Discretion can lead to discrimination
April 01, 2008The Conservative led minority government has recently introduced a bill in Parliament that contains significant changes to Canada's immigration law. If passed, the proposed amendments will empower the immigration minister to instruct visa officers to take certain candidates quickly, hold some applications for consideration at a later date, and return others without any consideration at all. No clue is given in advance as to which type of applicants will be favoured and which will be spurned.
What we do know for certain is that this new discretionary power the Minister seeks is diametrically opposed to the central principle of the current immigration law, namely, that anyone who submits an application for Canadian Permanent Residency is entitled to be considered fairly, according to the same objective criteria that apply to everyone else who applies at the same time. No ifs, ands, or buts.
The government argues that the changes are required, in part, to deal with the backlog of approximately 600,000 would-be economic immigrants currently waiting to be considered for Canadian Permanent Residency. Expressed in this manner, one has the impression of a single line of applicants stretching as far as the eye can see. However, this isn't really the case. In fact, there are more than 40 Canadian visa offices located throughout the world where individuals can submit their applications. Some visa offices consistently complete the processing of applications in 12 to 18 months and other visa offices can take five or more years to conclude an application. Put another way, people who apply to come to Canada from the Americas and many Western European countries get to Canada quickly; whereas people from India, the Philippines, and the Middle East wait a long time. Why is this?
The wait is longer in certain regions, not only because there is a great demand for Canadian immigration from those areas, but also because of the immigration minister's decisions regarding the target number of visas (quota) to be processed at each visa office annually. For example, in 2007 the visa office in Buffalo had an inventory of 43,000 skilled worker / business applications and a target number of 24,500 visas to be issued. At the same time, the visa office in New Delhi had 135,000 skilled worker / business applicants in line and a target number of 10,500 visas to be issued. Are you starting to get the picture?
Just so as you know, our office submitted 2 skilled worker simplified applications to the visa office in Buenos Aires in August 2007. Today the visa office notified us that they would like all supporting documents within the next 4 months as that is when they intend to assess the applications. The applicants will, in all likelihood, become Canadian permanent residents in less than a year from the time their applications were submitted. Some backlog !
So really, the only way to solve the backlog issue is by "shutting the door" to applicants at certain visa offices. Is this what the government is proposing? It's fair to ask. And if it is, then it is surely worthy of open debate.
Right now, the proposed modifications are included in a budget implementation bill and as such, will see little, if any, discussion prior to vote. The Conservatives know that a majority vote against this bill will trigger an election and they are counting on the Opposition's unwillingness to face the electorate to see the amendments through Parliament.
Talk about playing politics on the backs of immigrants.
8 Comments:
From experience I can say that it's no longer true that immigrants from Europe obtain there visa within 12 to 18 months...
For example: the waiting time for a PR visa in Berlin has gone up to more than two years. It takes a couple of years in Britain to get a PR visa and in Paris it takes over 5 years.
Only Vienna seems to stay on track with their waiting times...
So to assume that The Candian Gouvernment discourages immigrants from countries outside Europa to apply for a visa by increasing waiting times, is a wrong assumption.
The Mexican people should count their blessings....we've been waiting for over two years with no end in sight for a visa. And on top of that we are waiting for 4 months allready for a date to have our interview taken in Berlin....
I've stated my view on the new proposed immigration laws already..I think it's a step backwards, especially for Skilled Workers, but to conclude that people from outside of Europe are a target is not correct.
Nor fair for the people here that are waiting an immense time for that visa.
Oh, of course I know Buenos Aires isn't in Mexico but in Argetina....I got my couples mixed up.
From now on I will be using an alias to post, instead of 'anonymous'. So to distinguish my opinion from others. And since I have nothing to be ashamed nor to be afraid of I will sign off as Double Dutch from now on.
Kind regards.
Here in the UK we are repeatedly told that we are looking at 4 years plus to get a permanent residence visa (without pre arranged employment).
My concern is that those who don't work in the very narrow number of desirable professions recognised by the various PNP initiatives are left in the middle ground. We are neither desirable enough to be fast tracked nor do we fall into any other category.
My wife and I are early thirties with an impressive 15 year work record behind us. We earn good money and own property, We would contribute to Canada's economy from day one and in all likelihood continue to do so for the next 30+ years.
Please explain why my application shouldn't take precedent over someone seeking asylum, or someone who has never worked a day in their life - who could possibly be a drain on Canada's resources from day one!?
Canada should learn from Britain's mistakes - our immigration policy over the last 10 years has been proven to have had no NET contribution to the UK economy because the selection policy has been so flawed.
There should always be space in every immigration policy for all races, colours, abilities and backgrounds - but they should be proportionate to ensure the prosperous economic future of the Country.
Rant over.
J3ster
Hi,
I was visiting Canada recently, but was not admitted entry by one of the immigration officer at the port. She was mean, and was angry before she interviewed me, and had boxed me with humiliation. I was about to do an exploratory visit and attend a business seminar for 2 weeks, but had requested to to be given 2 weeks to 6 months, since i wanted to do explore more and learn a lot about Canada. She inspected my handbag, and got some very personal documents which she should not be minding. And she also read my Plan of Action for the exploratory visit that i will be doing. She is suspecting that i will not go back to my country, even if i show her my return flight ticket. She send me back to my country immediately for the next flight, and accused me of lack of credibility and inadmissable to Canada.
Can i file a case on this matter? I was helpless that time since i have no one to ask help to, it was midnight already, and my cell phone was not roamed that time, which i should have been using to contact my friends and relatives or my bosss during that time.
Can i still be admitted to Canada using a working visa?
Your help is greatly appreciated. Thanks
I don't mind skilled immigrants being fast-tracked as long as it is in concert with skills-accreditation harmonization.
The Liberals have suggested a $600 million (annually?) bill to accomplish the latter.
The reason I like fast-tracked skilled labourers is that a significant % of income earned by recent immigrants is sent back to their remaining family in the emmigrating nation. The amount 3rd world citizens receive by this function is over twice the world's foreign aid budgets.
There is some truth to J.Layton's objection that the 3rd world shouldn't merely be used as a pool of cheap labour, but that can probably be addressed by bilateral/multilateral agreements to reimburse the education costs of the immigrating person's previous nation. Also, if say doctors in Tanzania are critically below some threshold for non-structure reasons (a personnel shortage, not bad policy), don't pluck the remaining doctors.
It comes down to whether the social good from removing an unskilled family from physical danger is better than the social good of a globalized workforce. When you account the salary skilled immigrants earn and return to a 3rd world nation, I might have to side with the Conservatives on this issue.
According to the poll, 61 per cent of those surveyed believe that Canada makes too many accommodations for visible minorities. In Quebec, 72 per cent of those surveyed feel that way.
Why should Canada not be allowed to choose who gets into the country when? Doesn't it make sense to choose the best candidates to improve the future of the country instead of just letting anyone in?
@ Sandra.
This is exactly what the Canadian Gouvernment already does!
Applications are assesed on 6 factors, only when you pass the mark of 67 points (based on age, language skills, job history, education, adaptability and arragend employement) you are allowed to sent in your application.
If you don't meet the passmark you can also send in your application, but getting a visa with no passmark is highly unlikely.
You need a whole lot of stemina to complete the process, not to mention cash.
I can speak only for people in Europe, since I have contacts with many applicants: these are not a bunch of low-life hill-billies or cowboy-wannabees....most of us are highly trained professionals seeking a better standard of life in Canada, and this is not meant as in financially better....
I agree totally that the Gouvernment of Canada is allowed to choose whom to let in the country, but it's truly a wrong assumption to state that anyone can come to Canada and start a new life.
This site as a huge source of information if you would like to know more about what people need to do to become permant residence, temporay workers etcetra in Canada.
Once you know more about the elaborate meassures one has to take to be eligible for a visa, you might know better than to state that "it make sense to choose the best candidates to improve the future of the country instead of just letting anyone in?"
The truth is far from it
Post a Comment