Immigration Law Must Change

[Charles Anthony]

with the retention of borders, tying immigration 'quotas' solely to market demand for labour 'dehumanizes' us all. There would be no such classification as 'refugee', and and 'prospective immigrants' would be viewed as 'product' and not people. This would entail viewing all people as 'cogs, widgets, and Delta Upsilons'.

I believe that you are making a mistake by combining immigration policy with refugee policy. The difference is important.

If we insist on borders, we can still have a compassionate refugee policy which is distinct from our immigration policy.

[Michael Hardner]

Yes, Charles, I think there's something to that. And it goes with what Auguste said about changing our refugee policy so that applicants submit before coming over.

No, I think you misunderstood. I am for the dissolution of borders. I am contending that, with the retention of borders, tying immigration 'quotas' solely to market demand for labour 'dehumanizes' us all. There would be no such classification as 'refugee', and and 'prospective immigrants' would be viewed as 'product' and not people. This would entail viewing all people as 'cogs, widgets, and Delta Upsilons'.

Ok, well, the borders are dissolving under us as we speak and I appreciate the Brave New World reference.

[August1991]

Bump.

I feel that we should not eliminate immigration, but we should only let people in under work sponsorships and from countries where people are proven to assimilate well (Europe, South America etc).

You frequently make these arguments, MikeDavid. But clearly you don't understand people.

If Canada announced that we would accept immigrants by work sponsorship, the next day immigrants would innundate Canadina employers with e-mails requesting sponsorship. Firms would start to respond, legitimate or not, and bureaucrats would go around trying to figure out which sponsorships are genuine.

As to your suggestion that we should only accept immigrants from certain countries, how do we decide which countries? And even if we could do that, what stops someone from a "bad" country transiting through a "good" country?

MikeDavid, your suggestions as usual are half-baked and dumb. I take the trouble to respond because I wanted to resurrect this thread and because ideas like yours are far too common.

----

We must get control of who enters Canada and two possible changes would be to accept only refugees who apply abroad (deporting immediately any refugee who applies on arrival) and to change radically the definition of dependent (and family).

I think too we should negotiate with the US a common visitor visa so that Canada and the US issue a single visitor visa to North America. This would improve US (and Canadian) security and solve many border issues.

[Charles Anthony]

to accept only refugees who apply abroad (deporting immediately any refugee who applies on arrival)

What is to be gained by that?

Accepting a refugee is a moral act. Countries do not accept refugees for commercial reasons. It would be mischievous to tell a person that they are accepted as a Canadian refugee unless we can be responsible for promptly bringing them safely to Canada. Can we assume that extra responsibility?

[Riverwind]

Accepting a refugee is a moral act. Countries do not accept refugees for commercial reasons. It would be mischievous to tell a person that they are accepted as a Canadian refugee unless we can be responsible for promptly bringing them safely to Canada. Can we assume that extra responsibility?

Refugees should be kept in a detention center until their claim has been approved. It would probably cost more that just letting them go but it ensures they are available for deportation as soon as their appeals are exhausted. It also serves as a disincentive for economic migrates that try to use the refugee system as a back door. I can't imagine that anyone facing real persecution would complain about having to spend a few months in a Canadian detention center if that means they are safe from their persecutors.

[mikedavid00]

Bump.

I feel that we should not eliminate immigration, but we should only let people in under work sponsorships and from countries where people are proven to assimilate well (Europe, South America etc).

)

I still stand with the above statement.

You frequently make these arguments, MikeDavid. But clearly you don't understand people.

I do understand people. Even women. And I know a lot of people don't bother researching issues they speak of. The spew anecdotal ideolagy at a grade school level. I do not. (except for the time I said we should put nucrlear waste into space).

If Canada announced that we would accept immigrants by work sponsorship, the next day immigrants would innundate Canadina employers with e-mails requesting sponsorship. Firms would start to respond, legitimate or not, and bureaucrats would go around trying to figure out which sponsorships are genuine.

That's funny. It's not a problem anywhere else in the world. But your idealisms overpower your ability to research into these issues. Somehow becasue 'you think' it will happen, it will indeed happen. Well, it doesn't happen. An employer first must prove that he could not hire a Canadian, then bring the person over on an unskilled work permit good for up to 4 years with 1 renewal. After that he must leave.

The above system is proven to work quite well and proven to benefit our economy. The company has to sponsor you in. When you have work permits, you go to an international agency that will list jobs in demand.

It's become common knowlege already around many parts of the world that Canada has a poor economy and no white collar jobs. Hong Kong has already pulled out of it's immigration into Canada and now we're seing mostly mainland China, India, and third Pakistan. These people won't be harrasing Canadian companies. Our labor workers would most likely be from Mexico and South America.

I recommend women from Brazil, between the ages of 18-24, with long flowing black or dark brown hair.

As to your suggestion that we should only accept immigrants from certain countries, how do we decide which countries?

We create a list based in Canada of what we consider high crime, terrorist potential countries. This is a private matter and wouldn't make world news. People don't care about our list. The US has it's list of Terrorist countries and people it doesn't want in.

Canada's list of non-eligeable would come from:

Afghanistan

Albania

Algeria

Azerbaijan

Bahrain

Bangladesh

Burkina Faso

Brunei

Chad

Comoros

Côte d'Ivoire

Djibouti

Eritrea

Ethiopia

Egypt

Gambia

Guinea

Haiti

Indonesia

Iran

Iraq

Jordan

Jamaica

Kuwait

Kazakhstan

Kyrgyzstan

Lebanon

Libya

Maldives

Malaysia

Mali

Mauritania

Morocco

Niger

Nigeria

Oman

Pakistan

Palestine

Qatar

Saudi Arabia

Senegal

Sierra Leone

Somalia

Sri Lanka

Sudan

Syria

Tajikistan

Turkey

Tunisia

Turkmenistan

Uzbekistan

United Arab Emirates

Yemen

And even if we could do that, what stops someone from a "bad" country transiting through a "good" country?

Well we could do that easily. It's our country to do as we please. Get out of the mindset that our role is to be fair to the world and an international welfare state. That's not why Canada is a country. It's not our purpose. We need to start protecting ourselves and soon.

We will not accept people like the maker of Little Mosque on the Prairie who is essentially Pakistani, then went to the UK, then decided to come to Canada (very common transition). Our officials would see her birth place and consider her Pakistani and she would not be allowed in under a work permit or otherwise.

This is called taking leadership, making the tough descisions, and protecting ourselves. The US is contemplating putting up a FENCE along the Canada and US border. They understand the future of Canada. It seems we do not and are in denial.

I was listening to the radio today and they had on this book author from the US who was talking about President Ford or something then as a side note when he discussed somethign about 9-11, he said 'And Canada. You know, you guys have some very SERIOUS problems up there in Canada with your terrorist cells and such'. The host jokingly said 'hey now, your in Canada, those are 'alleged terrorists'. lol.

MikeDavid, your suggestions as usual are half-baked and dumb. I take the trouble to respond because I wanted to resurrect this thread and because ideas like yours are far too common.

My ideas aren't dumb. My ideas aren't my own. They are already in practice all over the world. It's called 'an immigration policy'. What's happpening now is chaos and an invasion of the third world completley devaluing, and saturating our job market.

----

We must get control of who enters Canada and two possible changes would be to accept only refugees who apply abroad (deporting immediately any refugee who applies on arrival) and to change radically the definition of dependent (and family).

You are thinking too small. The US system works very well. They have a list of countries it will only take refugees from. For instance, India since a couple years back have been REMOVED from their list because anyone claiming refugee status from India is lying. Same with Mexico or Jamaica. Thus, they have much lower refugee claims in the US and most cases are rejected anyhow. People know not to even try claiming assylum in the US.

The UK and Canada are the soft targets. But Canada is like the second easiest country to get into so people just make their claims here.

If you believe that there are legitimate claims for refugee status, then you are gullable and part of the problem. They fake their papers, they lie, they lie, they use our services, and then sponsor more here. We're being taken advantage of and it costs us 9B a year to service these refugees. 18B a year from immigrants. 6B a year on 'multiculturalism'. And yes 2B a year on the actuall immigration system. That money could increase our healthcare spending by 40% when factoring in fraud and thus greatly help out our needed system.

Instead, you are too concerned with helping the international community and being 'fair' the world. The country is Canada and it belongs to you. You should not be affraid to make suggestions and what you would like to see change. You should not fear saying that you feel immigration is causing us harm. It is causing harm and there's a big debate in the UK right now over this. They've already thrown out multi-culturalism. So has Sweden. In Canada, we have our CBC and CPC playing politics using this for votes.

As Canadians, we've lost political power in our country. When the PC introduced GST, the result was they were DESTROYED as a political party. This only happened because we had a social culture as Canadians. Since then, we saturated our social culture. Pride has now been lost. Our gov't only govenrs for istelf, we are disconnected with policits because we have no voice, and we have completely lost political power.

Think about it, our own gov't stole monies in hundreds of millions of dollars. The greatest theft in modern history from any 1st world country. But guess what, the Liberals held on to a lot of seats. If this was 15 years back, they would have been destroyed as a political party because the people would have voted them out of office. But we don't have a common people anymore. Poeple DID vote them out, but people who have saturated this country kept them in becuase they don't communicate with us and vote to their own personal agenda that invovles immigration issues.

Thus, Canadians have lost political power in Canada. Calgary is now being saturated with people who cannot find jobs and are crying rasism. And soon Alberta will slowely start to move Liberal and Calgary as a province will lose it's social order. It will take another 15 years but it will happen.

[mikedavid00]

Accepting a refugee is a moral act.

In Idealism World it's a moral act.

In reality the system is weak and easily exploited and now being taken advantage of. I went on a date from this girl from Punjab once.. she said 'my family came as refugee's'. 1 of 4 immigrants in Ottawa are refugees actually. I mean come on. I told me best friend who is also Sikh. She called them liars because she knows that her family had a much harder time coming here in the 70's.

(her Dad was the president of the Gudwara Temple in Ottawa and she has a picture of her Dad shaking hands with Jean Chretien at some event. He was wearing a red turban.. just thought you should know.)

[mikedavid00]

Refugees should be kept in a detention center until their claim has been approved.

Lol..

That's an excellent idea. And suprise suprise, no one would come. Maybe 10 people a year. There was that Miss Africa girl who was threatened to be killed becasue of the Miss World pageant. She was Muslim. After hte pageant they tried to kill her for shaming Islam (which is valid in Islam). She went to Belgium I think and is using services and in school. But you know what, that's the LAST legitimate refugee I heard of. A real legitimate case where she was goign to get killed and there was proof. She also tried to seek protection from her gov't and she litterally had to run for her life on a plane and leave.

[mikedavid00]

Because these people are very religious, and voting Liberal is voting for the 'infidel' by their brethren's terminology. I can't see muslims or any real religious person voting for gay marriage and decrim of pot.

The Liberal party is not the gay marriage party of Canada. They know they have to take the good with the bad. That's part of coming to Canada. They take the bad (canadians) with the good (themselves). The Liberal party helps them achieve this.

Do you think they care about the environment, kyoto, or any other Libearl agenda? Hell no. They want to a peice of mind that their father and mother will be able to come becuase they are getting old and need medical care. They are also needed to take care of the kids around the house. This is of UTMOST concern to immigrants.

The CPC is unlikely to change immigration laws anyways.

They should, after reading the feedback on the globe and mail (link), Canadians seem to be very, very aware that multiculturalism and immigration is not working. It's a big discussion in the UK right now and of course the US. Both different problems than Canada becuase we are litterally importing people here on purpose. We are not being invaded.

Your argument that the CPC is too pro-Christian is ridiculous, extremist muslims and bible-pounding Christians have many morals in common, such as being against homosexuality and abortion and recreational drugs.

But that's where it ends. I wouldln't say they have too much more in common than that. Both religions are fundementally different. Openness to all other religions and cultures and love for all humans are Christian values. These are not Islamic values as you can see.

[Fortunata]

I was listening to the radio today and they had on this book author from the US who was talking about President Ford or something then as a side note when he discussed somethign about 9-11, he said 'And Canada. You know, you guys have some very SERIOUS problems up there in Canada with your terrorist cells and such'. The host jokingly said 'hey now, your in Canada, those are 'alleged terrorists'. lol.

Bunk. The USA likes to demonize Canada - you do know that the 9-11 terrorists came from Canada? This has never been thoroughly denied through the government or press in the US. Then after those "alleged" terrorists were rounded up in Toronto area, the US (Congress? Senate?) had one disgruntled ex-CSIS officer testify in one of their little hearings and he said that Canada is a haven. One American was shown exclaiming that the US needed to close the borders down immediately. A supposed learned intelligent elected Congressman or Senator or whatever the hell he was. The USA responds to events in mass hysteria. There's no brain processes at work, it's simply reaction over the top. Ridiculous.

If you believe that there are legitimate claims for refugee status, then you are gullable and part of the problem. They fake their papers, they lie, they lie, they use our services, and then sponsor more here.

You have it too good here and fail to realize that others in other parts of the world are subjected to persecution, imprisonment without evidence or trial, political suasion with horrific results, etc. Hello, women in Pakistan, India and that area can be KILLED by their families for a rumour. If they are taken out and raped, it is their fault. Think about that before prattling on about refugees.

As Canadians, we've lost political power in our country. When the PC introduced GST, the result was they were DESTROYED as a political party. This only happened because we had a social culture as Canadians. Since then, we saturated our social culture. Pride has now been lost. Our gov't only govenrs for istelf, we are disconnected with policits because we have no voice, and we have completely lost political power.

You're right inasmuchas government works for power and more government. It's a total disconnect unless they need votes. You're also right about what happened to the PC's after Mulroney and look what happened. One main political party, no strong opposition party and the party in power goes amock. We are smarter than to let that happen again. To keep this country's government strong and honest it takes 2 strong parties, like them or not.

[Argus]

If Canada announced that we would accept immigrants by work sponsorship, the next day immigrants would innundate Canadina employers with e-mails requesting sponsorship. Firms would start to respond, legitimate or not, and bureaucrats would go around trying to figure out which sponsorships are genuine.

And this would be how difficult, exactly? Do we have a labour shortage in a given field? Is the potential immigrant in that field?

There. See how easy that is? You make this sound like an insurmountable problem when it is nothing more than an exercise in the most elementary judgment.

As to your suggestion that we should only accept immigrants from certain countries, how do we decide which countries? And even if we could do that, what stops someone from a "bad" country transiting through a "good" country?

Are you confusing immigration with refugees? I can think a few countries right off the bat where we should not be seeking immigrants - most of them being from the Islamic bloc. I would also accept no immigrants from Jamaica, Haiti or Somalia, as immigrants from those nations have proven to be - problematical.

Immigration, because of the sheer numbers, has changed our culture and is continuing to change not only our culture but our political landscape. Bringing in masses of immigrants who do not fit in, have no wish to fit in, and whose cultural value set is often diametrically opposed to our own is an exercise in cultural suicide.

[Saturn]

Immigration, because of the sheer numbers, has changed our culture and is continuing to change not only our culture but our political landscape. Bringing in masses of immigrants who do not fit in, have no wish to fit in, and whose cultural value set is often diametrically opposed to our own is an exercise in cultural suicide.

And what have you done about it besides screaming on the forums?

[mikedavid00]

You have it too good here and fail to realize that others in other parts of the world are subjected to persecution, imprisonment without evidence or trial, political suasion with horrific results, etc.

On the contrary, *you* have it good here if you buy into their lies. I'm more close to reality with my social circle. 99% of people claiming refugee status are simply lying. It's the easiest way to come to Canada. If people were real refugees, they would not be first consulting an immigration consultant and then booking plain tickets 6 months in advance.

Use your head.

Hello, women in Pakistan, India and that area can be KILLED by their families for a rumour. If they are taken out and raped, it is their fault. Think about that before prattling on about refugees.

Oh well.

People in Canada can die just waiting for organs. I don't feel sorry for them in the least. And those killings and bride burnings are VERY rare in India and Pakistan and make the news when it happens.

People do not use these reasons when immigration. From Jamaica, the common excuse is that you are 'gay'. In Pakistan, the common excuse is that you practice another form of Islam that your neighbourhood doesn't like and you've recieved death threats. It's really that easy.

You will secure your case much easier if you show up seeking no consultation, bags, show up with visible scars and seek police when you land. Once you have the police report, you are garunteed a worry free trial. Most wont go through these lengths but many will.

Sri Lanka? Too easy.

In 2004, we let in 87% of people who claim for refugee status that have HIV for God's sake.

Use your head. The world is filled with liars and oppertunists that will take advantage of any system they can.

You're right inasmuchas government works for power and more government.

Yes. Canada's gov't. Not all gov't are this corrupt. The UK acts with more prestege and valor. They work together and try to find common ground on behalf of the people. If they wanted votes, they wouldn't have thrown multiculturalism out the window and revoked the citizenships of all those hateful imama's - WITHOUOT trial. They simply revoked their citizenship and expelled them from the UK. No questions asked. Do you ever see Canada doing this?

It's a total disconnect unless they need votes. You're also right about what happened to the PC's after Mulroney and look what happened. One main political party, no strong opposition party and the party in power goes amock. We are smarter than to let that happen again. To keep this country's government strong and honest it takes 2 strong parties, like them or not.

True. Realize that if it wasn't for the ethnic vote, the Liberals would have probably... 10 seats right now and they would have been destroyed.

We no longer as a people have political power because communities who apparently (recent study) do not even consider themselves Canadian are voting the party that cators to their agenda.

One must never vote of what the gov't can do for them, but what their gov't can do for the country.

Honestly, I'm healthy, financially ok, drive a gas guzler, and things are fine for my in my life.

My issues are for my fellow citizens of Canada as a whole from the East coast tot the west. Those that may need medical treatment, an organ, or trying to get a job to make ends meet. This is my first concern. It's not whethere 'the gov't will give me free x' or to help my special interest like sponsorship of relatives.

What happens if you find you need a liver God forbid and something happens and you get put on a waiting list for 3 years while elderly immigrants who can't even speak English who don't even consider themselves Canadian keep getting put ahead of you in the list. All this because of Libearl's pandering for votes.

Think about it, you are dying for a polical party trying to campaign for Liberal votes. And as you sit on dialisys unable to work and on the internet becoming a self-expert on organ transplants and waiting lists, you will remember that MikeDavid00 was the voice warning over and over that we have to start to protect our country and take back our welfare state. You will remember how I said healthcare is priority and GHG's are nonesense.

Now who's the socialist here? The real socialist? It's me that's who.

The Liberals are about screwing over their fellow citizens. They will sell their soul and sell their country away for a chance at dictatorship. They take pleasure in seing their citizens suffer and will do their best to destroy our country. They promote people who take advantage of our generous and misguided system. They only want self power and the personal pleasure in dictatorship. The Lib's have a fundemental belief in self-hatred.

If you care about our welfare state and services, then you won't allow our precious, and expensive welfare state to be taken advantage of by internationals who don't even live in Canada or contribute to our country. This is what got us in the mess we're in and we need to get out.

Even if they were legitimate cases, regardless, we have out own healthcare and job crisis right now thus we should not be taking refugees. They can go to Belgium.

Again, it is no ones right to come to Canada. This country is a private country with laws and borders to benefit Canadians. The country belongs to us, not politicians.

[mikedavid00]

And what have you done about it besides screaming on the forums?

He voted last November for Prop86 which would reform immigration and only allow people in on work permits... NOT.

What do you think he's done?? We can't do anything! Dictators run our country. All we can do is hope our politicians do the right thing. Other than that, there's nothing more we can do.

That's why I say this forum is for entertainment purposes because nothing gets done. If we could actually vote on our policies and laws (as in the US), this would allow us to have real discussion and get something done.

[Argus]

Immigration, because of the sheer numbers, has changed our culture and is continuing to change not only our culture but our political landscape. Bringing in masses of immigrants who do not fit in, have no wish to fit in, and whose cultural value set is often diametrically opposed to our own is an exercise in cultural suicide.

And what have you done about it besides screaming on the forums?

What exactly would you like me to do about it other than voting against those who advocate it, and speaking out against it? You want me to set off bombs or something?

[margrace]

From 1919 and with the help of Mackenzie King, Canada was a White only country. Then Prime Minister Diefenbaker changed all that. He came from a background on the prairies of defending people who were discrimiated against. Do you wish to go back to that?

[Figleaf]

One challenge to debating immigratrion policy is the inaccuracy some people insist on bringing to the discussion. Case in point:

... Refugees ... must be able to prove their identity and do better than telling a decent story (often a boiler plate story given them by their Canadian-funded lawyer).to prove they deserve refugee status.

First, boiler-plate stories would not be successful. The Board would quickly detect and reject them. Second, a lawyer making up a story for a client to tell a tribunal would be suborning perjury. Lawyers have no reason to do that. They win some, they lose some -- why risk their career and reputation to minimally change their ratio?

Refugees should not be automatically be granted citizenship.

They are not. Acceptance as a regfugee means you are entitled to apply for Landed status from within Canada and to have it granted unless you're in an excluded group (e.g,. terrorists). If landed, refugees are allowed to apply for citizenship in due course just like other immigrants.

[August1991]

First, boiler-plate stories would not be successful. The Board would quickly detect and reject them. Second, a lawyer making up a story for a client to tell a tribunal would be suborning perjury. Lawyers have no reason to do that. They win some, they lose some -- why risk their career and reputation to minimally change their ratio?

The IRB accepts about 50% of all cases put before it. But being refused by the IRB is just the start of the process:

Canada is also the easiest country in the world for a Convention Refugee to gain permanent residence and citizenship. Even failed refugee applicants have a significant possibility of securing permanent residence and citizenship through various immigration categories. At the end of the process, relative to other countries, Canada’s effort to remove failed refugee applicants appears to have been given a low priority.

Fraser Institute 2004

Canada's great advantage is that we have a land border only with the US and we have now implemented the "safe third country" policy meaning that we can return people to the US.

To get here, "refugees" have to take a plane and so we can stop most at foreign airports befor ethey board, which is what we do. Those who manage to get on a plane generally manage to become immigrants - using a boiler-plate story or not.

We do accept refugees abroad but their situation is radically different from those we accept as "refugees" within Canada.

----

I think Canada should change entirely the way it determines who is a refugee. For starters, we should not process any refugee applying from within Canada. Also, we should accept refugees who are still living in their country of nationality.

In principle, we should make it easy for people to apply abroad and make it difficult for them to apply from within Canada. At present, we do the opposite.

[mikedavid00]

First, boiler-plate stories would not be successful. The Board would quickly detect and reject them.

That is simply not true.

Your using your emotions to determine what the 'would do'. The fact is, there is a solid system to get in through refugee status. If you don't get in, it's becasue your not willing to lie enough.

Second, a lawyer making up a story for a client to tell a tribunal would be suborning perjury.

Lol..

I'll just stop reading here.

And houses in Canada are made with gingerbread and gumdrops.

[mikedavid00]

To get here, "refugees" have to take a plane and so we can stop most at foreign airports befor ethey board, which is what we do.

That is simply false.

[August1991]

I feel that we should not eliminate immigration, but we should only let people in under work sponsorships and from countries where people are proven to assimilate well (Europe, South America etc).

If Canada announced that we would accept immigrants by work sponsorship, the next day immigrants would innundate Canadina employers with e-mails requesting sponsorship. Firms would start to respond, legitimate or not, and bureaucrats would go around trying to figure out which sponsorships are genuine.

That's funny. It's not a problem anywhere else in the world. But your idealisms overpower your ability to research into these issues. Somehow becasue 'you think' it will happen, it will indeed happen. Well, it doesn't happen. An employer first must prove that he could not hire a Canadian, then bring the person over on an unskilled work permit good for up to 4 years with 1 renewal. After that he must leave.

What civilized country has a functioning system of work permits? Even in a police state, it wouldn't work. It might work in a country such as Japan where it is patently easy to decide who is a foreigner and who is not. Canada is not such a country.

Any document we require of a potential immigrant (such as evidence of a job in Canada) is an invitation to fraud or simply an invitation to horrendous bureaucracy. There will always be special cases requiring special rules.

Saudi Arabia has a system not dissimilar to what you suggest and about half the people living there are not citizens (yet have been in the country for years if not decades, posing other problems). Saudi Arabia also has draconian rules concerning the rights of citizens and foreigners, all of which are largely impractical and costly. They are also uncivilized.

The American selection system is not bad. It sets minimal criteria and then selects immigrants by lottery.

The idea of selecting all immigrants by whether they have a job in Canada is madness.

[mikedavid00]

What civilized country has a functioning system of work permits?

Just about every one.

Including most second and third world countries.

Even in a police state, it wouldn't work.

I have no idea what your talking about. Dude. Canada is about the ONLY country that lets people walse in. We almost have no borders.

It might work in a country such as Japan where it is patently easy to decide who is a foreigner and who is not. Canada is not such a country.

Hehehe.. again, most immigration systems are like Japan. I think you are younger. It's ok if you are. When you get older, you'll become conservative I can tell.

Any document we require of a potential immigrant (such as evidence of a job in Canada) is an invitation to fraud or simply an invitation to horrendous bureaucracy.

Simply not true. While there can be fraud, it's very unlikely. It's like saying that there can be fraud claiming other peoples kids are citizens. While it does happen on a daily basis here in Canada, it's a very, very small amount of of the total immigrants that get let in.

There will always be special cases requiring special rules.

Canada is a country built of 'special cases' it seems.

The only special case the US has is with celebratites. They have their own citizenship requirements. For instance, when the spice girls hit big, they get put under a very priveledged 'celebrity' status of work permit.

This is the ONLY special case I beleive in.

The American selection system is not bad. It sets minimal criteria and then selects immigrants by lottery.

Please research the American system. They let in 10,000 people a year to do their share in multiculturalism. This has NOTHING to do with immigration.

I wanted to apply for the lottery when I was younger but Canada amongst most other countries are excluded.

The idea of selecting all immigrants by whether they have a job in Canada is madness.

How old are you if you don't mind me asking?

Listen, almost every country in the world will only let you in if you have a job lined up. It's not an 'idea' of mine, it's reality.

Canada is one of the ONLY exceptions.

And believe it or not, Canada is amongst the one of the FEW countries in the world that are actively persuing immigrants.

[August1991]

Listen, almost every country in the world will only let you in if you have a job lined up. It's not an 'idea' of mine, it's reality.

Name one country using such a system to select immigrants and show me that the system functions and that they have control of their borders.

I'm aware of Japan but that's hardly a model applicable to Canada.

----

Canada, the US and Australia are open societies that actively recruit immigrants. We should select immigrants according to certain criteria but once they're in Canada, that's more or less it. Unless they commit some horrendous crime, they're here as long as they want to be.

Designing an immigrant system such as you suggest would require a police state with registration and constant checks of ID papers - and even then, people would find a way around the rules. In short, it would be madness - costly and uncivilized.

Listen, almost every country in the world will only let you in if you have a job lined up. It's not an 'idea' of mine, it's reality.

I can speak from personal experience that your statement is false, and naive to boot.

Please research the American system. They let in 10,000 people a year to do their share in multiculturalism. This has NOTHING to do with immigration.

WTF? You make absurd claims MikeDavid, to the point where I generally ignore your posts now (except for their comic value), but this one is too OTT. Please explain.

[mikedavid00]

Listen, almost every country in the world will only let you in if you have a job lined up. It's not an 'idea' of mine, it's reality.

I can speak from personal experience that your statement is false, and naive to boot.

Ok.

Before we go any further, please show me another country that lets people just walse in with no job prospects.

I'm waiting.

[August1991]

Before we go any further, please show me another country that lets people just walse in with no job prospects.

I'm waiting.

Among rich countries, for example, uh, Italy.

Some randomly chosen links.

Many Nigerians from the Niger Delta region moved to Europe to escape unemployment and corruption Many Nigerians from the Niger Delta region moved to Europe to escape unemployment and corruption at home, but those in Italy are not faring much better, as Sylvester Igbirobo Ukusare told Black Britain.

Link

There are 1 million non-EU foreigners living in Italy, and 160,000 EU nationals. Most of the non-EU foreigners are Africans, and this summer Italian youths in the Rome area have attacked them. The attacks on foreigners are partially attributed to the installation of Rightists in the Italian government following March's elections. Over 70 percent of Italy's immigrants live in Rome .

Link

Immigration is increasing in Italy. In 2003, 2.6 million foreign citizens lived in the country; 52% were men and the majority were young adults who migrated for work. The purpose of this study was to investigate differences in hospitalisation between immigrants and the resident population during the year 2000 in the Lazio region.

Link

Notice how the Italian government doesn't even know how many foreigners live in Italy.

Among "poor" countries, uh, Libya?

There is no asylum law in Libya, a country of just over five million people, which has more than a million foreigners living in the country without proper documentation.

BBC

Before you argue that these immigrants are "illegal", let me respond by saying that I don't care. We are talking about the real world.

I live on Planet Earth whereas you, MikeDavid, based on your various posts to this forum, seem to live on a Planet Earth in the fifth or eighth dimension (with its own rules of grammar, I might add). On your planet, of course, all these migrants obtained certified job offers before moving and their local employers have assumed all their costs. Or something. Whatever dimension you live in, the comedy channel must be good there.