i believe the sponsor should also be called and asked why this person needs to be on welfare,,,its sad when a person is used just to gain entry into our country ,,,then the government looks after them better than the sponsor,,,what the hecks wrong with that picture,,why dosnt the welfare office see that after only a month of being in this country does this person need welfare,,,contact the sponsor,,,after being threatened,,having the police step in,,,only to get a ticket for him to go back home,,,and the cops say they wont lay charges so he can leave the country,,,then to go hide in a mosque ,,forget the plane home and to go get welfare,,,cry of slavery and being a hostage,,which was so far from the truth,,if it comes down to i have to pay back welfare,,,well guess what,,,my ass will be in a jail cell,,,because i will show him what true abuse is,,,,used by Mohammed Qadihaja,,,,for entry to Canada,,,now in guelph ont
I also agree for the most part, however I think there should be some exceptional circumstances clause.
For example theoretically, lets say a woman sponsors her husband and after 1 year he decides to cheat on her and run away with another woman, and then that breaks down and he goes on social assistance.
Unlikely in most relationships but I'm sure it happens.
Imagine the woman needing to support him after all that. Sure she signed a contract, regardless of circumstances if they split up, divorce, lose job etc....but I guess there's always a few exceptional cases.....no?
That being said I would mostly agree, just playing devils advocate!
Immigration Forum
