Entitled refugees

[Argus]

15 hours ago, Rue said:

Argus you stated the above and yet in the remainder of the same reply made it clear your only concern was with those coming to Canada who commit crimes. Your disconnect in what you claim to say and actually say does not lend to credibility.

My concern is with immigrants we bring in to stay, not merely with 'foreigners' but with those we invite to join our family.

[Argus]

6 hours ago, Rue said:

No of course not. Its meaning and  significance depends on the context the holocaust  is used. Your blanket prohibition  and censorship of its use is illogical.

Your blanket prohibition on observing and judging the behaviour of groups of people is much less logical.

6 hours ago, Rue said:

 It was not initiated as a stand alone accusation.  It was raised to explain why telling Jews to hate Muslims is an ignorant and stupid thing to do.

Nobody told you to hate Muslims.

6 hours ago, Rue said:

That in no way diminishes the holocaust but applies lessons learned from the holocaust NOT TO REPEAT the same process of steretyping and so does the exact opposite.

As I have already pointed out the Nazis did not 'stereotype' Jews. What nonsense even suggest it! Do you not even understand the difference between stereotype and slander?

 

[Argus]

4 hours ago, Rue said:

I have yet to hear anyone provide criteria to screen out what they feel are undesirables.

We can start with an interview to try to determine what kind of a person we are inviting to come join us here, what their views are on various subjects and how tolerant they are likely to be once in Canada. Hell, the Swiss seem to have discovered that merely attempting to shake hands with someone of the opposite sex is enough to show they're not the type to fit in there.

 

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

Yes, and nice Western non-Muslims build drones that drop armaments on innocent civilians in far-off lands.  I know we're not at all willing to hold our own accountable for the innocent people they kill off the battlefield, but if we did,

Now you're just lying. Drone strikes don't intentionally target civilians, and "civilian" casualties include terrorists whose names just aren't on the books yet. Eg, a supporter of al-baghdadi who was unknown to US intelligence who died in a drone strike counts as a civilian, but they're really not.

If you're talking about how there were too many civilian casualties when Obama was Prez I agree. We can both dislike Obama but that ship has already sailed.

Quote

should we also hold the makers of the weapons accountable as murderers?   Does that make sense to you?  I mean, I'm all for that, personally - but I can see it's not actually realistic.  

What kind of stupid idea is that? People kill people with knives and swords ffs. How can you prove what their intent was? If they don't get swords they can kill with a rental truck.

People who make bombs for terrorists are a different story. Those items are designed to kill humans illegally. But I know you don't have any animosity towards terrorists who make bombs....

[dialamah]

6 minutes ago, Argus said:

and who have an adaptable, flexible personality that WANTS to join with and integrate with the culture, values and people of Canada.

Yet, you dismissed that part of the Environics survey in which Muslims confirmed that was exactly their mind set, becuse some of them went to Mosque more.  

[Argus]

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

Yes, and nice Western non-Muslims build drones that drop armaments on innocent civilians in far-off lands.

But not on purpose. That is something you seem to be ignoring. When Muslim extremists set off bombs in crowded markets or in churches and mosques they're not killing civilians by accident, but on purpose.

[Argus]

5 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Yet, you dismissed that part of the Environics survey in which Muslims confirmed that was exactly their mind set, becuse some of them went to Mosque more.  

I'm not going to rehash some half remembered discussion based on your version of what was said. I will say that if the second generation is MORE religious, feels more affiliation to Islam and wears hijabs, niqabs and burkas more than their parents that is hardly an indication that they're integrating. Especially given what Islam has to say about unbelievers and women. You continue to believe someone can be devoted to Islam and yet ignore what Islam's doctrine has to say about such things.

Edited January 23, 2020 by Argus

[Goddess]

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

Don't be silly, then.

Emotionally abusive people do this a lot.  Someone sets a boundary and they ignore it, believing they are fully entitled to behave any way they want.

[Rue]

16 hours ago, Argus said:

Your blanket prohibition on observing and judging the behaviour of groups of people is much less logical.

Nobody told you to hate Muslims.

As I have already pointed out the Nazis did not 'stereotype' Jews. What nonsense even suggest it! Do you not even understand the difference between stereotype and slander?

 

You now presume to tell me that Nazi propaganda in speeches, films, political cartoons did not stereotype Jews it just slandered Jews. What an insipid attempt to engage in semantics to deflect from and defend  your negative generalizations about Muslims and why it was inappropriate to lecture me or any Jew to negatively stereotype  or hate anyone.. ..quite pathetic actually.

As for your need to negatively generalize about Muslims no one including me has issued you any prohibitions.

You mistake me for  Shady or you telling me and Jews how to define anti-semitism or who  we should hate. 

 

 

 

Edited January 24, 2020 by Rue

[Rue]

 

19 hours ago, Argus said:

We can start with an interview to try to determine what kind of a person we are inviting to come join us here, what their views are on various subjects and how tolerant they are likely to be once in Canada. Hell, the Swiss seem to have discovered that merely attempting to shake hands with someone of the opposite sex is enough to show they're not the type to fit in there.

 

Start with an interview... that is it..that is the totality of your answer?

To start with the immigration law  process for determining eligibility already interviews.  Canadian Border Security Officers and inland immigration officers already interview and the very purpose of admissability hearings and refugee board tribunal cases is to interview and cross examine.

Clearly your concern is its not asking the right questions. You haven't a clue what questions to ask. Go on tell us. What questions would you ask and how would they screen out the Muslims you are so worried about? Please explain. You know damn well anyone can prep an answer to a question.

If interviewing was a  sufficient method to screen "undesireables" you would not be coming on this board complaining about Muslims.

You threw out an unoriginal idea as lip service proving the point its easy to point out the negative and what does not work, but people like you have no clue as to how to fix what whine about,  you prefer instead to fear monger about Muslim terrorists coming into Canada and Muslims coming into Canada who will erode our Canadian values.

You can't even enunciate our Canadian values. You can however assume negative about other peoples values without stating your own. From what I can see of your values, you believe whatever yours are, they are superior to the values of Muslims and they should have the same values as you.

 You won't acknowledge a difference between the many kinds of Islamic values and lump them all  as undesireable repeatedly in your comments and then deny you do and claim if I question this I "admire" the Islamic religion and therefore that makes my challenging your negative generalizations defective.

Go on tell me how the following is not stereotyping, educate us all:

 

 

Edited January 24, 2020 by Rue

[Rue]

 In response to D and G's debate....

If conventional military forces engage in war crimes against civilians or enemy combatants that is subject to military law and international conventions and international war crimes courts.

However to infer terrorism is no worse than  the above does not justify either.

Hopefully no one has or should condone any terrorist or war criminal.
I do not wish however to stray from the the thread. To make it relevant to the thread we would need to discuss how does one know the difference between a desireable and undesireable Canada.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 24, 2020 by Rue

[Argus]

12 hours ago, Rue said:

You now presume to tell me that Nazi propaganda in speeches, films, political cartoons did not stereotype Jews it just slandered Jews. What an insipid attempt to engage in semantics to deflect from and defend  your negative generalizations about Muslims and why it was inappropriate to lecture me or any Jew to negatively stereotype  or hate anyone.. ..quite pathetic actually.

I feel free to disagree with anyone who is saying stupid things. I don't care if you're a Jew. Are you going to suggest all Jews are born enlightened and have a perfect knowledge of all of history? Are you claiming to speak for all Jews? If you don't know the difference between stereotypes and blatant lies then there's little hope for you. Then again, I suppose not having much understanding of lies is a prerequisite for lawyers.

Quote

As for your need to negatively generalize about Muslims no one including me has issued you any prohibitions.

You mistake me for  Shady or you telling me and Jews how to define anti-semitism or who  we should hate.

You mistake me for someone who gives a damn about your indignation. Don't stand on a pedestal trying to lecture me about generalized statements I make which are generally true. This is just more bullshit like when you got all self-righteous when I brought up the strong antisemitism among world Muslims and then later admitted what I said was completely correct.

 

 

Edited January 24, 2020 by Argus

[Argus]

11 hours ago, Rue said:

 

Start with an interview... that is it..that is the totality of your answer?

If that was the totality of my answer then that would have been the totality of my answer, would it not? Did you fail to notice there was more to it? Are your eyes going along with your mind?

11 hours ago, Rue said:

To start with the immigration law  process for determining eligibility already interviews. 

This is, of course, an absolute lie. I feel free in saying you are lying rather than mistaken because as an immigration lawyer you know perfectly well this is not true. It's already been shown that only about 10% of immigration applicants ever get an interview to determine eligibility, the ones whose paperwork draws suspicion or problems. Most immigrants don't see anyone till they arrive here.

11 hours ago, Rue said:

Clearly your concern is its not asking the right questions. You haven't a clue what questions to ask. Go on tell us. What questions would you ask and how would they screen out the Muslims you are so worried about? Please explain. You know damn well anyone can prep an answer to a question.

We've gone through this before. I'm not an expert at developing personality tests. These tests are in use across the world, and are designed with the idea people might try to prep for them and might be dishonest. Rather than asking direct questions, they go through a series of questions which lead towards a general understanding of an applicant's thoughts on a given subject. Other nations interview immigration applicants. Somehow Canada doesn't bother. Other nations reject applicants who demonstrate values which go against those of the societies people are seeking to enter. We should, too.

The rest of your hysterical, sanctimonious bullshit deleted.

 

[Rue]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

I don't care if you're a Jew.

Are you going to suggest all Jews are born enlightened and have a perfect knowledge of all of history?

Are you claiming to speak for all Jews?

If you don't know the difference between stereotypes and blatant lies then there's little hope for you.

Then again, I suppose not having much understanding of lies is a prerequisite for lawyers.

You mistake me for someone who gives a damn about your indignation.

Don't stand on a pedestal trying to lecture me about generalized statements I make which are generally true.

This is just more bullshit like when you got all self-righteous when I brought up the strong antisemitism among world Muslims and then later admitted what I said was completely correct.

 

 

In regards to statement 1, that is blatantly obvious.

In regards to statement 2, no why would I? You mistake me for you. I challenge generalizations and steretypes, you again mistake me for you,

In regards to statement 3,  no, never did and already answered that,  however when you claim to speak for all Jews, tell all Jews how to think, tell us who to hate and stereotype, I will call you out as a Jew. If you raise the Jewish card, I will challenge it as is my right as a Jew.

In regards to statement 4,  that is  precisely why I challenged you and you show there is little hope for you. It also explains in your next statement 5, how you demonstrate one can lie and stereotype at the same time.

In regards to statement 5, no evidently not. 

In regards to statement 6, no of course not. I take you for what you are someone who relishes telling people he does not give a damn what they think.

I  regards to statement 7,  no I am not on a pedestal. I do not look down or up at you. If I had t use an analogy though I would say I am standing next to someone sitting on a toilet.  As for your claims of being "generally true" about your "generalizations", I would say you have shown that it is not generally true.

In regards to statement 8, I have never disagreed with the fact that there is strong anti-semitism in the Muslim world. Repeating that false misrepresentation won't make it  true. Provide the words where I denied it. You can't because I never provided them, so if anything Argus your petulant response is to be expected and adds nothing but more name calling from you,

 

 

[Rue]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

If that was the totality of my answer then that would have been the totality of my answer, would it not? Did you fail to notice there was more to it? Are your eyes going along with your mind?

 

 

Here was your answer:

"We can start with an interview to try to determine what kind of a person we are inviting to come join us here, what their views are on various subjects and how tolerant they are likely to be once in Canada. Hell, the Swiss seem to have discovered that merely attempting to shake hands with someone of the opposite sex is enough to show they're not the type to fit in there."

Where is the "more to it". Please explain what other suggestions you provided.

[Rue]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

 

This is, of course, an absolute lie. I feel free in saying you are lying rather than mistaken because as an immigration lawyer you know perfectly well this is not true. It's already been shown that only about 10% of immigration applicants ever get an interview to determine eligibility, the ones whose paperwork draws suspicion or problems. Most immigrants don't see anyone till they arrive here.

 

 

Your above comment was in direct response to my remark in which I said: "To start with the immigration law  process for determining eligibility already interviews."

What I do know ignoring your name calling is this:

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/new-immigrants/prepare-life-canada/border-entry/interviews.html

What I also know is this: that under 3 economic immigration classes of the federal express entry system because there is an objective point assessment  screening system that may preclude the need for an interview. What I also know is that personal interviews may be required depending on the category of immigration applied for and there is an Express Entry system that takes the need away because the information obtained in an interview  because it is already objectively obtained and screened for validity. It is most often required with family sponsorships,  and non skilled workers but not usually with skilled workers. So what I know is there is no stratistic that says only 10% of applicants to immigrate to Canada  are interviewed and if someone is not interviewed its because they already provided and validated information that would otherwise be obtained in an interview.

Immigrants not seeing anyone until they get here has nothing to do with whether they provided objective information that was  already validated before they come to Canada.

Provide where you got your 10% figure from and what it refers to. It appears fabricated because you do not understand when interviews might be waived depending on what class of eligibility an immigrant applies. It also appears you have no idea about preliminary interviews or the immigration refugee process that deals with an initial interview with the CBSA officer who can reject them or choose to send them on to the Refugee Board which conducts a hearing to determine if they are eligible and in that process extensively questions and tests the testimony of refugees.

What I do know is you shoot off at the mouth about what I know, and over simplify the immigration application process.

 

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Rue said:

In regards to statement 2, no why would I? You mistake me for you. I challenge generalizations and steretypes, you again mistake me for you,

Generalizations are fine as long as one understand they're a generalization. And as long as they're true. If your mind is not adept enough to understand that there's no hope for you.

2 hours ago, Rue said:

In regards to statement 3,  no, never did and already answered that,  however when you claim to speak for all Jews,

I? When have I ever made such a claim? Because I posted a few things regarding the danger to Jews in Europe from Muslim immigrants? And because, astonishingly, you showed a thousand times more outrage at my talking about Muslim antisemitism than over the actual antisemitism, which you dismissed as something not worth discussing.

2 hours ago, Rue said:

As for your claims of being "generally true" about your "generalizations", I would say you have shown that it is not generally true.

If so, not by you.

2 hours ago, Rue said:

In regards to statement 8, I have never disagreed with the fact that there is strong anti-semitism in the Muslim world. Repeating that false misrepresentation won't make it  true. Provide the words where I denied it.

I've already done so. And I've already pointed out, several times, that even while not denying it you responded with insults and insinuations about my motives. You are like one of those people, like Obama, as Bill Maher and others have commented on, who, upon the event of an act of a Muslim terrorism which kills many people, instantly rushes out to defend... Muslims. Instead of talking about the terrorism itself, they immediately warn everyone against Islamophobia. Obama once said after some ISIS beheadings that that not only had nothing to do with Islam but had less to do with Islam than any other religion! Apparently the Buddhists were more at fault! So desperately concerned that no one ever blame Islam for any of its violence, so frantic to show how fair and 'open minded' they are and how non-judgemental they eschew their own society's interests in favour of virtue signalling.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Rue said:

Your above comment was in direct response to my remark in which I said: "To start with the immigration law  process for determining eligibility already interviews."

What I do know ignoring your name calling is this:

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/new-immigrants/prepare-life-canada/border-entry/interviews.html

You realize this does not contradict what I said. These are interviews AFTER people have been accepted as immigrants and arrived in Canada. And they do not in any way try to ascertain whether the individuals would make good immigrants.

1 hour ago, Rue said:

Immigrants not seeing anyone until they get here has nothing to do with whether they provided objective information that was  already validated before they come to Canada.

So you're actually not contradicting what I said, just suggesting interviews aren't necessary to determine whether someone would be a good immigrant. As for validating their applications, we know that is done in mere minutes by harried, overworked public servants who don't have the time to check things very carefully and who are driven by numbers.

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.

1 hour ago, Rue said:

Provide where you got your 10% figure from and what it refers to. It

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)

[Rue]

4 hours ago, Argus said:

 

We've gone through this before. I'm not an expert at developing personality tests. These tests are in use across the world, and are designed with the idea people might try to prep for them and might be dishonest. Rather than asking direct questions, they go through a series of questions which lead towards a general understanding of an applicant's thoughts on a given subject. Other nations interview immigration applicants. Somehow Canada doesn't bother. Other nations reject applicants who demonstrate values which go against those of the societies people are seeking to enter. We should, too.

 

 

Firstly, yes you clearly have no idea what personality tests are used for.  Here is what they are used for: https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wmopen-psychology/chapter/personality-assessment/.  It might  therefore  have bee a good idea after admitting  you are not an expert on them  to have researched their purpose BEFORE you then continued to present them as being able to detect if when asking people cultural value questions, these people  would be lying.

Your reasoning makes the false assumption personality tests detect lying. They do not.

Your response also deflects from and ignores the point made to you that you have no response for that states that lie detection testing is not accurate or reliable:https://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00748/full

Next when asked to define what would be the values you would be searching for in immigrants you did not answer and this was no surprise because while you are quick to say what is not a Canadian value you can’t say what is./

Argus for any psychological testing to  have accuracy it must use objective criteria that can be validated . That means simply asking people questions to feed back agreement with your preconceived views as to what is culturally acceptable is subjective criteria not objective criteria.

Next you have already stated numerous times you have already decided anyone who believes in Islam is incompatible with Canadian values. So why the pretense? .

In fact you even used a device on a religious thread about Islam to throw out as an insult to me that I “admire Islam” as if that in itself was an automatic ground to reject any challenge I made as to your negative generalizations about Muslims. No problem its just a recycled version of calling someone a n...ggr lover. Fine by me.

Here’s the thing though. I do not “admire” Islam or any other religion. The word “admire” means from the definition I warmly approve of i and/or look at Islam or other religions with pleasure. You threw that out to insult and belittle and that is because rather than try be respectful over a difference of opinion you choose instead to throw out ignorant spiteful negative comments meant to insult and then  whine that if  I challenge this, it means I am angry or feel superior to you.

 I most certainly however  respect people as individuals and so their beliefs including Islam,, or any other belief system as long as they do not use their belief system like you to negatively generalize, rationalize hatred, engage in terror, sexism, or physical or mental practices that are questionable.

This is why I continue to categorically challenge your comments and point out what I feel are t glaring deficiencies , your deflections from being unable to support your positions with objective criteria.

Its interesting because you hurl out false misrepresentations, profanities, insults and then when I challenge them whine that I am sanctimonious. No but I will challenge your use of abusive language towards me or anyone else.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Rue]

58 minutes ago, Argus said:

Generalizations are fine as long as one understand they're a generalization. And as long as they're true. If your mind is not adept enough to understand that there's no hope for you.

I? When have I ever made such a claim? Because I posted a few things regarding the danger to Jews in Europe from Muslim immigrants? And because, astonishingly, you showed a thousand times more outrage at my talking about Muslim antisemitism than over the actual antisemitism, which you dismissed as something not worth discussing.

If so, not by you.

I've already done so. And I've already pointed out, several times, that even while not denying it you responded with insults and insinuations about my motives. You are like one of those people, like Obama, as Bill Maher and others have commented on, who, upon the event of an act of a Muslim terrorism which kills many people, instantly rushes out to defend... Muslims. Instead of talking about the terrorism itself, they immediately warn everyone against Islamophobia. Obama once said after some ISIS beheadings that that not only had nothing to do with Islam but had less to do with Islam than any other religion! Apparently the Buddhists were more at fault! So desperately concerned that no one ever blame Islam for any of its violence, so frantic to show how fair and 'open minded' they are and how non-judgemental they eschew their own society's interests in favour of virtue signalling.

Again at this point you misrepresent what I have challenged and deflect. Your first comment makes no sense. Whether a generalization is helpful or harmful or as you say "fine" depends on the context in which it is used not your subjective pronouncement. 

Comments that you think are truthful may not be. Comments that are truthful can also if not explained in a sensitive manner injure and incite hatred.

Next you falsely stated I "showed" more outrage at your depiction of Muslims then anti-semitism. No on the contrary I have used analogies to state for me they use the same cognitive process and so are equally as repugnant to me,.

You again hurl insults and negative generalizations and I see now I am not just in a category with Dialamah (thank you) but Bill Maher and Obama. You are actually dead on about Maher but not Obama who Maher and I disagreed with over his foreign policies. But hey put me in his category. Label away.

The last portion of your remarks are angry complaints about positions you think others hold. They make no sense to me. You haven't quoted anyone.

 

[Rue]

53 minutes ago, Argus said:

You realize this does not contradict what I said. These are interviews AFTER people have been accepted as immigrants and arrived in Canada. And they do not in any way try to ascertain whether the individuals would make good immigrants.

 

You clearly on the other hand don't realize what it means. It actually shows interviews can and are done BEFORE people have been defined as eligible and if they are not because the same information is already obtained. It also shows interviews are done with anyone coming to Canada and that refugees are of course questioned.

[Rue]

56 minutes ago, Argus said:

 

So you're actually not contradicting what I said, just suggesting interviews aren't necessary to determine whether someone would be a good immigrant. As for validating their applicati

No. I said Immigration Canada will not give an interview if it already objectively obtained and validated the information it would otherwise ask for in an interview because that would be redundant. You also need to find out what the criteria are that applicants are assessed for because they do already consider objective criteria to try and determine who would be desireable in Canada in a point system.

[Rue]

58 minutes ago, Argus said:

.

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.

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)

Thank you for the source. Now I can properly understand what concern with percentage of interviews you refer to. I will respond to it because you raise a legitimate concern.

One of the problems I know with the above percentage number is it doesn't take into account whether some or many of the interviews were dispensed only because the information was properly obtained and to do an interview would be redundant.

It also does not take into consideration the processes where interviews are done but not calculated in the above percentages because they were "fast tracked".

It is I agree a concern if we are not conducting sufficient interviews when we need to. 

I will try to some research on it before I respond further. You raise a good point.

[Argus]

57 minutes ago, Rue said:

Firstly, yes you clearly have no idea what personality tests are used for.  Here is what they are used for: https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wmopen-psychology/chapter/personality-assessment/.  It might  therefore  have bee a good idea after admitting  you are not an expert on them  to have researched their purpose BEFORE you then continued to present them as being able to detect if when asking people cultural value questions, these people  would be lying.

Ah, of course, the great Rue knows that such questioning would be irrelevant! He certainly knows better than all the western nations which use such interviewing techniques, and all the big corporations which use them. Apparently none of them have clued in that nothing can be determined from such testing! Also, there are many things such tests can determine about a person's suitability, including their honesty, their tolerance, their flexibility, and other personality traits.

Quote

Your reasoning makes the false assumption personality tests detect lying. They do not.

They can.

https://www.businessinsider.com/personality-test-predicts-dishonesty-2015-6

 

Quote

Next when asked to define what would be the values you would be searching for in immigrants you did not answer

Yes, I did. Go look again.

Quote

Next you have already stated numerous times you have already decided anyone who believes in Islam is incompatible with Canadian values. So why the pretense? .

I did not say anyone who is born a Muslim is incompatible, but those 'devoted' to it. There is a vast difference. Canada is a secular society where religion must take a background. If one is devoted to Islam then Islam is more important than any other aspect of your life, and one will accept the laws and values of Islam, which includes a deeply misogynistic attitude towards women and intolerance towards nonbelievers.

Quote

Here’s the thing though. I do not “admire” Islam or any other religion. The word “admire” means from the definition I warmly approve of

And the word 'hate' also has a distinct meaning which does not apply to me but which you choose to use consistently. Therefore, if I 'hate' Muslims, then you are an admirer of Islam. End of story.

Quote

 I most certainly however  respect people as individuals and so their beliefs including Islam,, or any other belief system as long as they do not use their belief system like you to negatively generalize, rationalize hatred, engage in terror, sexism, or physical or mental practices that are questionable.

I also respect people as individuals until they show themselves unworthy of it. However, when discussing such things as immigration and abhorrent views one must necessarily generalize.

Quote

Its interesting because you hurl out false misrepresentations, profanities, insults

You started this exchange of opinions with insults. Don't complain about it now. Especially as you've shown no interest in changing your attitude.

Edited January 24, 2020 by Argus

[Argus]

42 minutes ago, Rue said:

You clearly on the other hand don't realize what it means. It actually shows interviews can and are done BEFORE people have been defined as eligible

In a small minority of cases, which is precisely what I said.