|
|
| Subject: Parents vs. refugees |
|
|
|
According to the The Honourable Joe Volpe, Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, "Last year, Canada welcomed almost 33,000 refugees, 26% more than in 2003. This increase demonstrates the government´s ongoing commitment to providing protection to those in genuine need."
http://www.cnw.ca/fr/releases/archive/March2005/07/c1984.html
My question is: why refugees are more important than parents?
From economical point of view, they are much bigger burden on the country than parents. While parents will require only healthcare (everything else is covered by the sponsor for 10 years), refugees usually require full support from the country, at least in the first few years.
The government declares it´s commitment to humanitarian needs, but it allowes only 6,000 parents in 2005, compared to 33,000 refugees!
[09-03-2005,22:59]
[**.185.85.73]
prg |
|
(in reply to: Parents vs. refugees)
Totally agree with you! I know few families who came here almost 3 years ago and still get welfare and working for cash, just because they calculated that this way they will get more money than on regular job.
And they weren´t starving or anything in their home country either. So in my opinion all these people didn´t even had sufficient reason to be accepted as refugees in the first place!
[09-03-2005,23:15]
[**.156.52.38]
Yuliya |
(in reply to: Parents vs. refugees)
maybe we should close the doors to both! maybe we should say PR´s must live in Canada 4 out of 5 years. maybe we should say that spouses who do not speak english or french should not be eligible for sponsorship or cannot come until they pass same test as principle applicant. Maybe we should say that if you cannot find work in one year... you go home.
Who wants to have a Canada like this? Not me. Yes, some refugee claims are a problem and Canada has just signed an agreement with the US to help reduce this abuse. I do not want to close the doors of my country to people who escape war and torture. Please do not put parents in the same category - they are not.
[10-03-2005,00:01]
[***.81.114.40]
sharon |
(in reply to: Parents vs. refugees)
Sharon, I think you don´t know much about refugees. Believe me most of them escaped not because of torture or war. I´ve seen a lot of them with fake proofs and Canada accepted that. Naive Cnadians don´t know that in other countries it´s pretty easy to bribe someone to get necesary documents.
[10-03-2005,07:31]
[**.95.22.4]
Yuliya |
(in reply to: Parents vs. refugees)
Sharon, I´m not talking about abuse. Among every group there are abuses, including sponsors.
However, I think you are trying to dance on two weddings. First you say that we cannot afford to let parents in because of the burden on Canadian society. But when it comes to refugees, it´s Okay because it´s humanitarian case? Why do you think that 70 years old people spending the last years of their life totally alone, far from their children and grandchildren is less humanitarian? Many of them are not even allowed to visit! So what do you put first - economical factors or humanitarian?
From economic perspective, I don´t believe that Canada, which is one of the richest contries in the world, with budget surplus of 9 blilion dollars (!!!), cannot afford 20,000 parents per year. Those were the numbers all the time, and I didn´t see that the country collapsed.
I´ll tell you one more thing. I think that even from economic perspective, Canada is shooting itself at the leg.
Many prospective immigrants will not come when they will know that they cannot bring their parents, and many will return to their home countries. I myself am considering to leave the country - I just cannot leave my parents alone. Will Canada benefit from this? I doubt.
[10-03-2005,11:43]
[**.10.219.38]
prg |
(in reply to: Parents vs. refugees)
from what I know about CIC, quotas fluctuate annually according to the needs and abilities of the host country. Perhaps this stoppage in parental sponsorships meant that by july 2004 they had met their quota and were required to stop. Perhaps now in 2005 they will start up again until the target quota is reached. perhaps 2006 will see an increase in quota - who is to say.
My grandparents came to Canada and had to leave behind aging parents. They never saw them again - and they knew that reality when they said goodbye. Their cousin had to leave behind a disabled child or be disqualified from entry into Canada. that was in the early 1900´s. that was the price you paid to live in a new country. some people accepted that price and some did not - depending on their personal situations. Your sacrifice is not a new reality to the immigration world. People have left family, friends, stability behind since the day we all could see over the hill to another town where things looked a little better.
We have it so good. In a day where travel is easy, long distance phone rates are cheap and we are free to send money to any part of the world we want in 10 minutes or less... it is hard to feel great emotion around the parental sponsorship issue. Bringing your parents to Canada is not your only option when it comes to being a dutiful and loving child. I find it hard to accept that there is only one way to address the parent/child responsibility. Children and parents voluntarily move across the country to live. they see them once a year - maybe less often. Their family is still strong and caring.
My fiance and I have talked long and hard about his parents and their situation back in his home country. He has many siblings still living there. Mom and Dad are not in good health and live very poorly.
My fiance concludes, and I support his thinking that the very best way to care for and love his parents is to leave them exactly where they are. They still have extended family and a social network. familiar language, familiar culture. we have the ablity to call every day if we want to. we can travel back and forth to spend time with them... just like people do who´s parent live at opposite ends of Canada. We can send them money which would buy them ten times more in their country than in ours.
dear friend... I am not saying we have the perfect answer but I am suggesting that there is more than one way to look at this issue. For some Canadians the additional strain on our healthcare system is reason enough to reduce the quotas. The existing Canadian population is aging and it is making our government very concerned about our ability to look after those who already call Canada home. The last thing that needs to happen is to increase that aging population.
I agree with your premise that the government should be open on this subject. I think parental sponsorship should run on a different system. So many per year and the gate closes... try again next year rather than having family members in limbo for years on end.
As for refugees...I really do not know the answer. Canada has a history of welcoming those who are in desperate situations. Hopefully, we can find a balance that will let the deserving in, and keep the undeserving out.
[10-03-2005,13:37]
[***.81.114.40]
sharon |
(in reply to: Parents vs. refugees)
Dear Sharon,
I understand your point. I never said that things are black and white, they are not.
I just wantes to quickly respond to some of your comments.
"Perhaps this stoppage in parental sponsorships meant that by july 2004 they had met their quota and were required to stop."
That´s exactly what happened, but why they keep telling us that they continue to process?
"Perhaps now in 2005 they will start up again until the target quota is reached. perhaps 2006 will see an increase in quota - who is to say."
Well, we are in March 2005 already, and the date on their site is still the same - June 24, 2003. 2006 increase in quota is exctly what we are asking for.
"My grandparents came to Canada and had to leave behind aging parents. They never saw them again - and they knew that reality when they said goodbye."
That´s the key point - they KNEW that reality. We didn´t. We thought based on the previous years that it will be possible and will take less than a year. I would accept a reasonable delay, but we are talking about 7-10 years at least.
It´s time that Canada stops playing by double standards. If they want to stop parental immigration, they should say it loud and clear. And explain the reason. And then new prospective immigrants will make their decision based on the new policy. But they continue to say that there is no change in policy. In fact, they changed it "retroactively" - exactly what they did in 2002 for independent class immigration.
The minimum that we can expect from the government in democratic country that calls itself "humanitarian" is to respond to our letters and talk to us. Meanwhile, we don´t get even this.
"Bringing your parents to Canada is not your only option when it comes to being a dutiful and loving child. I find it hard to accept that there is only one way to address the parent/child responsibility. Children and parents voluntarily move across the country to live. they see them once a year - maybe less often."
In some cases - yes, in other cases - no. Many parents are even not allowed to visit, they are refused to get visa. Tell people in advance about policy change, and everyone will decide what to do.
[10-03-2005,15:01]
[**.10.219.38]
prg |
(in reply to: Parents vs. refugees)
By the way, just to let you know that this issue has already been raised in the House of Commons by 8 MPs, most of them Liberals.
And speaking of openness:
After being asked about this issue ("Top immigration officials tell me that sponsoring parents and grandparents is a zero priority. They will not even look at the files"), the response of the Hon. Joseph Volpe (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.) was:
"Mr. Speaker, the short answer to that of course is that those allegations are absolutely untrue. They do not do anything like that.
In fact, we give everyone an indication of their chances of getting into the country and we give them an opportunity to have a self-assessment and counselling assessment.
I do not think it is very helpful to have a member of Parliament stand in the House and make allegations like that that are hurtful to the people who are making those applications. Shame on him."
As you can see, his answer was totally irrelevant.
It refers to independent immigrants. What self-assessment has to do with family class?
I fact, his answer was a direct LIE.
[10-03-2005,16:36]
[**.10.219.38]
prg |
(in reply to: Parents vs. refugees)
to be perfectly honest... the MP´s have no idea what they are talking about. Volpe has been at the immigration job 2-3 months now. We probably know more than he does. He gets briefed about what is going on and beyond that, he is totally lost. They would do better asking the Government staff. They are the ones that actually know something.
[10-03-2005,18:00]
[***.181.198.246]
sharon |
(in reply to: Parents vs. refugees)
dear prg
how should Canada deal with this... I would welcome your suggestion.
we have a situation where the wife of a skilled worker sponsors her 50 year old parents. parents do not speak english. mom and dad now want to sponsor 2 children 21.5 and 18 that are still back in the home country. they do not speak english either. We have wife, mom, dad, brother and sister - 5 people total coming into Canada on the application of 1 skilled worker. 5 people who do not have english language. 5 people that might not have education or skills. we still have not sponsored the other side of the family yet. All this in the name of family reunification?
I have a hard time seeing how this is in Canada´s best interest.
[10-03-2005,23:31]
[***.81.114.40]
sharon |
(in reply to: Parents vs. refugees)
Okay, lets begin with skilled worker wife.
She is not part of the picture because she came as his wife and not as sponsored.
Now, if he is the only one working, he has to show a sufficient income to sponsor his parents.
After they come, he has to support them for 10 years.
If they are 50 and don´t speak English, we are assuming that they will not be able to find a job.
So how exactly they can sponsor their 2 children?
So in this case, we are talking about 2 people and not 5.
Now, I would like to repeat my question: does Canada want only economic immigrants (in which case it should cancel both family and refugee classes) or it wants to continue to have a reputation of humanitarian country (in which case it should continue to have modest percentage of non-economic cases?
You cannot dance on 2 weddings.
[11-03-2005,01:15]
[**.10.219.37]
prg |
(in reply to: Parents vs. refugees)
Canada does set a priority to unite spouses and children. For parents it is not that high a priority for humanitarian reasons. (Adult people can cope living without their parents). You have to also understand that there is parents who are around their 50´s, in good physical condition, and hence do not add into ever increasing health queues for many years. When they are in their 70´s it is a different story.They may be healthy, or may not(Excessive demand exemption for family classes). They still have a potential to have a stroke, hip operations....and end up bed bound. Do you have any idea how much that will cost to a society. For example in UK one immobile old person will cost about 2600 pounds per week to take care of. So, when Canada is taking in Skilled immigrants to pay taxes in the future to support their retiring people...this will add to it. In order to collect enough taxes to support one old person in bed, they will need then to bring over 25 Skilled Workers who will earn at least 50 000 a year income.
[11-03-2005,14:55]
[***.140.206.90]
April |
|
