|
|
| Subject: Fairness needed for processing |
|
|
|
ONE OF THE LAWYERS IN TORONTO STATES:
Our current point system evolved from the rejection of Canada´s pre-1960´s immigration policy which was designed to attract European (OK...white) immigrants of limited faiths.
The social consciousness of the ´60´s dictated that we shouldn´t select people because of their nationality, race, colour, religion, etc. Instead, we should focus on their personal skills and qualities. This approach led to the adoption, in 1967, of a point system whereby certain points were awarded for the education, training, age, etc. of prospective immigrants regardless of their ethnicity. This was an attempt to approach the selection of immigrants with objective criteria. If they met our selection criteria, they were in. If not, they were out. This approach was socially responsible and also supported the growing characterization of our society as a cultural mosaic. The result is what we see today, i.e., a Canada with visible contributions from every race, colour and creed. This was the will of Parliament.
Since then, the objectivity of the system has been eroded. Until a few years ago, candidates could submit their applications at any visa post of their choosing. They usually picked the fastest ones. Now, except in very limited circumstances, they must apply at a specific visa post according to their nationality. They can no longer choose which line they will stand in.
Furthermore, visa posts are told by the minister how many visas they may issue. They cannot issue more visas than those allocated even if they are able to.
The ability to direct people to certain lines and the ability to control the resources allocated to those lines gives the immigration minister the ability to influence the ethnic makeup of our new immigrants. The minister, accordingly, now has the power to accomplish what the architects of our point system sought to avoid.
So how has our immigration minister handled this responsibility?
If you were landed in Canada in 2007 and were a Turkish professional you were expected to apply in Ankara and probably waited about 76 months or longer. If you were Romanian, you only waited about 11 months in Bucharest. If you are American you probably applied through Buffalo, and in most cases, were done in 24 months. If you were from Pakistan, you waited 70 months, or more, for your application to be processed through Islamabad.
Although the same objective standards were used, the minister´s allocation of resources by visa post influenced greatly who got in and who was discouraged from applying or kept at bay overseas.
The budget bill tabled March 14th would give the immigration minister even more power. The minister would not only be able to kick people out of line, he or she would also be able to change the rules of the game mid-stream for all those already waiting.
Processing neutrality must be restored before more power is transferred from Parliament to any individual minister.
[24-03-2008,12:58]
[***.50.205.242]
Mike |
|
(in reply to: Fairness needed for processing)
minor detail is obmitted - each embassy is given quotas based on the number of applicants the previous year. It also factors the reality of wanted a balanced society. what happens when the entire annual quota lines up in one country? That´s not immigration that is resettlement!
This fairness model that everyone things is great (and in lots of ways it is because those working in the US from any country around the world can submit if they are legally in the US for one year) BUT it misses one minor detail... people in those lines might be coming with all sorts of great qualities but we may not have the right job for them! Everyone is screaming that we are misleading immigrants about the job market. Well golly gee, just like we don´t ask about religion or colour, we don´t ask if you absolutely have to work in your chosen profession.
So, now the minister is looking to assist both sides of this process by becoming clear about what jobs we need and allowing those applicants to get to Canada first. Sounds really unfair???
If the minister can´t make that decision - who would you suggest do it? we elect our officials to act on our behalf. Are you going to leave this decision to a government employee? Pleeaaze.
You could always let Roy and I decide!!
[24-03-2008,15:26]
[**.155.160.37]
Sharon |
(in reply to: Fairness needed for processing)
What Sharon has said is true for skilled immigration and I have been a proponent of labor based intake for skilled worker criteria since I have joined this forum.
I have seen people on this forum defend the above argument and then also defend the opposite view that... what if someone who needs to come to Canada and cannot come in using family or business category, they should still be able to come in as for example a software guy and then reside in Canada. I find that really absurd and probably that has resulted in the current situation as far as skilled workers are concerned.
Regulating intake by nationality is not unheard of. But deciding the fate of the application on the whims of an officer definitely is ! The key point here is transparency, just like you knew before that if you had the 67 points, you chances of getting the immigration is good, there has to be a way for immigrants to access their chances.... under any system. If that is not done we will be opening a can of worms.
[24-03-2008,15:50]
[***.242.242.2]
Raj |
(in reply to: Fairness needed for processing)
until we see the regulations that partner with the proposed legislative changes we have no idea how this will be played out.
I am all for transparency but at the end of the day, someone has to make the decision and I would prefer it to be someone I can vote out of office rather than a government employee that can hide behind his union and tenure.
I know I waffle about skill based intake. That is because I have seen so many successful immigrants doing very different jobs than they were trained for back home. I would hate to shut those people out. Just yesterday I took my Mom to our favourite local restaurant. The owner is Iranian and was trained as a fighter pilot. He and his wife run a fabulous little neighbourhood restaurant that is full all the time. Under the new proposed rules, I am afraid he will never get a chance at making Canada his home and we will all be the poorer for it.
I wish there was a way to allow both, skill specific and a certain percentage for the risk takers of the world.
[24-03-2008,16:44]
[**.155.160.37]
Sharon |
(in reply to: Fairness needed for processing)
On Friday, the federal Conservatives proved that, while they can talk a big game on immigration, they are certainly no friend of it.
In 2005, the Liberals admitted more than 262,000 new immigrants to Canada. When the Conservatives took over in 2006, they reduced this number to 251,649. In 2007, the Conservatives slashed another 15,000 from this total when they admitted only 236,689 new immigrants. This number fell well short of the Tories? 240,000-265,000 target they had promised Parliament in October 2006. As a result, Canada has closed its doors to more than 36,000 new immigrants over the past two years.
Interestingly enough, these facts did not get in the way of the Tories announcing last week that, in 2007, they admitted ?the highest number of newcomers in Canada?s history.? In order to support this mind-boggling claim, the Conservatives included as ?newcomers? foreigners who arrived here on work or study permits even though they are only here temporarily. (My advice to foreigners arriving in Canada seeking temporary admission: Never describe yourself to a border officer as a ?newcomer? to Canada as that could easily suggest a permanent, as opposed to a temporary, intent.)
On Friday, the Tories also introduced a bill to amend our immigration laws.
This bill proposes to amend the very cornerstone of our immigration legislation. Our current legislation states that a foreign national must apply for the appropriate visa or document to enter Canada. If they meet each and every requirement of the act, the visa or document ?shall? be issued to them. The feds want to change this word to ?may.? It is proposed that Parliament give the minister the power to direct the manner in which the department disposes of its caseload. In other words, even if you have paid a fee, waited for years, and met all our criteria, the minister has no obligation to issue the requested visa or document. The denial would not count as a ?decision.? Since the denial is not a ?decision,? there may be no appeal. Put differently; imagine purchasing a movie ticket and standing patiently in line only to be randomly told that you will not be admitted.
The bill also proposes to cut into the immigration departments? ability to admit foreigners to Canada on humanitarian grounds. The proposal would limit such consideration only to those who are physically here. This may close the only avenue available to children and spouses abroad of Canadian citizens and permanent residents that are not sponsor?able because they were undeclared and/or not examined when their sponsor was landed in Canada.
Any such encroachment on our collective ability to be compassionate in any circumstance should only be approached with great care.
Roy
www.cvimmigration.com
[24-03-2008,19:51]
[**.158.53.207]
Roy |
|
