|
|
| Subject: IP Myth - to answer ME |
|
|
|
To answer ME,
You are right most of us on this forum have a dynamic IP address, but idetifiers remain the same.
For e.g in a telephone number we have XXX-XXX-XXXX (first 3 are area code), same in a dynamic IP allocation the area code never change. So go figure, if you applied from a not so big city in the US, there are only so many applicant from your area.
If CIC had all information on you and wanted to track you down, it is not going to take more than an hour just looking at the IP identifier, and some personal information, as somewhere on this forum you mentioned your time-line which will correspond to the timeline they have on their records.
Now, that settles the question of they cannot track, yes they can - anyone can. The question is will they - the answer is NO, they just donot have the time with all the applications and it is basically against the law to base their decision on prejudice, the fact that you wrote your hearts out against them.
I hope that shatters the myth, IP Myth to be exact.
##
[13-11-2005,04:53]
[**.151.172.201]
starwars |
|
(in reply to: IP Myth - to answer ME)
No argument from me.
[13-11-2005,10:27]
[**.10.169.99]
...... |
(in reply to: IP Myth - to answer ME)
For one, the IP´s showing on this forum are useless without the first series of digits, which are **´d out.
Second, if CIC is spending the time to troll websites trying to track down geographical locations from IP´s, we might as well all throw in the towel, because nothing would be being processed.
[13-11-2005,11:34]
[**.31.17.2]
FWChelle |
(in reply to: IP Myth - to answer ME)
I think we need to stop this discussion as it might scare folks away.
Also, why do we always assume that the position of an applicant and CIC is that of adversary. On the contrary, both the applicant and CIC have a common goal - to bring the applicant in Canada. The question that arises is of resource allocation. There simply aren´t enough officers to process the application. This is where the Canadian citizens strike balance - how much the want to spend on immigration v/s how badly they want external talent.
My 2 cents.
[13-11-2005,13:45]
[**.171.94.57]
ME |
(in reply to: IP Myth - to answer ME)
ME,
I do agree you.they are undestaffed and absolutly inefficint.
however,Mr volpe always insists on the necessity of faster actions on immigration cases all over the world!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[13-11-2005,15:18]
[***.217.61.69]
AFARIN |
(in reply to: IP Myth - to answer ME)
it would appear the balance has already been struck because CIC is meeting Canadian immigration targets.
perhaps waiting and frustration is the on qualifying gate they neglect to mention but it helps clear out a few applicants that only applied ´just to see what would happen´
[13-11-2005,15:18]
[***.20.170.23]
Sharon |
(in reply to: IP Myth - to answer ME)
It is true Mr. Volpe is insisting on faster actions and this might make him look good in the publics eyes, but who is insisting for Mr. Volpe to actually do something to achieve these faster actions?
[13-11-2005,15:22]
[***.186.167.254]
Timothy |
(in reply to: IP Myth - to answer ME)
how can they make something go faster when they are accepting as many applications as they want every year? He is talking about adding 10-15,000 to the annual total but how many of those are parents and spouses. There is an outcry over parental wait times and those targets have currently been cut way back.
Even raising the pass mark is not going to do it because Canada is still not getting the kind of workers it needs and points are not the issue.
I can see an expansion of the Temporary Work Permit with an increase in NOC classifications that qualify. I would also like to see the language testing moved up in the process to the AOR stage so if you do not show funds and adequate language scores... try again at another time. It would mean recalibrating the entire point system.
But who am I.... and Volpe has not called me up lately for advice. Besides, nothing is going to change for a while until we get another government in place.
[13-11-2005,16:37]
[***.20.170.23]
Sharon |
(in reply to: IP Myth - to answer ME)
Sharon, they can makes things go faster using the resources they already have. Bottom line is CIC needs to run more efficient. They probably don´t need to hire more people or increase the budget. Just optimize what they have now.
I think this is what you are getting at when you talk about funds and scores. I agree with you. They are wasting time by not properly pre-screening.
Using my wifes application for example, why after the interview did we need to wait 2 months in limbo for the medical redo forms(would of saved everyone time if officer asked at interview when he said we passed) and why after background check was complete did they ask for updated photos then 1 month later ask for the passport(why not together, Caips showed that med and all other checks were completed and passed).
These are just 2 examples in our case that show inefficancies. I´m sure everyone else can give some more. But please do not say its because background checks take a long time. This is no excuse for slowness in the processing of our files in other areas.
One note for Sharon, maybe Mr. Volpe has misplaced your phone number. Have you faxed him a reminder lately? :))) Better fax it a couple dozen times in a row just to make sure it reaches his desk. :)))
[13-11-2005,19:10]
[***.186.167.254]
Timothy |
(in reply to: IP Myth - to answer ME)
I forgot one other idea that will probably piss people off but it will really help those who want to give Canada a real try.
There is absolutely no reason that we should be allowing people to only spend 2 out of 5 years in Canada to maintain their status. (what could possibly be a good reason??) It should be at least 3 years. That would stop people from accepting a PR with no real intention of living in Canada. It would create more spaces for those who want to make a new life and to give Canada what it is needing.
I have tried writing Volpe. He ignores me.
[13-11-2005,19:18]
[***.20.170.23]
Sharon |
(in reply to: IP Myth - to answer ME)
Now we´re talking. This one pisses me off to.
I also think the maximum continuous time should be limited to one year untill you are a citizen or at least the first five years of PR.
If you are serious about making Canada your home then you shouldn´t have any problems keeping your absences to under 1 year continuously.
Sharon, just bombard the fucker with mail and faxes and e-mail. persistance should prevail.
[13-11-2005,19:36]
[***.186.167.254]
Timothy |
