|
|
| Subject: Fair Immigration Policy #5 |
|
|
|
the word ´MAY´ in legalese removes any liability to a promise or guarantee.
as for the rest of your nonsense - if you want to discuss you issue without name calling and snide remarks - fine. If you want to be insulting to the people that are trying to have a conversation with you, well... you are more clueless than all of us combined.
Good luck with that lawsuit.
[28-04-2011,21:34]
[**.180.238.237]
Sharon |
|
(in reply to: Fair Immigration Policy #5)
It appears to me that anyone who disagrees with Joe is automatically labelled as clueless, etc. Obviously Joe is into more heat than light when it comes to discussions in this form. May I remind those who come here to share ideas that it is never a good idea to wrestle with a pig. First off one gets dirty; and secondly, after a while, the pig starts to enjoy it. At the risk of being labelled some vitriolic name by our friend Joe, I remain, your truly, "Clueless Alex"
[28-04-2011,22:13]
[***.108.192.10]
Alex |
(in reply to: Fair Immigration Policy #5)
Thanks Alex i needed that. Don´t get into a pissing match with me because I am already pissed.
You don´t have to disagree with me to be clueless. You just have to be clueless(Alex). That is all. Sharon first says that it is historical dates. No where does it use that term. It gives you a reference as to the time it may take to get processed. Then when i cut and paste the wording from the actual CIC web site she hangs her hat on the big word MAY. According to Sharon "MAY" can also imply forever. She doesn´t have the courage to argue the facts. DocD also seems to back her on this.What would you expect from DocD he probably works at CIC or some other dysfunctional agency. If you pay $1000 plus dollars for an application and it states how long it "MAY" take, In the court of LAW that does not imply you can take whatever time you like. Only people that blindly follow the leader will agree with that. But in reality most people that have common sense would agree that the way it has been handled is flawed. You don´t tell someone it will take approx 34 months and overnight that becomes 10 years. 10 Years is not a joke. People make choices based on options. And you would expect that Canada of all countries would at the very minimum honor its stated timelines. I will keep it very simple for you clueless.
Harper and company decided that allowing parents and grandparents in would tax our health care system. So what do they do. Tell CIC to put the brakes on approving applications. The system grinds to a halt. What about people that already paid and have their application in the system and are expecting their application processed in 24 months. "SCREW THEM" But guess what we won´t tell them. Will just keep moving the goal line. If they don´t like it. Tough. Reminds me of the school yard bully. The honorable thing to do would be to state on the web site that all application from this point forward may take up to 10 years 20 years or whatever to process. Then people have a choice pay and wait or don´t apply. If the public disagrees with this new policy they will get rid of these clowns if not that´s the law. doing thinks retroactively is not right. So they decide to retroactively abuse me and thousands of others. Guess what they didn´t even tell us. It´s like doing your taxes for 2010. You are expecting a refund but when you get your assessment instead of a check there is a bill. Oh´ we changed the tax code and raised the rates effective January 2010. Sorry it affected you.
And yes if you come here to argue and you have not gone through the system and act like you know the facts and you are not even close you are definitely clueless. Not because you disagree with me. Stick to what you know. When someone is getting screwed there is usually some doing the screwing. There is not sitting on the fence in this issue.
[28-04-2011,23:32]
[**.65.204.136]
Joe |
(in reply to: Fair Immigration Policy #5)
ummmm you applied with the Liberals were in power, correct? so, who is responsible for the backlog? Go and do some homework.
Yes, the system is flawed but as DocD says - you may not like the fix any better.
[29-04-2011,00:00]
[**.180.238.237]
Sharon |
(in reply to: Fair Immigration Policy #5)
Hey Joe, take a few deep breathes ... no one here is out to get you! Your case seems to have merits, but you cloud everything with your caustic comments about pissing matches and everyone being clueless. In short, Joe, you are your own worse enemy. Some here do not know their ass from their elbow, so simply move on to the next comment. Why name call and badger folks? What have you achieved by all of this? It certainly has not solved your issues. Take the advice for what it is worth (including mine.) If it is worth nothing ..well, remember what you paid for it. If you can glean something constructive from anyone´s observations, great .. if not, move on. This is a discussion form; not a combat zone.
[29-04-2011,00:55]
[***.108.192.8]
Alex |
(in reply to: Fair Immigration Policy #5)
Like i said the math is a little to complicated for you.
Let me keep it simple for you because you obviously have a math problem so i will dumb it down just for you.
you have 40,000 applications in cue. so you can process approximately 80 on average application a day( based on 250 work days a year). So if my application hit the system on a certain day they already know how many application are entered into the system because they notified me that my application in now in the system. the number of application ahead of me do not change. At 80 applications a day the number of days should be constant. If after my application they receive 200,000 application then the number of moths would go up to 120 months or 10 years. The number before is fixed the only number that can fluctuate in the number of applications received after and they could easily relay that to you within 30 days of receiving the application. Once the application enters the system at 80 applications a day the number of days is fixed. The only way that number can change is lets say they decide (which they did) to only now process 40 applications a day. Then the 24 months become 48 months. They they decide to drop that to 20 a day and the number would now go to 96 months.Backlog has absolutely nothing to do with it. Its a decision to drop the number they are processing daily that is affecting the timeline therefore the drastic change in processing times. Every week or so they update the timeline. I have check weekly and in the last 2 moths they have been working on (working on applications received on September 7, 2007). regardless of how many applications they received on September the 7th,2007. If you carefully look at the site it also states "Issuing acknowledgement letters for applications received on April 1, 2011." Dated April 27,2011, that tells you that with 26 days of receiving your application they have acknowledged receipt. Therefore know 2 factors they can already give an approx time to get to your application. Numbers processed per day and working days per moth. This is not rocket science. The only wildcard it changing the amount of applications you process daily and worse still is not telling anyone. They should be held accountable. Hopefully in a few days they will. Hopefully that was simple enough to follow. If not I will try to dumb it down a little further if it is even possible. So don´t tell me I am clueless. This is grade school math.
[29-04-2011,01:11]
[**.65.204.136]
Joe |
(in reply to: Fair Immigration Policy #5)
Got to stop relying on the built in spell checker. Excuse the grammar.
[29-04-2011,01:15]
[**.65.204.136]
Joe |
(in reply to: Fair Immigration Policy #5)
this is where you get confused - within the family class quota are 2 types of applications that take priority over the parental files - spouses and children. Parents are used to top up the quota. So, if there are 80 applications a day and 60 end up being spouses and children - well, there are only 20 parental applications processed. If those 20 happen to include applications with 2 parents and 4 dependent children - well, you can see that there are a lot of applications left in the in-basket.
Hence my suggestion of giving priority to single applicants that have no family back in the home country.
You can do the math all you like - the number of people tied to each application cannot be predicted until the file is reviewed so your system is far from sufficient to resolve your concern. If it were that simple, it would have been done by now.
[29-04-2011,01:31]
[**.180.238.237]
Sharon |
(in reply to: Fair Immigration Policy #5)
I apologize for getting upset but it is these types of answers that upset me. You my dear are the one that is confused. Jason Kenney has stated that Parents and Grandparents are not his priority.They are a burden on Canadians. The percentages within the family class did not just miraculously change once the conservatives got in Power. The numbers under the liberal government were pretty consistent for years. The time stated was pretty accurate. All that changed under this administration. You can paint it any way you want but they changed the rules and didn´t bother telling anyone except for CIC employees of course. And for the math they know the numbers within 30 days of receiving the application. They can tell you right now how many applicants they have and how many are parents, grandparents, dependents, etc. There are no surprises. If they want they can even give you a pretty accurate date to complete the process. I never vote for the party i vote for the issues. And the Harper conservatives do not hold the same family values that I do.
[29-04-2011,02:09]
[**.65.204.136]
Joe |
(in reply to: Fair Immigration Policy #5)
you know what my dear... you are obviously the expert and you obviously know exactly how this works. Obviously, we are all idiots so stop wasting your time talking to us. You are far to smart for the rest of us.
[29-04-2011,02:22]
[**.180.238.237]
Sharon |
(in reply to: Fair Immigration Policy #5)
The issue as I see it is as follows.
If family reunification is not an objective any more of the act it should be removed as an objective.
If it is an objective a compromise should be reached to allow parents to come forward. Possibly a huge deposit of funds since most parents would be selling their residences to move to Canada. At least that would eleviate some medical costs.
Regardless of the costs.
Since when should a Canadian pay $1,100.00 (two parents X $550.00)for a service and wait four years to be served by their own government.
What some have missed here is that not all new Immigrants are created equal. Some come with 5, 6, 7 or eight siblings and others with no siblings. Some have an obligation because of their culture to be responsible for their own parents.
That is why this debate is so passionate.
It is so easy to say costs are too much so they should not be allowed in. Canadians are getting old and we need assisted living space for ourselves.
We believe in the Charter and all should be treated equally. If family reunification was good for the goose it should be good for the new gander as well.
Roy
cvimmigration.com
[29-04-2011,07:21]
[***.112.90.109]
Roy |
|
