than is reportedly the case at present. I believe it might be okay to grant temporary asylum pending review of both the conditions in a claimant's home country as well as the ability of claimants to integrate and adapt. I think the system should be set up on an incentive basis, though, whereby accepted claimants who have demonstrated English or French language proficiency and adapted economically should be entitled to apply for permanent status after the temporary status period has been exhausted whether or not conditions have improved in their home countries. We have to be fair in all of this.

[eyeball]

I'd agree with treating money this way before it enters the country but I'd vet money's departure even more extremely.

[Zeitgeist]

47 minutes ago, Argus said:

Then you would qualify as a refugee under the UN definition.

You can't get here without documents. Period. You can't get on an airplane to get here without documents, and that is how most asylum claimants arrive. The ones who show up at the US border had to have documents as well. If you tear up your documents in the airplane on the way over then you're clearly going to be dishonest with us so you're going back. End of story.

Then go somewhere else.

Most of them can't find work anyway since they rarely speak much English, and if the hearings are done speedily it's better they be kept in custody to ensure they don't go astray.

We never had a Charter until Pierre Trudeau decided he wanted one. We got along fine without it, relying on the BNA act, and we'd get on fine again if it disappeared. Except for the lawyers. There'd be fewer lawyers and they'd be making less money.

Some do arrive undocumented and not all of them are fakes.

"Then go somewhere else."  I'd say that's a terrible outlook that will not attract the best and brightest.  The success of a country is partly about wealth generation.  We want the best coders, engineers, scientists, etc.  If these entrants can support the family that they choose to bring over, at least immediate family members (parents, children, siblings), what's wrong with bringing them in?  You'd want the same privilege for your own family.

Incarceration is expensive.  It's probably a good idea to have a temporary encampment for highly suspect claims, as long as the applications are processed quickly.

I think some basic human rights and freedoms should be enshrined because, don't kid yourself, they can be dispensed with by a radical government.

[bush_cheney2004]

54 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

"Then go somewhere else."  I'd say that's a terrible outlook that will not attract the best and brightest.  The success of a country is partly about wealth generation.  We want the best coders, engineers, scientists, etc.  If these entrants can support the family that they choose to bring over, at least immediate family members (parents, children, siblings), what's wrong with bringing them in?  You'd want the same privilege for your own family.

 

The best and the brightest do not show up at "irregular" crossings.    Others already go somewhere else regardless of Canada's policies, because somewhere else has far greater opportunities.  Even Canadian citizens do that.

[Argus]

59 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Some do arrive undocumented and not all of them are fakes.

How do they arrive undocumented on an airplane? Or all the Nigerians coming across the border. How did they get into the US if they have no documents? Same goes for Somalians. You can't get on a plane without documents and I don't think any of them made it across the Atlantic on rubber boats.

59 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

"Then go somewhere else."  I'd say that's a terrible outlook that will not attract the best and brightest. 

The odds some fortune 500 genius is going to need to buy a passport are pretty damned slim. And I don't think most people immigrate to Canada or anywhere else with the idea that eventually they'll bring mom and dad over. It's very hard to bring mom and dad over anywhere. No one with a public health care system wants to have thousand and tens of thousands of elderly coming over to take up space on its waiting rolls. That Trudeau doubled the number coming into Canada, and then doubled it again, is an indication of how he puts the interests of his party well out in front of the interests of Canada. That will cost us untold billions.

On the other hand, I'm perfectly open to someone bringing over parents to live with them as long as they don't work, and the sponsors will be responsible for all costs, including health care.

59 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Incarceration is expensive.  It's probably a good idea to have a temporary encampment for highly suspect claims, as long as the applications are processed quickly.

Thus my wanting to use the Notwithstanding clause. Because when you get lawyers involved - who, remember, bill by the hour - nothing is ever processed quickly.
Remember that asylum seekers have no right to live here, and it would be confusing for them anyway to come into a strange country and have to figure out how to get welfare, how to find a place to stay, where to get food and clothes, etc. Easier to put them up in a nice, comfortable encampment, give them a quicky hearing to skim off the clearly unqualified and deport them, then teach them some things about how Canada works, and then, if they're accepted, let them out with some knowledge of what to do. This might get them off on the right foot, and is, in my opinion, way better than just sending them out to Toronto to try and find some cheap rooming house or motel to stay in.

59 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I think some basic human rights and freedoms should be enshrined because, don't kid yourself, they can be dispensed with by a radical government.

We have the BNA act for that, and we're not a country with an overpowering dictator type who can push people around. The provinces have significant powers of their own, and a prime minister is only as powerful as his hold on his MPs. Let even 10-15% of those MPs decide they're not gonna go along with him and he loses his majority and his power.

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

The best and the brightest do not show up at "irregular" crossings.    Others already go somewhere else regardless of Canada's policies, because somewhere else has far greater opportunities.  Even Canadian citizens do that.

It’s clear that you either don’t know or are choosing to ignore how successful Canada is.  Good, don’t learn the secrets of what consistently gives Canada one of the highest quality of life ratings and continues to attract immigrants by the hundreds of thousands. We had to institute a foreign buyers tax to stem the purchasing of real estate in Ontario and BC. Everyone wants to be here.  Anyway, we’ve been doing skills based immigration for decades, a policy the U.S. should try. 

[bush_cheney2004]

18 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

It’s clear that you either don’t know or are choosing to ignore how successful Canada is. 

 

...and you are choosing to ignore Canada's net immigration statistics.    See "brain drain".

[Michael Hardner]

9 hours ago, eyeball said:

No, which article?

 

[taxme]

If you were the Immigration Minister then I would suggest to you that you stop all immigration for at least five years or longer if needed until we can get our own house in order. With millions of Canadians unemployed and trying to find work, and then having to realize that they have foreigner competition to deal with from other countries looking for jobs also will make it all that more difficult for Canadians to possibly find a new and decent paying job. It's time for you as the Immigration Minister to think about Canadians first and not the rest of the world. It is time to close the border gates now. Canada should not be signing any treaty on refugees unless the government of Canada has the permission from the majority of it's Canadian citizen's and their approval and all done by a referendum. 

It should be ten years to become a citizen of Canada and you must keep your nose clean. Any laws being broken in that time then they are out of here. No appeals allowed. I agree, no family reunification of older parents who are not able to look after themselves. They can come to Canada to visit but should not be entitled to any kinds of social benefits or medical treatments for free. Their sponsors must be made to understand this and are responsible for their well being and the costs of keeping them here. No breaks.

Enough already Mr Minister. It is now time for some tough love. My opinion.  

[marcus]

On 9/9/2018 at 8:32 AM, Argus said:

I am now about to remake our immigration system. Here are a few of my likely policy changes.

Perhaps you need to understand basic Canadian immigration rules before making comments on it. Here is why I say this.

On 9/9/2018 at 8:32 AM, Argus said:

Immigration numbers will be cut back to 200,000

Why? Just because?

On 9/9/2018 at 8:32 AM, Argus said:

Family immigration will be eliminated except in humanitarian cases.

Heh. People can't sponsor their spouses? Don't be ridiculous.

On 9/9/2018 at 8:32 AM, Argus said:

Investor class immgiration will be eliminated entirely.

Federal Investor class has not been running since 2014.

On 9/9/2018 at 8:32 AM, Argus said:

All potential immmigrants must pass basic language tests given at the embassy or consulate.

There is already a language requirement for majority of programs, outside of family sponsorship, which must be taken before a person can apply for PR.

On 9/9/2018 at 8:32 AM, Argus said:

All potential immigrants must have a job offer for a job which cannot be easily filled by Canadians in order to immigrate to Canada (which is the requirement in the US)

Already have this. See Labour Market Impact Assessment. Our LMIA program is more strict than the American.

On 9/9/2018 at 8:32 AM, Argus said:

The requirement that immigrants attest to their desire to reside in Canada will be reinstated. The period of residency before acquiring citizenship will be raised back to 5 years. 

It was never 5 years. Harper changed it to 4 out of 6 years. Trudeau rolled it back to 3 out of 5.

On 9/9/2018 at 8:32 AM, Argus said:

All potential immigrants will be interviewed, which will allow an immigration officer to assess their language skills as well as their personal suitability and willingness to adapt and assimilate into Canada.

Better put in millions of $ into the immigration programs as interviewing 200,000 a year is going to require thousands of new employees.

On 9/9/2018 at 8:32 AM, Argus said:

They will also be required to answer, in writing, a series of fairly routine questions related to the profession they claim to be a member of in order to weed out those with fake documents and degrees.

Majority of skilled worker program require that the person's education credentials are assessed by accepted credential assessment organizations.

On 9/9/2018 at 8:32 AM, Argus said:

They will also be given a version of the 'personality' tests Canadian business routinely use to assess people's values and beliefs to see if they will fit in.

Okay Kellie Leitch. You're going to throw even more $$$ into the immigration program to try to make this ridiculous and useless thought come to life?

What exactly is this value? Your values? You think people cannot lie to get in?

On 9/9/2018 at 8:32 AM, Argus said:

In addition for a potential immigrant getting points for language ability, education, job skills, etc., the potential immigrant's spouse will also be able to add points to his score if he/she also has language skills, education and job skills. 

They already can, for Express Entry skilled workers, which is the biggest immigration program in Canada.

On 9/9/2018 at 8:32 AM, Argus said:

Canada will prioritize immigration from countries and areas in order to prevent the build-up of ethnic ghettos in Canada. For years Canada has taken a large number of immigrants from certain countries and areas which has supplied a continuing stream of that group to help enlarge and sustain such ethnic communities. Changing the focus of our immigration will allow those ethnic groups to more readily assimilate. This would mean targeting places like South America and Europe which have supplied minimal numbers of immigrants over the past few decades and which, consequently, do not have large ethnic communities here which retain the values and beliefs of their homeland.

There you go. Let out the racist and bigoted thoughts.

On 9/9/2018 at 8:32 AM, Argus said:

Every refugee applicant will be kept in custody pending their hearing.

Throw them in prison? Let it all out buddy.