+1(514) 937-9445 or Toll-free (Canada & US) +1 (888) 947-9445

Significant reduction in immigrants to Canada if Trump win?

Natan

Hero Member
May 22, 2015
496
83
screech339 said:
So according to you, it was all just a coincidence that all that stuff happened while Reagan was US president.
Just because something happened at that time does not mean there was a causal link. That's a very important lesson about history. The fact is, many things brought an end to the Soviet Union, most of which had to do with the contradictions and inefficiencies of Soviet governmental and economic policies. President Reagan's insistence on keeping the SDI program and his pouring trillions of dollars into the U.S. military nudged things along, but they weren't deciding factors or even particularly significant in the context of ending the Soviet experiment. The significant factors included a lack of consumer choices; popular cynicism regarding Government's ability to reform itself; the suppression of national identities; a prolonged and senseless war in Afghanistan; and President Gorbachev's inability, or unwillingness, to exert the political control necessary to keep the country together.

As for the economic changes that occurred during President Reagan, it is true, he grew the debt by over $11 trillion in eight years. That had a tremendous impact on the economy, some of it in a positive way. This was bound to happen. But he also had a tremendous negative impact on the economy, the consequences of which Americans are living with to this day; including wage stagnation, lack of a safety net for the poor, wealth disparities, one in six families going hungry every month, corporate greed gone mad, busted unions, shifting the tax burden onto the backs of the poor and working class, and myriad other consequences, all traced back to the Reagan Administration.

screech339 said:
With Reagan winning 2nd term presidency with 49 / 50 states
Yes, President Reagan won 49 of the 50 states in the Electoral College, during his reelection campaign. But he only won the election with 59% of the popular vote, not nearly the landslide the Electoral College made it out to be. And this was yet another case of the Democrats selecting a poor candidate, Walter Mondale, to run against him; and selecting a woman as a vice president, something few Americans were ready for at the time, and even those who were ready for a woman were turned off by the media reported financial scandals of Geraldine Ferraro and her husband during the campaign. It also did not help that Walter Mondale gave a speech on the morning of Election Day, as the polls opened up, that essentially conceded the election to President Reagan.

President Reagan's popularity with the electorate was largely driven by his warm welcome of the Dixiecrats into the Republican Party. (The Dixiecrats were the Southern Democrats that the Democratic Party lost when they passed The Civil Rights Act under President Johnson.) President Reagan pandered to these voters, as well as to religious conservatives, by embracing policies that he would not, and could not, pass (e.g., prayer in the schools, anti school desegragation, anti abortion, kicking (black) "welfare queens" off public assistance). He was popular with conservative and white voters who felt they were losing their place in America. But that does not mean he was popular with progressives, or even a majority of Democrats. And while he was a personable and likable person, his policies were often despised by the left. For example, he did absolutely nothing about the HIV/AIDS epidemic raging through the country, did not spend a cent on it, and did not allow the government to address the epidemic in any way -- he was virulently anti-gay (even his own gay son, Ron, talked openly about this). He crushed the air traffic controllers union, firing all of them. He eliminated large swathes of the anti-poverty programs put in place in the 1960s. He cut funding to cities. He lowered taxes on the wealthy. He reversed the previous policy of keeping unemployment low, and instead focused on keeping inflation low, which resulted in wage stagnation. He changed investment regulations making it easy for corporate raiders to takeover corporations just to get at their large pension funds; after takeover, the corporations were dismantled and the component parts sold off, but the raiders kept hundreds of billions of dollars in pension funds -- their profit, leaving the workers who had earned those pensions, and their widows, out in the cold. He cut funding for higher education, and oversaw the beginning of the Federal Government turning a profit on student loans at students' expense.

screech339 said:
BTW. I have more respect to Dem US President Bill Clinton than I have towards President Obama. Clinton, at least, walked the talk. He wasn't afraid of doing what he thought was the right thing to do, right or wrong. At least he made decisions. Obama, on the other hand, couldn't walk the talk. Always afraid of offending everyone, especially his own supporters.
Is this the same Bill Clinton who tried to open military service for homosexuals but ended up signing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and "The Defense of Marriage Act", both of which set gay rights back by at least a decade, so he could remain popular with conservative special interest groups? Is this the same President Clinton who was supportive of the black civil rights movement, but ended up supporting "tough on crime laws" that focused primarily on the incarceration of blacks, so that by the end of his Presidency one in three black men were in prison, on probation or on parole, in order to win reelection by playing the racist card as an appeal to white voters?

I am no President Obama fan -- I find him far too conservative and right wing for my taste. Excepting social issues, which are essentially "divide and conquer" issues, he is, in my opinion, the most conservative U.S. president since World War II. But I cannot help but be outraged by the racially motivated animosity his presidency has stirred up in America. The last U.S. President to be treated this badly by the opposition party was President Abraham Lincoln. There is plenty to object to in President Obama's policies and actions, without having to resort to the faux, racially motivated criticisms that have been repeated over and over in the USA. So far, screech339, all you have done is mindlessly repeat those criticisms; I can only hope that you do not also share the racial hatred that has motivated that speech in the USA.
 

screech339

VIP Member
Apr 2, 2013
7,887
552
Category........
Visa Office......
Vegreville
Job Offer........
Pre-Assessed..
App. Filed.......
14-08-2012
AOR Received.
20-11-2012
Med's Done....
18-07-2012
Interview........
17-06-2013
LANDED..........
17-06-2013
Natan said:
Just because something happened at that time does not mean there was a causal link. That's a very important lesson about history. The fact is, many things brought an end to the Soviet Union, most of which had to do with the contradictions and inefficiencies of Soviet governmental and economic policies. President Reagan's insistence on keeping the SDI program and his pouring trillions of dollars into the U.S. military nudged things along, but they weren't deciding factors or even particularly significant in the context of ending the Soviet experiment. The significant factors included a lack of consumer choices; popular cynicism regarding Government's ability to reform itself; the suppression of national identities; a prolonged and senseless war in Afghanistan; and President Gorbachev's inability, or unwillingness, to exert the political control necessary to keep the country together.

As for the economic changes that occurred during President Reagan, it is true, he grew the debt by over $11 trillion in eight years. That had a tremendous impact on the economy, some of it in a positive way. This was bound to happen. But he also had a tremendous negative impact on the economy, the consequences of which Americans are living with to this day; including wage stagnation, lack of a safety net for the poor, wealth disparities, one in six families going hungry every month, corporate greed gone mad, busted unions, shifting the tax burden onto the backs of the poor and working class, and myriad other consequences, all traced back to the Reagan Administration.

Yes, President Reagan won 49 of the 50 states in the Electoral College, during his reelection campaign. But he only won the election with 59% of the popular vote, not nearly the landslide the Electoral College made it out to be. And this was yet another case of the Democrats selecting a poor candidate, Walter Mondale, to run against him; and selecting a woman as a vice president, something few Americans were ready for at the time, and even those who were ready for a woman were turned off by the media reported financial scandals of Geraldine Ferraro and her husband during the campaign. It also did not help that Walter Mondale gave a speech on the morning of Election Day, as the polls opened up, that essentially conceded the election to President Reagan.

President Reagan's popularity with the electorate was largely driven by his warm welcome of the Dixiecrats into the Republican Party. (The Dixiecrats were the Southern Democrats that the Democratic Party lost when they passed The Civil Rights Act under President Johnson.) President Reagan pandered to these voters, as well as to religious conservatives, by embracing policies that he would not, and could not, pass (e.g., prayer in the schools, anti school desegragation, anti abortion, kicking (black) "welfare queens" off public assistance). He was popular with conservative and white voters who felt they were losing their place in America. But that does not mean he was popular with progressives, or even a majority of Democrats. And while he was a personable and likable person, his policies were often despised by the left. For example, he did absolutely nothing about the HIV/AIDS epidemic raging through the country, did not spend a cent on it, and did not allow the government to address the epidemic in any way -- he was virulently anti-gay (even his own gay son, Ron, talked openly about this). He crushed the air traffic controllers union, firing all of them. He eliminated large swathes of the anti-poverty programs put in place in the 1960s. He cut funding to cities. He lowered taxes on the wealthy. He reversed the previous policy of keeping unemployment low, and instead focused on keeping inflation low, which resulted in wage stagnation. He changed investment regulations making it easy for corporate raiders to takeover corporations just to get at their large pension funds; after takeover, the corporations were dismantled and the component parts sold off, but the raiders kept hundreds of billions of dollars in pension funds -- their profit, leaving the workers who had earned those pensions, and their widows, out in the cold. He cut funding for higher education, and oversaw the beginning of the Federal Government turning a profit on student loans at students' expense.

Is this the same Bill Clinton who tried to open military service for homosexuals but ended up signing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and "The Defense of Marriage Act", both of which set gay rights back by at least a decade, so he could remain popular with conservative special interest groups? Is this the same President Clinton who was supportive of the black civil rights movement, but ended up supporting "tough on crime laws" that focused primarily on the incarceration of blacks, so that by the end of his Presidency one in three black men were in prison, on probation or on parole, in order to win reelection by playing the racist card as an appeal to white voters?

I am no President Obama fan -- I find him far too conservative and right wing for my taste. Excepting social issues, which are essentially "divide and conquer" issues, he is, in my opinion, the most conservative U.S. president since World War II. But I cannot help but be outraged by the racially motivated animosity his presidency has stirred up in America. The last U.S. President to be treated this badly by the opposition party was President Abraham Lincoln. There is plenty to object to in President Obama's policies and actions, without having to resort to the faux, racially motivated criticisms that have been repeated over and over in the USA. So far, screech339, all you have done is mindlessly repeat those criticisms; I can only hope that you do not also share the racial hatred that has motivated that speech in the USA.
One thing I do agree with you is that Reagan spent a lot of money on military. However money spent on military was used to counter communism expansion. This created an "arms race" between US and Russia to the point that Russia couldn't keep up with the spending that it's communism system collapsed on itself. So in hindsight, if it wasn't for increased spending, communism would likely have expanded much further than it has in the past or not collapsed at all.

As for "don't ask don't tell" policy, at least it didn't prevent gay from joining the military. I wasn't a fan of "don't ask, don't tell" policy. If gay wants to join, by all means go ahead. At least it is a compromise to allay uncalled military's jitters. And besides, why is it important whether the military know if your are straight or gay. Sexual orientation has no bearing on doing your job. This is no different from my employer not asking whether I'm straight or gay. The employers doesn't need to know, any more than military, as a employer, doesn't need to know.

As for "tough on crime" policy, it doesn't target black people as you implied. If white people were the majority in committing crimes, it would incarcerate mostly white people. The "tough on crime" doesn't discriminate against anyone. Do the crime, pay the time, whether you are white, black, yellow, or purple.

What about Clinton stepping in to prevent ethnic genocide in Kosovo? What's your thoughts on that? I believe that one of his legacies of his presidency.
 

Natan

Hero Member
May 22, 2015
496
83
screech339 said:
One thing I do agree with you is that Reagan spent a lot of money on military. However money spent on military was used to counter communism expansion. This created an "arms race" between US and Russia to the point that Russia couldn't keep up with the spending that it's communism system collapsed on itself. So in hindsight, if it wasn't for increased spending, communism would likely have expanded much further than it has in the past or not collapsed at all.
This is a favourite trope of Reagan apologists, but historians have had access to Soviet archives for some time now, and they've found no evidence to support such a claim. It is true that the lack of consumer goods on store shelves was a direct result of decades of military spending, and that the lack of consumer goods was one, among many, of the significant causes of the fall of the Soviet Union. But the cause of that military spending was in response to decades' old military antagonisms with the United States and China; therefore, Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush/Sr; Prime Ministers Churchill, Atlee, Eden, MacMillan, Douglas-Home, Wilson, Heath, Callaghan, Thatcher, Major; and Chairmen Mao, and Deng must all collectively share the credit.

Most reputable historians agree that the causes of the fall of the Soviet empire were mostly due to internal drivers, internal developments, and internal public opinion, and far less to external events.

screech339 said:
As for "don't ask don't tell" policy, at least it didn't prevent gay from joining the military. I wasn't a fan of "don't ask, don't tell" policy. If gay wants to join, by all means go ahead. At least it is a compromise to allay uncalled military's jitters. And besides, why is it important whether the military know if your are straight or gay. Sexual orientation has no bearing on doing your job. This is no different from my employer not asking whether I'm straight or gay. The employers doesn't need to know, any more than military, as a employer, doesn't need to know.
Before "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was implemented, many GLBTs served, not openly, but discreetly. There was no question but most military personnel knew that there were plenty of GLBTs and they could often be identified. Go to any gay dance club on the weekends near a large military post, and one was bound to find many military members in attendance. GLBT members served without undue fear, but nominally in the closet. This all changed with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", which created witch-hunts that ferretted out any whif of gayness and discharged such members. Instead of behaving discreetly, GLBTs were now obliged to actively hide thier lives and live in fear of being found out. GLBTs were discharged because they lived with someone of the same-sex, because they frequented online gay chat rooms, because they went to gay bars, or because someone saw them walk funny. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" ushered in a hateful, fearful, oppressive decade and a half for military GLBTs.

The rationale that this was a fair policy, if only GLBTs didn't "flaunt" their sexuality, is much, much more than a misconception, it's a downright lie that had life changing consequences for the GLBTs who served their country. One does not excuse away bigotry and discrimination by pretending that said discrimination is applied fairly. It is immoral to say that sexual orientation has no bearing on one's job and therefore neither heteros nor GLBTs should be asked about, nor disclose, their sexual orientation; when everyone knows very well that only GLBTs were targeted by this law, and heteros with spouses and children (the very profit of their hetero fornication!) were not being equally discriminated against for their sexual orientation.

Please don't be an apologist for this blatantly discriminatory piece of legislative bigotry.

screech339 said:
As for "tough on crime" policy, it doesn't target black people as you implied. If white people were the majority in committing crimes, it would incarcerate mostly white people. The "tough on crime" doesn't discriminate against anyone. Do the crime, pay the time, whether you are white, black, yellow, or purple.
To quote President Reagan, "There you go again!"

African Americans make up 12% of the U.S. population; but they make up 40% of the incarcerated population. This is out of all proportion and is highly indicative of the unfair and racist treatment they receive from the U.S. justice system.

Platitudes like "do the crime, pay the time" are harmful because they allow a society to hide their racist crimes against an entire ethnic group behind fair sounding rationalizations.

The near unanimous opinion of African Americans is that they are stopped more often by law enforcement, than are their white counterparts, and that such stops are far more likely to end in the death of the African American being stopped. Time after time, scholastic reviews of the justice system show that African Americans are statistically much more likely to receive harsher sentences, and death sentences, than are their white counterparts; that whites are far more likely to be let off with a slap on the wrist, or even a clean record, than are their black counterparts. Suggesting that the U.S. justice system does not target African Americans and Hispanics is to ignore decades of scholarship on the subject. If your position is not one of willful ignorance or intentional misinformation, but due to a lack of knowledge, then I recommend you either education yourself or keep quiet on the subject.

screech339 said:
What about Clinton stepping in to prevent ethnic genocide in Kosovo? What's your thoughts on that? I believe that one of his legacies of his presidency.
What about the way the West ignored the Yugoslav wars to begin with? The West tried to ignore the wars as each republic broke away from the Yugoslav union. The West didn't become involved until Bosnia and Herzegovina became a killing zone between Serbia and Croatia. In a three way war between [Christian] Bosnian-Serbs, [Christian] Bosnian-Croats, and [Muslim] Bosniaks, racial cleansing in Bosnia and Herzegovina had reached a scale not seen in Europe for decades.

In a misguided attempt to stop the killing, the West placed an embargo on all arms shipments to Bosnia and Herzegovina. The problem with this policy was that the Bosnian-Croats were being armed by next door neighbour Croatia and the Bosnian-Serbs were being armed by next door neighbour Serbia; but the Bosniaks had no next door neighbour to arm them. The embargo effectively disarmed the Bosniaks (the only Muslims in the war) and invited crimes like the Srebrenica Massacre. Fortunately for the Bosniaks, Iran ignored the embargo and found ways to get them arms, and very likely saved the Bosniaks from being exterminated.

The Kosovo Intervention occurs after these events, after the mass killings, after the racial cleansings, after the war crimes, after the West had finally begun to awaken from its slumber and react to the slaughter. And instead of intervening in Kosovo directly, the U.S. tries to bomb Serbia into submission, bombing infrastructure (e.g., bridges, the communications grid, railways) which harm the civilian population and not the military capacity of the country. The West also tried to fight a diversionary air war in Vojvodina (the opposite side of Serbia from Kosovo), instead of just putting troops on the ground and protecting the Albanian population of Kosovo from the ethnic cleansing they were being subjected to.

Serbia is a traditional ally of Russia. Let's remember that Russia's declaration of war on Austria-Hungary in defense of Serbia was the proximate cause of World War I. The way the U.S. "declared" Kosovar autonomy, completely ignoring Russia's opposition (because Russia was weak at the time and could do nothing), is precisely where current Russian animosity against the U.S. and Europe today has its roots (there were many other actions, on both sides, that caused the current animosity between the Russian Federation and the West, but this is the first, and the earliest one remembered by most Russians).
 

keesio

VIP Member
May 16, 2012
4,795
396
Toronto, Ontario
Category........
Visa Office......
CPP-O
Job Offer........
Pre-Assessed..
App. Filed.......
09-01-2013
Doc's Request.
09-07-2013
AOR Received.
30-01-2013
File Transfer...
11-02-2013
Med's Done....
02-01-2013
Interview........
waived
Passport Req..
12-07-2013
VISA ISSUED...
15-08-2013
LANDED..........
14-10-2013
Holy frak. Talk about getting off topic here.
 

deerestlovelybear

Hero Member
Jan 20, 2015
712
203
Trump won is a wake up call for Canada actually. Talk about lifting visa for Mexico, rushing in thousands of refugees etc... Not sure how these liberal moves will lead to
 

screech339

VIP Member
Apr 2, 2013
7,887
552
Category........
Visa Office......
Vegreville
Job Offer........
Pre-Assessed..
App. Filed.......
14-08-2012
AOR Received.
20-11-2012
Med's Done....
18-07-2012
Interview........
17-06-2013
LANDED..........
17-06-2013
Going back on Trump issue. I happened to find it hilarious that Dem economists couldn't support fiscal stimulus that they spent years supporting it only now won't support it because it is coming from Trump? Talk about being in a bind. Krugman is a prime example. Krugman couldn't bring himself to endorse the exact same policy coming from a GOP.

Talk about childishness / pettiness. Are they a bunch of 5-6 year olds?
 

keesio

VIP Member
May 16, 2012
4,795
396
Toronto, Ontario
Category........
Visa Office......
CPP-O
Job Offer........
Pre-Assessed..
App. Filed.......
09-01-2013
Doc's Request.
09-07-2013
AOR Received.
30-01-2013
File Transfer...
11-02-2013
Med's Done....
02-01-2013
Interview........
waived
Passport Req..
12-07-2013
VISA ISSUED...
15-08-2013
LANDED..........
14-10-2013

quasar81

Hero Member
Feb 27, 2014
464
52
NAFTA is gone!!

Doesn't matter what creates jobs or not, Trump will cancel NAFTA to show his core voter base that he has guts to do so. That is trump a showman.

NAFTA will be cancelled. 'Renegotiations' are just a drama. Call it a Trump show.
 

sirdba

Full Member
Dec 19, 2015
20
0
Hi All!

I was searching for the status of Canadian immigration scenario after Trump's win and found this nice post. Anyway, would really interested to know what is the present status of Canadian immigration now? Are still the Americans and the foreign people living and working in USA targeting Canada for immigration? Will this effect/reduce the chance of getting Canadian PR under express entry/PNP for people like us applying from South Asia within the next 1/2 years? Would really appreciate if you pls can share your honest feedback.

Thanks in advance. :)
 

arambi

Hero Member
Aug 16, 2014
332
24
You are REALLY good on this subject!!!
Thanks for such great contributions to the forum !!!


Natan said:
This is a favourite trope of Reagan apologists, but historians have had access to Soviet archives for some time now, and they've found no evidence to support such a claim. It is true that the lack of consumer goods on store shelves was a direct result of decades of military spending, and that the lack of consumer goods was one, among many, of the significant causes of the fall of the Soviet Union. But the cause of that military spending was in response to decades' old military antagonisms with the United States and China; therefore, Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush/Sr; Prime Ministers Churchill, Atlee, Eden, MacMillan, Douglas-Home, Wilson, Heath, Callaghan, Thatcher, Major; and Chairmen Mao, and Deng must all collectively share the credit.

Most reputable historians agree that the causes of the fall of the Soviet empire were mostly due to internal drivers, internal developments, and internal public opinion, and far less to external events.

Before "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was implemented, many GLBTs served, not openly, but discreetly. There was no question but most military personnel knew that there were plenty of GLBTs and they could often be identified. Go to any gay dance club on the weekends near a large military post, and one was bound to find many military members in attendance. GLBT members served without undue fear, but nominally in the closet. This all changed with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", which created witch-hunts that ferretted out any whif of gayness and discharged such members. Instead of behaving discreetly, GLBTs were now obliged to actively hide thier lives and live in fear of being found out. GLBTs were discharged because they lived with someone of the same-sex, because they frequented online gay chat rooms, because they went to gay bars, or because someone saw them walk funny. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" ushered in a hateful, fearful, oppressive decade and a half for military GLBTs.

The rationale that this was a fair policy, if only GLBTs didn't "flaunt" their sexuality, is much, much more than a misconception, it's a downright lie that had life changing consequences for the GLBTs who served their country. One does not excuse away bigotry and discrimination by pretending that said discrimination is applied fairly. It is immoral to say that sexual orientation has no bearing on one's job and therefore neither heteros nor GLBTs should be asked about, nor disclose, their sexual orientation; when everyone knows very well that only GLBTs were targeted by this law, and heteros with spouses and children (the very profit of their hetero fornication!) were not being equally discriminated against for their sexual orientation.

Please don't be an apologist for this blatantly discriminatory piece of legislative bigotry.

To quote President Reagan, "There you go again!"

African Americans make up 12% of the U.S. population; but they make up 40% of the incarcerated population. This is out of all proportion and is highly indicative of the unfair and racist treatment they receive from the U.S. justice system.

Platitudes like "do the crime, pay the time" are harmful because they allow a society to hide their racist crimes against an entire ethnic group behind fair sounding rationalizations.

The near unanimous opinion of African Americans is that they are stopped more often by law enforcement, than are their white counterparts, and that such stops are far more likely to end in the death of the African American being stopped. Time after time, scholastic reviews of the justice system show that African Americans are statistically much more likely to receive harsher sentences, and death sentences, than are their white counterparts; that whites are far more likely to be let off with a slap on the wrist, or even a clean record, than are their black counterparts. Suggesting that the U.S. justice system does not target African Americans and Hispanics is to ignore decades of scholarship on the subject. If your position is not one of willful ignorance or intentional misinformation, but due to a lack of knowledge, then I recommend you either education yourself or keep quiet on the subject.

What about the way the West ignored the Yugoslav wars to begin with? The West tried to ignore the wars as each republic broke away from the Yugoslav union. The West didn't become involved until Bosnia and Herzegovina became a killing zone between Serbia and Croatia. In a three way war between [Christian] Bosnian-Serbs, [Christian] Bosnian-Croats, and [Muslim] Bosniaks, racial cleansing in Bosnia and Herzegovina had reached a scale not seen in Europe for decades.

In a misguided attempt to stop the killing, the West placed an embargo on all arms shipments to Bosnia and Herzegovina. The problem with this policy was that the Bosnian-Croats were being armed by next door neighbour Croatia and the Bosnian-Serbs were being armed by next door neighbour Serbia; but the Bosniaks had no next door neighbour to arm them. The embargo effectively disarmed the Bosniaks (the only Muslims in the war) and invited crimes like the Srebrenica Massacre. Fortunately for the Bosniaks, Iran ignored the embargo and found ways to get them arms, and very likely saved the Bosniaks from being exterminated.

The Kosovo Intervention occurs after these events, after the mass killings, after the racial cleansings, after the war crimes, after the West had finally begun to awaken from its slumber and react to the slaughter. And instead of intervening in Kosovo directly, the U.S. tries to bomb Serbia into submission, bombing infrastructure (e.g., bridges, the communications grid, railways) which harm the civilian population and not the military capacity of the country. The West also tried to fight a diversionary air war in Vojvodina (the opposite side of Serbia from Kosovo), instead of just putting troops on the ground and protecting the Albanian population of Kosovo from the ethnic cleansing they were being subjected to.

Serbia is a traditional ally of Russia. Let's remember that Russia's declaration of war on Austria-Hungary in defense of Serbia was the proximate cause of World War I. The way the U.S. "declared" Kosovar autonomy, completely ignoring Russia's opposition (because Russia was weak at the time and could do nothing), is precisely where current Russian animosity against the U.S. and Europe today has its roots (there were many other actions, on both sides, that caused the current animosity between the Russian Federation and the West, but this is the first, and the earliest one remembered by most Russians).
 

keesio

VIP Member
May 16, 2012
4,795
396
Toronto, Ontario
Category........
Visa Office......
CPP-O
Job Offer........
Pre-Assessed..
App. Filed.......
09-01-2013
Doc's Request.
09-07-2013
AOR Received.
30-01-2013
File Transfer...
11-02-2013
Med's Done....
02-01-2013
Interview........
waived
Passport Req..
12-07-2013
VISA ISSUED...
15-08-2013
LANDED..........
14-10-2013
sirdba said:
Hi All!

I was searching for the status of Canadian immigration scenario after Trump's win and found this nice post. Anyway, would really interested to know what is the present status of Canadian immigration now? Are still the Americans and the foreign people living and working in USA targeting Canada for immigration? Will this effect/reduce the chance of getting Canadian PR under express entry/PNP for people like us applying from South Asia within the next 1/2 years? Would really appreciate if you pls can share your honest feedback.

Thanks in advance. :)
All the chatter has died down as emotions fade. Just like in 2000 and 2004 when the (re)election victories of Bush prompted the same talk. I know a few Canadians working in the US that said they may come back if Trump wins. Now they still want to stay but are worried about being forced to move back if Trump makes getting H1-B harder or getting rid of NAFTA. Likely the impact of a Trump win for Canada immigration is minimal.
 

itsmyid

Champion Member
Jul 26, 2012
2,250
649
keesio said:
All the chatter has died down as emotions fade. Just like in 2000 and 2004 when the (re)election victories of Bush prompted the same talk. I know a few Canadians working in the US that said they may come back if Trump wins. Now they still want to stay but are worried about being forced to move back if Trump makes getting H1-B harder or getting rid of NAFTA. Likely the impact of a Trump win for Canada immigration is minimal.
as expected... and I am guessing when it will have another peak when the inauguration is near, but after that it will be business as usual, few will actually act on moving to Canada, given the time it takes to prepare and process an application, even some of those who do submit applications would probably change their mind half way through.
 

keesio

VIP Member
May 16, 2012
4,795
396
Toronto, Ontario
Category........
Visa Office......
CPP-O
Job Offer........
Pre-Assessed..
App. Filed.......
09-01-2013
Doc's Request.
09-07-2013
AOR Received.
30-01-2013
File Transfer...
11-02-2013
Med's Done....
02-01-2013
Interview........
waived
Passport Req..
12-07-2013
VISA ISSUED...
15-08-2013
LANDED..........
14-10-2013
itsmyid said:
as expected... and I am guessing when it will have another peak when the inauguration is near, but after that it will be business as usual, few will actually act on moving to Canada, given the time it takes to prepare and process an application, even some of those who do submit applications would probably change their mind half way through.
There could be a small spike in applications from people who are in the US on a H1-B or other work visa and have a harder time getting them renewed. But this is only if Trump actually follows through with what he said. And we all know that public promises from Trump are mostly worthless so we'll see how that plays out.