I am the New Minister of Immigration!

[betsy]

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

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.

What do we do with refugee claimants (including those granted with permanent residency), if they're found guilty of  committing serious crimes in Canada?

I'm thinking of this Syrian refugee (who's only been here 17 months), and is charged with first degree murder of a 13 year old girl in BC.  This refugee has a permanent residency status.

 

 

[Argus]

10 hours ago, marcus said:

Why? Just because?

Why is it 300,000? Just because?

10 hours ago, marcus said:

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

Skilled immigrants can bring spouses and children but can't sponsor uncle ralph or grandpa.

10 hours ago, marcus said:

Federal Investor class has not been running since 2014.

What's your point?

10 hours ago, marcus said:

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.

But they are tested at local (corrupt) language schools. I want them tested by government, and I want the requirements increased.

10 hours ago, marcus said:

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

That is for hiring TFWs. It has nothing to do with immigration.

10 hours ago, marcus said:

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

We used to do this. We can do it again. It is infinitely cheaper than letting in the wrong people.

10 hours ago, marcus said:

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

Paperwork can be faked. The areas we hire from are extremely corrupt, and you can buy university degrees dirt cheap.

10 hours ago, marcus said:

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?

Yup. The people want it.

10 hours ago, marcus said:

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

No, I think most of them won't be able to do so.

10 hours ago, marcus said:

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

Why is it racist to not want the growth of large ethnic ghettos in Canada?

10 hours ago, marcus said:

Throw them in prison? Let it all out buddy. 

Lots of counties keep asylum seekers in custody until ascertaining the validity of their claim. Nothing wrong with it.

[Argus]

7 hours ago, betsy said:

What do we do with refugee claimants (including those granted with permanent residency), if they're found guilty of  committing serious crimes in Canada?

I'm thinking of this Syrian refugee (who's only been here 17 months), and is charged with first degree murder of a 13 year old girl in BC.  This refugee has a permanent residency status.

After their punishment they'd be deported immediately for a violent offense. Or for certain other offenses, such as immigration fraud

[Hudson Jones]

9 hours ago, betsy said:

What do we do with refugee claimants (including those granted with permanent residency), if they're found guilty of  committing serious crimes in Canada?

I'm thinking of this Syrian refugee (who's only been here 17 months), and is charged with first degree murder of a 13 year old girl in BC.  This refugee has a permanent residency status.

 

 

When someone who is not a Canadian citizen is charged with a criminal offence, immigration officials will be notified.

You could lose your permanent resident status and you could be deported to your country of origin if you are convicted of a serious crime.

A crime is serious if:

• the maximum sentence you could get is 10 or more years in prison (even if you get a shorter sentence), or
• the sentence that you do get is more than six months in prison.

[PIK]

On 9/9/2018 at 12:02 PM, 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.

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.  

Number one is what we need to get away from. And detention camps ,is that not what we have now along the borders?

 

 

 

[marcus]

14 hours ago, Argus said:

Why is it 300,000? Just because?

Because statistics show that without immigration, our population cannot handle replacing the baby boomers who are retiring and filling the new jobs that continue to open, which require new skills. 

14 hours ago, Argus said:

Skilled immigrants can bring spouses and children but can't sponsor uncle ralph or grandpa.

Okay. So you are changing your platform?

From: Family immigration will be eliminated except in humanitarian cases.

To: Family immigration will be eliminated except in humanitarian cases + spouses and children

Guess what Argus: You cannot sponsor uncles. As for grandpas and grandmas, the number is less than 20,000 of them each year. That's a tiny little drop in the bucket. Let's leave out the positives of unifying families and the wisdom and education the small number of elders can bring to the children, and talk about the economy. When an elder comes to Canada, more often than not, a parent ends up going back to work and putting in hours towards work and paying taxes. They're also able to provide better economically to their family.

14 hours ago, Argus said:

What's your point?

You said: Investor class immigration will be eliminated entirely.

I said: Federal Investor class has not been running since 2014.

The point is very clear. The point is that your knowledge of immigration is lacking. You are basing many of your immigration opinions on outdated and ignorant thoughts and ideas. 

14 hours ago, Argus said:

But they are tested at local (corrupt) language schools. I want them tested by government, and I want the requirements increased.

No. You are wrong.

The only English exams Canadian immigration accepts are IELTS and CELPIP. IELTS is a British based, internationally respected language test. CELPIP is a Canadian based English test that can be taken in Canada only. The centres are internationally monitored and the results are consistent in all offices. As for French, TEF is accepted and this is a France based language exam.

14 hours ago, Argus said:

That is for hiring TFWs. It has nothing to do with immigration.

Yes. That is for hiring TFWs. Exactly what you were talking about.

You 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)

Potential immigrants are TFWs and you were comparing our process to the U.S. I corrected you by telling you that our process is very strict when it comes to validating job offers. More so than the US'.

If you paid attention more, I wouldn't have to explain both the incorrect information you are sharing about immigration and how you're unable to follow the conversation.

14 hours ago, Argus said:

We used to do this. We can do it again. It is infinitely cheaper than letting in the wrong people.

It used to take an average of 5 years for skilled workers to be processed. Then the backlog continued to balloon and finally the Harper and Jason Kenney scrapped over 300,000 skilled workers who were waiting in line, some of them for over 5 years. One extremely DICK move.

Anyway, you're wrong. We shouldn't bring back interviews again. It's an inefficient and very expensive move that brings very little positives to the system.

Stop being so afraid of the immigrants. 

14 hours ago, Argus said:

Paperwork can be faked. The areas we hire from are extremely corrupt, and you can buy university degrees dirt cheap.

You don't listen. Stop making yourself irrelevant by not following what is being shared with you. 

I told you already: Education is assessed by a select Canadian assessment organizations, accepted by the immigration department. They only accept credentials from a list of selected few schools that have credibility. They contact the universities and verify the information. The days where you could just print out a fake degree are long gone. 

14 hours ago, Argus said:

Yup. The people want it.

It's an asinine idea. It doesn't matter what your fearful, bigoted thoughts are, the reality is that an overwhelming majority of immigrants who come through our system want the basics of what everyone else wants. It is to have security and the platform to succeed for themselves and their children. You need to get out there and engage with "the others" more often. Getting a haircut from the brown guy, does not count.

14 hours ago, Argus said:

Why is it racist to not want the growth of large ethnic ghettos in Canada?

Where are our "large ethnic ghettos"? 

Quit fear mongering and exaggerating. What's next? You're going to start a thread called: "White genocide in South Africa!"?

14 hours ago, Argus said:

Lots of counties keep asylum seekers in custody until ascertaining the validity of their claim. Nothing wrong with it.

You mean you didn't know that it's already happening? Or did you mean you wanted something similar to what the Aussies are doing ?

Until recently, many people in Canada were not aware that the Canadian government incarcerates thousands of asylum-seekers and migrants each year. This is unsurprising: detention operates mostly out of the public eye.

Immigration detention can mean an indefinite prison sentence for people who have not committed crimes. It wasn't until we started learning of the horrors of immigration detention in the U.S., where children were separated from their parents and detained, that we began really looking inward.

The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) oversees a legal and physical architecture of jails, immigration holding centres and police cells.

[betsy]

5 hours ago, marcus said:

Until recently, many people in Canada were not aware that the Canadian government incarcerates thousands of asylum-seekers and migrants each year. This is unsurprising: detention operates mostly out of the public eye.

Immigration detention can mean an indefinite prison sentence for people who have not committed crimes. It wasn't until we started learning of the horrors of immigration detention in the U.S., where children were separated from their parents and detained, that we began really looking inward.

The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) oversees a legal and physical architecture of jails, immigration holding centres and police cells.

Incarcerating them means we have to provide for them!   We cannot sustain that kind of expense!

There wouldn't have any need for incarceration if we just turn them away from the border!  Once word spreads that they can't enter Canada - it will deter others from coming  here.   We've got big mouth Trudeau to thank for this influx!

Just look at Italy.  After it refused refugees - they are now going for Spain!

Shifting Overseas Route Spain Becomes New Target for Migrants

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/refugees-now-aim-for-spain-in-their-migration-route-a-1221537.html

 

 

Edited September 12, 2018 by betsy

[Argus]

7 hours ago, marcus said:

Because statistics show that without immigration, our population cannot handle replacing the baby boomers who are retiring and filling the new jobs that continue to open, which require new skills. 

No, they show nothing of the sort. In fact, demographics experts have been clear that immigration cannot do much to change an aging population or a low birth rate.

7 hours ago, marcus said:

Okay. So you are changing your platform?

From: Family immigration will be eliminated except in humanitarian cases.

To: Family immigration will be eliminated except in humanitarian cases + spouses and children

Spouses and children do not come in under the family program but under the skilled immigration program.

7 hours ago, marcus said:

Guess what Argus: You cannot sponsor uncles. As for grandpas and grandmas, the number is less than 20,000 of them each year. That's a tiny little drop in the bucket.

It's a $4 billion a year drop. I'd call that sizable.

7 hours ago, marcus said:

You said: Investor class immigration will be eliminated entirely.

I said: Federal Investor class has not been running since 2014.

The point is very clear. The point is that your knowledge of immigration is lacking. You are basing many of your immigration opinions on outdated and ignorant thoughts and ideas. 

Quebec still operates one and there are various provincial nominee programs for investors, as well.

7 hours ago, marcus said:

The only English exams Canadian immigration accepts are IELTS and CELPIP. IELTS is a British based, internationally respected language test.

So? It needs to be taken at the embassy or consulate which is not currently the case.

7 hours ago, marcus said:

You 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)

Potential immigrants are TFWs and you were comparing our process to the U.S. I corrected you by telling you that our process is very strict when it comes to validating job offers. More so than the US'.

The US program requires people have a job offer before they can immigrate - not become a TFW. I think Canadian potential immigrants should also need a job offer before they can immigrate. Was not talking about TFWs.

7 hours ago, marcus said:

Anyway, you're wrong. We shouldn't bring back interviews again. It's an inefficient and very expensive move that brings very little positives to the system.

Well tough noogies. I say different, and so do Canadians.

7 hours ago, marcus said:

I told you already: Education is assessed by a select Canadian assessment organizations, accepted by the immigration department. They only accept credentials from a list of selected few schools that have credibility. They contact the universities and verify the information. The days where you could just print out a fake degree are long gone. 

Then they'll have no problem validating their credentials by answering a few questions, right?

7 hours ago, marcus said:

It's an asinine idea. It doesn't matter what your fearful, bigoted thoughts are, the reality is that an overwhelming majority of immigrants who come through our system want the basics of what everyone else wants.

I should care... why? My immigration program is not designed to serve foreigners who want what everyone else wants. It's designed to serve the interests of Canada. It's not a social welfare program for the world.

 

[marcus]

40 minutes ago, Argus said:

My immigration program is not designed to serve foreigners who want what everyone else wants. It's designed to serve the interests of Canada. It's not a social welfare program for the world.

A proper design of the immigration system would require that you understand the program and most of what you are saying serves only your fearful thoughts about immigrants. I'm happy that your ideas will never fly. Even with the Conservatives. There is a reason Kellie Leitch was kicked to the curb. Her immigration ideas were outdated, Trumpesque and were based on irrational fears of the others. Just like yours. 

Just let this whole, "interview" idea go. It's a terrible idea.

Author cited by Leitch torpedoes her pitch for immigrant ‘values’ screening

Vic Satzewich is a McMaster University sociology professor who wrote a book Conservative leadership candidate Kellie Leitch has been using to justify her plan to boost face-to-face interviews with immigrants, refugees and visitors — and screen them for their understanding of so-called “Canadian values”.

There’s just one problem. Satzewich says he actually couldn’t disagree with her more about her proposal — and he told her so over the weekend.

“In my book, I was interested in how visa officers make decisions. And so I got permission from the immigration department to visit visa officers and sit in on interviews that they do when they have concerns about an application,” Satzewich said in a phone interview Thursday.

“I went to 11 visa offices around the world, hung around the offices, talked to visa officers and really tried understand how they make decisions and exercise their discretion.”

The result was Points of Entry: How Canada’s Immigration Officers Decide Who Gets In, which — much to Satzewich’s surprise and frustration — is now being used by Leitch to argue for increased interviews and a values screen.

He said he found no evidence, however, that they’re regularly making bad or risky decisions.

“As a result of doing the research, I have a lot more confidence in the immigration system and seeing how visa officers work. They’re actually very conscientious. They’re concerned about applying the law correctly and being balanced in their decision-making,” he said.

“In no way shape or form do I ever argue, or will I ever think, that it is a good idea — or even a sensible idea — to test for Canadian values. But that’s a conclusion that she draws from (the) observations that I make. That’s certainly not my conclusion.”

Leitch has argued that immigration officials are expected to make decisions on 75 applications a day, which gives them about five minutes per application.

But it would be completely impractical to interview everyone making a visa application, Satzewich argued. And adding an opaque values screen that tests for such intangibles as “tolerance” and a belief  in “hard work” would only make the process break down entirely, he added.

“Every year, visa officers process 1.3, 1.4 million visa applications. Can you imagine doing interviews with 1.3 or 1.4 million applicants? It’s going to bring the immigration system to a grinding halt,” he said.

“We need to screen people to make sure that they have this value of working hard? It’s crazy, right? Immigrants come because they want to work hard, they want to do better for themselves. They want a better future for their kids. There’s a minuscule number of people who want to come to Canada to live off the welfare system.”

[turningrite]

8 hours ago, marcus said:

Because statistics show that without immigration, our population cannot handle replacing the baby boomers who are retiring and filling the new jobs that continue to open, which require new skills. 

 

Actually, Argus is correct about this. There's growing evidence that large-scale immigration does little to fundamentally address the main demographic issue, ageing, being experienced by Western countries. Australia, which conducted an extensive study of its immigration program(s), which in many aspects were modeled on the Canadian system, concluded that the demographic boost is largely temporary and cannot be sustained without maintaining constantly high immigration levels, whatever the economy's needs, a conclusion that's led some to describe the demographic rationale for high immigration levels as amounting to a ponzi scheme.

As for language skills, the Australian study concluded that demonstrated English language skills (in Canada we'd have to add French language skills) on the part of immigrants lead to better economic outcomes for immigrants themselves and for the broader economy. I doubt this situation is any different in Canada.

[marcus]

13 minutes ago, turningrite said:

Actually, Argus is correct about this. There's growing evidence that large-scale immigration does little to fundamentally address the main demographic issue, ageing, being experienced by Western countries. Australia, which conducted an extensive study of its immigration program(s), which in many aspects were modeled on the Canadian system, concluded that the demographic boost is largely temporary and cannot be sustained without maintaining constantly high immigration levels, whatever the economy's needs, a conclusion that's led some to describe the demographic rationale for high immigration levels as amounting to a ponzi scheme.

No credible studies show that immigration will harm Canada or Australia. You may find a study that shows that the current numbers will not fully respond to the decrease in population, but this doesn't mean that immigration is harmful.

If this study that you are talking is true, would reducing immigration help with anything? No. So why even try to use such a study to try to make a point that we should decrease immigration? Notice that Argus still has not said why he wants to reduce 300,000 immigrants/year to 200,000? Because he can't. He doesn't want to reveal it's simply because he's fearful and uncomfortable of the others.

Quote

As for language skills, the Australian study concluded that demonstrated English language skills (in Canada we'd have to add French language skills) on the part of immigrants lead to better economic outcomes for immigrants themselves and for the broader economy. I doubt this situation is any different in Canada.

Of course a higher language level helps immigrants in integrating into society better. No one is arguing against that.

Language is a big factor in our largest immigration programs, where most of our immigrants come through. Our skilled worker programs require that the applicants writes a language test. Someone with less than CLB 9 (out of CLB 10) has very little chance of coming through our skilled worker programs, unless they have a validated job offer.

I know this because I work in the industry. This is why I shake my head whenever Argus starts typing, with a comedic self-confidence, about what he thinks he knows about our immigration system and what needs to be done to improve it.

Edited September 12, 2018 by marcus

[DogOnPorch]

There are more people than ever...robots are a reality...but we have an apparent labour shortage. 

Right....

[Bonam]

The labor shortage is a myth, just like the supposed demographic apocalypse. Everyone who's paid attention to anything over the last decade or two knows that the real economic debate is about what the heck will people do as automation takes over more and more jobs, not a "labor shortage". 

Edited September 12, 2018 by Bonam

[DogOnPorch]

3 minutes ago, Bonam said:

The labor shortage is a myth, just like the supposed demographic apocalypse. Everyone who's paid attention to anything over the last decade or two knows that the debate is about what the heck will people do as automation takes over more and more jobs, not a "labor shortage". 

 

You're probably old enough to recall being taught about population graph/pyramids and how countries with less pyramid-y age distribution (ie straight up and down) were the ideal ones that all should strive to achieve. Now we are told this was a bunch of BS and HUGE families are what is needed...and WHY didn't you all have MORE babies!??

Edited September 12, 2018 by DogOnPorch

[turningrite]

26 minutes ago, marcus said:

1.) No credible studies show that immigration will harm Canada or Australia. You may find a study that shows that the current numbers will not fully respond to the decrease in population, but this doesn't mean that immigration is harmful.

If this study that you are talking is true, would reducing immigration help with anything? No. So why even try to use such a study to try to make a point that we should decrease immigration? Notice that Argus still has not said why he wants to reduce 300,000 immigrants/year to 200,000? Because he can't. He doesn't want to reveal it's simply because he's fearful and uncomfortable of the others.

2.) Of course a higher language level helps immigrants in integrating into society better. No one is arguing against that.

Language is a big factor in our largest immigration programs, where most of our immigrants come through. Our skilled worker programs require that the applicants writes a language test. Someone with less than CLB 9 (out of CLB 10) has very little chance of coming through our skilled worker programs, unless they have a validated job offer.

3.) I know this because I work in the industry. This is why I shake my head whenever Argus starts typing, with a comedic self-confidence, about what he thinks he knows about our immigration system and what needs to be done to improve it.

1.) This is an entirely different issue than whether large scale immigration provides a demonstrable solution to rapidly ageing populations in Western countries. Is immigration harmful to Canada or Australia, or to the U.K. or the U.S. for that matter? The answer depends on a lot of variables. The British economist Sir Paul Collier has noted that the overall impact of large scale immigration is neither good nor bad. He notes, however, that the while the economic impact is marginal, it disproportionately benefits the already wealthy, by suppressing wages and expanding markets for goods and services, while it disadvantages the already disadvantaged and increases economic inequality by suppressing wages and raising the costs for goods and services, including housing, the disadvantaged use.

2.) The problem of course is that sponsored family class immigrants as well as refugees, who in both cases constitute large components within our migration programs, don't have to demonstrate language skills. It is immigrants who arrive in these categories who in general have the most difficulty integrating and who tend to rely on public assistance and subsidies for extended periods of time.

3.) So, you're an insider? This suggests that your own views aren't necessarily objective. Presumably, you don't actually work in the immigration/refugee or associated government bureaucracies because those I know who do or have done so are in general quite critical of our programs. 

Edited September 12, 2018 by turningrite

[Bonam]

47 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

You're probably old enough to recall being taught about population graph/pyramids and how countries with less pyramid-y age distribution (ie straight up and down) were the ideal ones that all should strive to achieve. Now we are told this was a bunch of BS and HUGE families are what is needed...and WHY didn't you all have MORE babies!??

The same people that talk endlessly about environmental problems (while opposing all existing scalable technologies to address the problems - hydro and nuclear), are also the people that totally dismiss environmental concerns and argue for more population. The number one driver of environmental damage is population, and yet we apparently need a vast increase of it. These are also the same people that talk about a "labor shortage" at the same time as they advocate for the need for a "guaranteed income" for everyone since most people will be left unemployed by automation. There's no consistency or logic or rationality, just a bunch of disjointed emotional feel-good ideas:

"Open borders! Cut CO2 emissions (but don't use hydro or nuclear, do it by going vegan)! Robots will do all the work for us so we need free money from the government for everyone! But we need more people! Use all the wealth that's been created to lift people out of poverty! But capitalism (which creates the wealth) is evil! Islam is peace and Western culture is rape culture! Listen to the scientific consensus on climate change! But scientists are in the pockets of big agriculture and they're all lying about GMOs being safe! No religion in the classroom! But the religion of social justice must be incorporated into everything, even math class! We're all about tolerance and inclusiveness! Except of anyone who happens to have a different opinion!"

 

Edited September 12, 2018 by Bonam

[taxme]

On 9/10/2018 at 11:22 PM, marcus said:

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

Why? Just because?

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

Federal Investor class has not been running since 2014.

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.

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

Throw them in prison? Let it all out buddy. 

 

Well, in my humble Canadian taxpayer opinion, CUT all immigration too Canada now period. It is time for a moratorium on immigration. Canada is full there is no more room. We do not want nor need any more new immigrants to be allowed to immigrate too Canada. And stop wasting time and tax dollars on criminal illegals who cross into Canada illegally. Those illegals have already shown us that they do not believe in the laws of our country. They need to be sent back from whence they came. Probably 90% of those illegals are so called economic migrants anyway. Many of those criminal illegals are flying from other countries to the USA and then start to head north to Canada. Canadians are being taken for suckers every day and not only by these criminal illegals but by our own Canadian politically correct dumbfounded politicians who have allowed this mess to continue.

With millions of Canadians unemployed and then to be bringing in over 350,000 new legal and illegal immigrants every year is a crime against the Canadian taxpayer's of Canada. It is costing the Canadian taxpayer's hundreds of millions of their tax dollars every year to look after these migrants when they get here. Enough already. This needs to stop now, dammit.  Grrrrr. 

Why do people like you always see racism and bigotry when anyone is trying to make a valid point especially on immigration? That word racist is being used too many times against anyone who has an opinion and points of view on immigration. I really do get quite pissed off when I see that word racist being thrown around and being used against anyone who has an opinion on immigration and hopefully will shut them down. And why not allow in more new immigrants from Britain or Europe? At one time that is where Canada got most of it's new immigrants from. Immigrants who had a common heritage and culture with the other British and European people of Canada at the time. 

Indeed, throw all of the criminal illegals in prison. Isn't that what is supposed to be done to people who break the law? They have no right to be here or entitled to anything from the Canadian taxpayer's. Canadians cannot be expected to take care of every refugee in the world which I believe that prime mistake of ours would like to do. 

[taxme]

2 hours ago, marcus said:

No credible studies show that immigration will harm Canada or Australia. You may find a study that shows that the current numbers will not fully respond to the decrease in population, but this doesn't mean that immigration is harmful.

If this study that you are talking is true, would reducing immigration help with anything? No. So why even try to use such a study to try to make a point that we should decrease immigration? Notice that Argus still has not said why he wants to reduce 300,000 immigrants/year to 200,000? Because he can't. He doesn't want to reveal it's simply because he's fearful and uncomfortable of the others.

Of course a higher language level helps immigrants in integrating into society better. No one is arguing against that.

Language is a big factor in our largest immigration programs, where most of our immigrants come through. Our skilled worker programs require that the applicants writes a language test. Someone with less than CLB 9 (out of CLB 10) has very little chance of coming through our skilled worker programs, unless they have a validated job offer.

I know this because I work in the industry. This is why I shake my head whenever Argus starts typing, with a comedic self-confidence, about what he thinks he knows about our immigration system and what needs to be done to improve it.

You need to ask the people of Sweden, Germany and Britain as to what they have to think and say about massive immigration, especially massive immigration from third world countries? Facts have shown that for those three countries alone massive third world immigration has been a big problem and disaster for the host people. Canada and Australia may soon be next. There have been many problems with Muslims in Canada today. But we never hear about them because the leftist liberal Canadian media refuse and will not report them. They only look for what some white guy that says something that appears to be racist. I know that you like to use that word racist. 

Anyone with half a brain can see that massive immigration does not do anything for any country. All more immigration does is make the need for more housing, more schools, more roads, more of everything and more assaults on our medical and social services and the environment. Hello, is anybody listening or getting it yet?  More people added to a country just means that we are just adding more people to the mix and does not solve any problems but instead appears to make more problems.

Your ideas that immigration is good is pure bull shit. Where is the need for bringing in 200, 000 when there are approx. 2 million Canadians unemployed? If immigration were so great then why are there so many Canadians unemployed? People like you need to think before you speak. This is why Canada is going to have an immigration problem very soon. The reason for that is that we appear to have Canadian politicians who do not think before they speak. Just keep bringing them in by the hundreds of thousands and will worry about it later. 

You do not appear to know all that much about immigration at all. You are a real head spinner alright. 

[Argus]

6 hours ago, marcus said:

A proper design of the immigration system would require that you understand the program and most of what you are saying serves only your fearful thoughts about immigrants. I'm happy that your ideas will never fly. Even with the Conservatives. There is a reason Kellie Leitch was kicked to the curb. 

And yet polls showed over 70% of Canadians liked her idea and wanted it. So your view is fundamentally undemocratic. 

6 hours ago, marcus said:

Just let this whole, "interview" idea go. It's a terrible idea.

Nope. It's gonna happen.

6 hours ago, marcus said:

Author cited by Leitch torpedoes her pitch for immigrant ‘values’ screening

Vic Satzewich is a McMaster University sociology professor who wrote a book Conservative leadership candidate Kellie Leitch has been using to justify her plan to boost face-to-face interviews with immigrants, refugees and visitors — and screen them for their understanding of so-called “Canadian values”.

There’s just one problem. Satzewich says he actually couldn’t disagree with her more about her proposal — and he told her so over the weekend.

I'm aware of this. He didn't write the book as a critique of immigration. He is very much pro-immigration. Nevertheless, the information in his book is alarming. Even if it doesn't alarm him or you. It alarms Canadians who care about our borders and ensuring we get the best immigrants.

[Argus]

6 hours ago, marcus said:

No credible studies show that immigration will harm Canada or Australia. You may find a study that shows that the current numbers will not fully respond to the decrease in population, but this doesn't mean that immigration is harmful.

Your position appears to be without hard evidence of harm we should continue a very expensive program to import hundreds of thousands of people into the country every year. That's not the least bit logical. There are costs to immigration, especially the immigration of poorly skilled people, which amounts to many billions a year. Just the 20,000 seniors Trudeau is now allowing in will cost us $4 billion a year in health care costs.

And there is a dearth of unbiased studies on immigration in Canada. The only interest groups that are likely to undertake such a thing are big business - which loves immigration since it produces more customers and cheap labour - members of the immigration industry - who love immigration because it makes them money - and the government, who love to use immigration to leverage votes from ethnic communities.

6 hours ago, marcus said:

If this study that you are talking is true, would reducing immigration help with anything? No. So why even try to use such a study to try to make a point that we should decrease immigration? Notice that Argus still has not said why he wants to reduce 300,000 immigrants/year to 200,000?

Because we're bringing in immigrants too fast for our culture to absorb. How do you assimilate immigrants when they show up at school and find that 75% of the kids there are immigrants or the children of immigrants? And that most of the kids are from their home country or region?

 

[Zeitgeist]

On ‎9‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 8:40 PM, Argus said:

Your position appears to be without hard evidence of harm we should continue a very expensive program to import hundreds of thousands of people into the country every year. That's not the least bit logical. There are costs to immigration, especially the immigration of poorly skilled people, which amounts to many billions a year. Just the 20,000 seniors Trudeau is now allowing in will cost us $4 billion a year in health care costs.

And there is a dearth of unbiased studies on immigration in Canada. The only interest groups that are likely to undertake such a thing are big business - which loves immigration since it produces more customers and cheap labour - members of the immigration industry - who love immigration because it makes them money - and the government, who love to use immigration to leverage votes from ethnic communities.

Because we're bringing in immigrants too fast for our culture to absorb. How do you assimilate immigrants when they show up at school and find that 75% of the kids there are immigrants or the children of immigrants? And that most of the kids are from their home country or region?

 

The overriding desire among the immigrant students who make up 75% of a Canadian school is too learn the language, English/French and to fit in and feel like a real Canadian.

[Benz]

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

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.

The way you phrase it, one cannot bring his wife / her husband unless the other criterias are met. Same for the children. I go live in Japan for 2 years, get married and have 1 baby, I cannot use that program to bring my wife and my child with me. Nor if I married a wife I want to bring her a 19 years old girl. Even if my wife is accepted, her daughter might not. Or vice versa.

[taxme]

14 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

The overriding desire among the immigrant students who make up 75% of a Canadian school is too learn the language, English/French and to fit in and feel like a real Canadian.

And then maybe they will decide to want to stay in Canada and become real Canadians and then add more immigrants to the list of immigrants that want to live in Canada to the mix. Geez, Canada might as well just open the border gates wide open. Just saying. 

[Machjo]

39 minutes ago, Benz said:

The way you phrase it, one cannot bring his wife / her husband unless the other criterias are met. Same for the children. I go live in Japan for 2 years, get married and have 1 baby, I cannot use that program to bring my wife and my child with me. Nor if I married a wife I want to bring her a 19 years old girl. Even if my wife is accepted, her daughter might not. Or vice versa.

What would be wrong with granting her the freedom to visit, study, work, or do business visa-free? Why would she need permanent residency or citizenship just to live with you?

I think we could make a distinction between different kinds of immigration. I have no problem with giving people easy access to visa-free travel, study, work, and business in Canada, but we shouldn't give access to social assistance as easily.

[Machjo]

53 minutes ago, taxme said:

And then maybe they will decide to want to stay in Canada and become real Canadians and then add more immigrants to the list of immigrants that want to live in Canada to the mix. Geez, Canada might as well just open the border gates wide open. Just saying. 

Like in the past you mean? Historically, indigenous peoples were great international traders. That's why Chinuk Wawa spread across Cascadia.