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

Report: Liberals to make immigration to Canada much easier

peace123

Star Member
Jul 11, 2019
76
15
The Trudeau Liberals are planning to remove nearly all grounds the Immigration department uses to exclude applicants, the Toronto Sun has learned.

It has been the Trudeau government’s goal since 2020 to increase Canada’s intake of immigrants and refugees by nearly one-third to 400,000 annually.

How they plan to achieve this elevated level is outlined in an internal draft document sent to immigration and refugee judges — documents that have been exclusively shared with the Sun.

In an email sent to staff and adjudicators on Sept. 20, Richard Wex, the Liberals’ appointee as chairperson and chief executive officer of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, laid out a massive expansion of the reasons immigrants can be allowed to enter and stay in Canada.

Under the new guidelines, contained in a document marked “Draft” and covered by solicitor-client privilege, civil service officers who do an initial screening of immigration and refugee claims, plus the immigration and refugee judges who hear appeals of the officers’ decisions, are instructed to accept any applicant who has an “intersectional” claim.

Intersectionality is defined as two or more of “race, religion, indigeneity, political beliefs, socioeconomic status, age, sexual orientation, culture, disability, or immigration status,” that “impact an individual’s lived experience of discrimination, marginalization or oppression.”

No longer will claimants need to prove, for instance, that they face torture or death if forced to return to their home countries. Nor will they have to satisfy the UN’s definition of a “refugee.”

Now, if they merely claim they have been discriminated against or persecuted for being poor and old, or Indigenous and holding political views targeted by some developing country’s strongman, in the Liberals come.

One of the principal tasks of the immigration officers and judges is to determine whether a claimant is telling the truth.

The Trudeau Liberals have that covered, too.

Chairperson Wex instructs his staff and judges to remember that trauma — whether physical or emotional — can cause people to recollect information or incidents incorrectly. Therefore, if applicants provide evidence that turns out to be false, it may not be because they’re lying.

Rather they might just be misremembering due to the lingering stress caused by a trauma. Don’t exclude them.

Staff and adjudicators are instructed to give applicants the benefit of the doubt. Unless the officer or judge involved has incontrovertible proof an applicant is lying, the claimant should be admitted. His or her claims of discrimination are to be accepted by default and his or her application approved.

Their falsehoods might just be the side effect of some traumatic experience that is impeding the applicant’s ability to provide evidence that would benefit him or her.

Wex describes a traumatic event as one that elicits “intense feelings of fear, terror, helplessness, hopelessness, and despair” that is perceived “as a threat to the person’s survival.”

Adjudicators must employ “a ‘Do No Harm’ approach” during hearings, to lead with “compassion, cultural humility, and patience in order to avoid retraumatization” of an applicant.

These new rules render examining refugees’ claims pointless.

Adjudicators, essentially, must now say yes to everyone who makes it to Canadian soil and claims (not proves, merely claims) they are a victim of two more of a broad range of abuses — some invisible and mild.

Already, 22 of just over 300 adjudicators already admit 100% of the claimants appearing before them. (The median acceptance rate across the country is about 70%.)

Accepting 100% of claims is an impossibly high rate, unless these 22 judges are deliberately looking to admit anyone and everyone. Most of the 22 are Liberal appointees. Now it would appear they are to be the models for all the other adjudicators.

And now there’s almost no chance they will be sent out of Canada because what applicant and his or her immigration lawyer isn’t going to be capable of thinking up some “interconnectedness” of discriminations or “trauma,” or both

That’s how the Liberals intend to turn 300,000 or so immigrants a year into 400,000 almost overnight.

Just get rid of all the rules and — presto — a boom in newcomers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shipping and 890913

Copingwithlife

Champion Member
Jul 29, 2018
2,771
1,147
Earth
The Trudeau Liberals are planning to remove nearly all grounds the Immigration department uses to exclude applicants, the Toronto Sun has learned.

It has been the Trudeau government’s goal since 2020 to increase Canada’s intake of immigrants and refugees by nearly one-third to 400,000 annually.

How they plan to achieve this elevated level is outlined in an internal draft document sent to immigration and refugee judges — documents that have been exclusively shared with the Sun.

In an email sent to staff and adjudicators on Sept. 20, Richard Wex, the Liberals’ appointee as chairperson and chief executive officer of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, laid out a massive expansion of the reasons immigrants can be allowed to enter and stay in Canada.

Under the new guidelines, contained in a document marked “Draft” and covered by solicitor-client privilege, civil service officers who do an initial screening of immigration and refugee claims, plus the immigration and refugee judges who hear appeals of the officers’ decisions, are instructed to accept any applicant who has an “intersectional” claim.

Intersectionality is defined as two or more of “race, religion, indigeneity, political beliefs, socioeconomic status, age, sexual orientation, culture, disability, or immigration status,” that “impact an individual’s lived experience of discrimination, marginalization or oppression.”

No longer will claimants need to prove, for instance, that they face torture or death if forced to return to their home countries. Nor will they have to satisfy the UN’s definition of a “refugee.”

Now, if they merely claim they have been discriminated against or persecuted for being poor and old, or Indigenous and holding political views targeted by some developing country’s strongman, in the Liberals come.

One of the principal tasks of the immigration officers and judges is to determine whether a claimant is telling the truth.

The Trudeau Liberals have that covered, too.

Chairperson Wex instructs his staff and judges to remember that trauma — whether physical or emotional — can cause people to recollect information or incidents incorrectly. Therefore, if applicants provide evidence that turns out to be false, it may not be because they’re lying.

Rather they might just be misremembering due to the lingering stress caused by a trauma. Don’t exclude them.

Staff and adjudicators are instructed to give applicants the benefit of the doubt. Unless the officer or judge involved has incontrovertible proof an applicant is lying, the claimant should be admitted. His or her claims of discrimination are to be accepted by default and his or her application approved.

Their falsehoods might just be the side effect of some traumatic experience that is impeding the applicant’s ability to provide evidence that would benefit him or her.

Wex describes a traumatic event as one that elicits “intense feelings of fear, terror, helplessness, hopelessness, and despair” that is perceived “as a threat to the person’s survival.”

Adjudicators must employ “a ‘Do No Harm’ approach” during hearings, to lead with “compassion, cultural humility, and patience in order to avoid retraumatization” of an applicant.

These new rules render examining refugees’ claims pointless.

Adjudicators, essentially, must now say yes to everyone who makes it to Canadian soil and claims (not proves, merely claims) they are a victim of two more of a broad range of abuses — some invisible and mild.

Already, 22 of just over 300 adjudicators already admit 100% of the claimants appearing before them. (The median acceptance rate across the country is about 70%.)

Accepting 100% of claims is an impossibly high rate, unless these 22 judges are deliberately looking to admit anyone and everyone. Most of the 22 are Liberal appointees. Now it would appear they are to be the models for all the other adjudicators.

And now there’s almost no chance they will be sent out of Canada because what applicant and his or her immigration lawyer isn’t going to be capable of thinking up some “interconnectedness” of discriminations or “trauma,” or both

That’s how the Liberals intend to turn 300,000 or so immigrants a year into 400,000 almost overnight.

Just get rid of all the rules and — presto — a boom in newcomers.
And presto , no wonder some people voted for the PPC
 
  • Like
Reactions: Buletruck

canuck78

VIP Member
Jun 18, 2017
40,588
9,525
The Trudeau Liberals are planning to remove nearly all grounds the Immigration department uses to exclude applicants, the Toronto Sun has learned.

It has been the Trudeau government’s goal since 2020 to increase Canada’s intake of immigrants and refugees by nearly one-third to 400,000 annually.

How they plan to achieve this elevated level is outlined in an internal draft document sent to immigration and refugee judges — documents that have been exclusively shared with the Sun.

In an email sent to staff and adjudicators on Sept. 20, Richard Wex, the Liberals’ appointee as chairperson and chief executive officer of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, laid out a massive expansion of the reasons immigrants can be allowed to enter and stay in Canada.

Under the new guidelines, contained in a document marked “Draft” and covered by solicitor-client privilege, civil service officers who do an initial screening of immigration and refugee claims, plus the immigration and refugee judges who hear appeals of the officers’ decisions, are instructed to accept any applicant who has an “intersectional” claim.

Intersectionality is defined as two or more of “race, religion, indigeneity, political beliefs, socioeconomic status, age, sexual orientation, culture, disability, or immigration status,” that “impact an individual’s lived experience of discrimination, marginalization or oppression.”

No longer will claimants need to prove, for instance, that they face torture or death if forced to return to their home countries. Nor will they have to satisfy the UN’s definition of a “refugee.”

Now, if they merely claim they have been discriminated against or persecuted for being poor and old, or Indigenous and holding political views targeted by some developing country’s strongman, in the Liberals come.

One of the principal tasks of the immigration officers and judges is to determine whether a claimant is telling the truth.

The Trudeau Liberals have that covered, too.

Chairperson Wex instructs his staff and judges to remember that trauma — whether physical or emotional — can cause people to recollect information or incidents incorrectly. Therefore, if applicants provide evidence that turns out to be false, it may not be because they’re lying.

Rather they might just be misremembering due to the lingering stress caused by a trauma. Don’t exclude them.

Staff and adjudicators are instructed to give applicants the benefit of the doubt. Unless the officer or judge involved has incontrovertible proof an applicant is lying, the claimant should be admitted. His or her claims of discrimination are to be accepted by default and his or her application approved.

Their falsehoods might just be the side effect of some traumatic experience that is impeding the applicant’s ability to provide evidence that would benefit him or her.

Wex describes a traumatic event as one that elicits “intense feelings of fear, terror, helplessness, hopelessness, and despair” that is perceived “as a threat to the person’s survival.”

Adjudicators must employ “a ‘Do No Harm’ approach” during hearings, to lead with “compassion, cultural humility, and patience in order to avoid retraumatization” of an applicant.

These new rules render examining refugees’ claims pointless.

Adjudicators, essentially, must now say yes to everyone who makes it to Canadian soil and claims (not proves, merely claims) they are a victim of two more of a broad range of abuses — some invisible and mild.

Already, 22 of just over 300 adjudicators already admit 100% of the claimants appearing before them. (The median acceptance rate across the country is about 70%.)

Accepting 100% of claims is an impossibly high rate, unless these 22 judges are deliberately looking to admit anyone and everyone. Most of the 22 are Liberal appointees. Now it would appear they are to be the models for all the other adjudicators.

And now there’s almost no chance they will be sent out of Canada because what applicant and his or her immigration lawyer isn’t going to be capable of thinking up some “interconnectedness” of discriminations or “trauma,” or both

That’s how the Liberals intend to turn 300,000 or so immigrants a year into 400,000 almost overnight.

Just get rid of all the rules and — presto — a boom in newcomers.
This policy is just going to increase the draw to Roxham road as soon as the border opens. Can only imagine the number of Haitian refugees that would want to enter this week if Roxham road was open if they read this article. Once this article gets out it will remain in circulation for decades and it will be hard to get the word out if the policy changes. The article will create a draw and we will get a large number of asylum seekers and others just fleeing poverty arriving at our borders. Would make much more sense to create a targeted approach to skills shortages by creating WPs for low skilled work which will lead to PR after a certain amount of time. There is a pretty strict definition of what constitutes a refugee so how does the government expect citizens to trust the process if they will essentially be approving everyone.
 

Simba112

Champion Member
Mar 25, 2021
1,724
594
The Trudeau Liberals are planning to remove nearly all grounds the Immigration department uses to exclude applicants, the Toronto Sun has learned.

It has been the Trudeau government’s goal since 2020 to increase Canada’s intake of immigrants and refugees by nearly one-third to 400,000 annually.

How they plan to achieve this elevated level is outlined in an internal draft document sent to immigration and refugee judges — documents that have been exclusively shared with the Sun.

In an email sent to staff and adjudicators on Sept. 20, Richard Wex, the Liberals’ appointee as chairperson and chief executive officer of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, laid out a massive expansion of the reasons immigrants can be allowed to enter and stay in Canada.

Under the new guidelines, contained in a document marked “Draft” and covered by solicitor-client privilege, civil service officers who do an initial screening of immigration and refugee claims, plus the immigration and refugee judges who hear appeals of the officers’ decisions, are instructed to accept any applicant who has an “intersectional” claim.

Intersectionality is defined as two or more of “race, religion, indigeneity, political beliefs, socioeconomic status, age, sexual orientation, culture, disability, or immigration status,” that “impact an individual’s lived experience of discrimination, marginalization or oppression.”

No longer will claimants need to prove, for instance, that they face torture or death if forced to return to their home countries. Nor will they have to satisfy the UN’s definition of a “refugee.”

Now, if they merely claim they have been discriminated against or persecuted for being poor and old, or Indigenous and holding political views targeted by some developing country’s strongman, in the Liberals come.

One of the principal tasks of the immigration officers and judges is to determine whether a claimant is telling the truth.

The Trudeau Liberals have that covered, too.

Chairperson Wex instructs his staff and judges to remember that trauma — whether physical or emotional — can cause people to recollect information or incidents incorrectly. Therefore, if applicants provide evidence that turns out to be false, it may not be because they’re lying.

Rather they might just be misremembering due to the lingering stress caused by a trauma. Don’t exclude them.

Staff and adjudicators are instructed to give applicants the benefit of the doubt. Unless the officer or judge involved has incontrovertible proof an applicant is lying, the claimant should be admitted. His or her claims of discrimination are to be accepted by default and his or her application approved.

Their falsehoods might just be the side effect of some traumatic experience that is impeding the applicant’s ability to provide evidence that would benefit him or her.

Wex describes a traumatic event as one that elicits “intense feelings of fear, terror, helplessness, hopelessness, and despair” that is perceived “as a threat to the person’s survival.”

Adjudicators must employ “a ‘Do No Harm’ approach” during hearings, to lead with “compassion, cultural humility, and patience in order to avoid retraumatization” of an applicant.

These new rules render examining refugees’ claims pointless.

Adjudicators, essentially, must now say yes to everyone who makes it to Canadian soil and claims (not proves, merely claims) they are a victim of two more of a broad range of abuses — some invisible and mild.

Already, 22 of just over 300 adjudicators already admit 100% of the claimants appearing before them. (The median acceptance rate across the country is about 70%.)

Accepting 100% of claims is an impossibly high rate, unless these 22 judges are deliberately looking to admit anyone and everyone. Most of the 22 are Liberal appointees. Now it would appear they are to be the models for all the other adjudicators.

And now there’s almost no chance they will be sent out of Canada because what applicant and his or her immigration lawyer isn’t going to be capable of thinking up some “interconnectedness” of discriminations or “trauma,” or both

That’s how the Liberals intend to turn 300,000 or so immigrants a year into 400,000 almost overnight.

Just get rid of all the rules and — presto — a boom in newcomers.
I guess Canada is creating more Roxhall Road. Another wrong approach to address Immigration intake. Why not addressing Immigration delay?
 

Sakr77

Hero Member
Oct 6, 2020
413
122
Exactly. If I had a chance, I would vote for change.
Remember that you were able to claim refuge in Canada and get accepted because of the liberals policies.. I honestly don’t agree with increasing irregular immigrants before fixing the backlog issues that the IRB and IRCC have, but let’s see what’s gonna happen in the near future!
 
  • Like
Reactions: derin1010

Simba112

Champion Member
Mar 25, 2021
1,724
594
Remember that you were able to claim refuge in Canada and get accepted because of the liberals policies.. I honestly don’t agree with increasing irregular immigrants before fixing the backlog issues that the IRB and IRCC have, but let’s see what’s gonna happen in the near future!
I disagree with this. The only significant policies under Liberal Government was “ Change of Juriprudential Guidelines” that came come after appeal from Chinese, Pakistan and Nigeria applicants. Other policies were communication policies due to pandemic. The rests were enacted by Conservatives. My understanding is IRB is Independent tribunal free from any influence, simply to say decision outcome is determined by your integrity/credibilty. To say that it is because of liberal policies is too naive, what about those with negative decisions?? Im happy to agree with you on the immigration delays and backlog not on liberal policies. Matter fact Roxhall Road created backlog significant to 87,000 pending determination, over 50% from Nigeria. This was because of Prime Minister’s announcement that Canada welcome everyone, especially from States after Trump change of Immigration policies. Roxhall road situation is one of the reason for the immigration delay. I would like to be educated of any significant policies under Liberal Gvt since 2017. Regardless of our Immigration status, it doesnt take away our ability to critically analyse geo-political policies. We are well educated, contributing fair share to economy i guesss. Thank you!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Buletruck

Smartzz

Full Member
May 16, 2021
26
9
I disagree with this. The only significant policies under Liberal Government was “ Change of Juriprudential Guidelines” that came come after appeal from Chinese, Pakistan and Nigeria applicants. Other policies were communication policies due to pandemic. The rests were enacted by Conservatives. My understanding is IRB is Independent tribunal free from any influence, simply to say decision outcome is determined by your integrity/credibilty. To say that it is because of liberal policies is too naive, what about those with negative decisions?? Im happy to agree with you on the immigration delays and backlog not on liberal policies. Matter fact Roxhall Road created backlog significant to 87,000 pending determination, over 50% from Nigeria. This was because of Prime Minister’s announcement that Canada welcome everyone, especially from States after Trump change of Immigration policies. Roxhall road situation is one of the reason for the immigration delay. I would like to be educated of any significant policies under Liberal Gvt since 2017. Regardless of our Immigration status, it doesnt take away our ability to critically analyse geo-political policies. We are well educated, contributing fair share to economy i guesss. Thank you!
I don't agree with this policy and I need to do some more research because it's coming from a right-wing newspaper, which is known to spread propaganda. However, your claims about the liberal government are unfounded. They accepted more refugees than under the Harper conservative government. It was the liberal government that role back the rigid requirements of becoming a Canadian citizen which was instituted by the conservatives. I can't understand how any immigrant would support conservatives when their base is anti-immigrants. Some of you don't leave your backward politics and beliefs from where you're running from. You want Canada to be the same intolerant garbage you claimed protection from.
 

canuck78

VIP Member
Jun 18, 2017
40,588
9,525
I don't agree with this policy and I need to do some more research because it's coming from a right-wing newspaper, which is known to spread propaganda. However, your claims about the liberal government are unfounded. They accepted more refugees than under the Harper conservative government. It was the liberal government that role back the rigid requirements of becoming a Canadian citizen which was instituted by the conservatives. I can't understand how any immigrant would support conservatives when their base is anti-immigrants. Some of you don't leave your backward politics and beliefs from where you're running from. You want Canada to be the same intolerant garbage you claimed protection from.
4 out of 6 years is not a rigid requirement. It is still less than in most countries. If anything giving citizenship out within 2-3 years of becoming a PR and being allowed to have moved out of the country minimizes how valuable Canadian citizenship is. We essentially give it away. If we want more people to remain in Canada it would make sense to have a longer residency requirement to obtain citizenship and also requiring people to remain in Canada while waiting to receive their citizenship. Many are willing to come to Canada for 3 years with no intention of remaining. That does not help Canada and creates a huge liability especially when it comes to retirement and healthcare.
 

Smartzz

Full Member
May 16, 2021
26
9
4 out of 6 years is not a rigid requirement. It is still less than in most countries. If anything giving citizenship out within 2-3 years of becoming a PR and being allowed to have moved out of the country minimizes how valuable Canadian citizenship is. We essentially give it away. If we want more people to remain in Canada it would make sense to have a longer residency requirement to obtain citizenship and also requiring people to remain in Canada while waiting to receive their citizenship. Many are willing to come to Canada for 3 years with no intention of remaining. That does not help Canada and creates a huge liability especially when it comes to retirement and healthcare.
You don't get citizenship after 3 years, you're eligible to apply after 3 years residing as a PR, and the process takes 12 months. So you become a citizen after 4 years. Most country residency requirement to become a citizen is 3-5 years. In the U.S., if you received PR via marriage to a U.S. citizen, you're eligible to apply for citizenship after 3 years. The number of years wasn't the only thing the conservatives changed, they also made it more difficult for poor people to become citizens. Go and research it! Also, you aren't eligible for any provincial healthcare if you reside out of Canada for more than six months. If you do your healthcare card will be cancelled.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Sakr77

canuck78

VIP Member
Jun 18, 2017
40,588
9,525
You don't get citizenship after 3 years, you're eligible to apply after 3 years residing as a PR, and the process takes 12 months. So you become a citizen after 4 years. Most country residency requirement to become a citizen is 3-5 years. In the U.S., if received PR via marriage to a U.S. citizen, you're eligible to apply for citizenship after 3 years. The number of years wasn't the only thing the conservatives changed, they also made it more difficult for poor people to become citizens. Go and research it.
Both the conservatives and the liberals raised the application fees to try and cover at least a good proportion of the cost of processing the application. The taxpayers were covering a large percentage of the cost before which seemed unfair. 5+ years is the most common wait to apply for citizenship in other countries. The majority of applicants in the US wait 5 years to apply for citizenship and must remain in the US during the process. Sponsored spouses are a small subsection that get citizenship after 3 years. If you were working or studying in Canada you can apply after 2 years of being a PR. So either you can apply after 2-3 years and can leave Canada once you apply. Pretty well known that Canadian citizenship a very fast citizenship process. Personally think we give it away far too easily and we would retain more people if the requirement was 5 years plus having to remain in Canada until you get citizenship. We are proud to be Canadian so why should we give away citizenship so easily. Giving out citizenship so easily doesn’t benefit Canada.
 

Simba112

Champion Member
Mar 25, 2021
1,724
594
I don't agree with this policy and I need to do some more research because it's coming from a right-wing newspaper, which is known to spread propaganda. However, your claims about the liberal government are unfounded. They accepted more refugees than under the Harper conservative government. It was the liberal government that role back the rigid requirements of becoming a Canadian citizen which was instituted by the conservatives. I can't understand how any immigrant would support conservatives when their base is anti-immigrants. Some of you don't leave your backward politics and beliefs from where you're running from. You want Canada to be the same intolerant garbage you claimed protection from.
And i cant understand why you want to enslave your political ideology to the certain Party. I have known Canadian born citizens switching votes, its about Election Platform, and not liberal or Conservatives
I dont think why you term it as rigid requirement from 5 to 3 years. As if Conservatives pushed it from 3 to 5. Matter fact because of the backlogfor Refugee claimant to become citizen, will take approximately 6 to 7 yrs
2 yrs from filing to hearing to NOD
2 yrs to get Copr
3 years to become citizen

Fyi: im not conservative, but it doesnt mean i am liberal. I looked at the election platform and things that impact me
 

Smartzz

Full Member
May 16, 2021
26
9
And i cant understand why you want to enslave your political ideology to the certain Party. I have known Canadian born citizens switching votes, its about Election Platform, and not liberal or Conservatives
I dont think why you term it as rigid requirement from 5 to 3 years. As if Conservatives pushed it from 3 to 5. Matter fact because of the backlogfor Refugee claimant to become citizen, will take approximately 6 to 7 yrs
2 yrs from filing to hearing to NOD
2 yrs to get Copr
3 years to become citizen

Fyi: im not conservative, but it doesnt mean i am liberal. I looked at the election platform and things that impact me
Canada is a liberal progressive country, over 65% of the population are liberal progressive, and that's why it's welcoming to immigrants. So I don't see your point about enslaving to a party. The conservative base is anti-immigrants, particularly from developing countries; just look at the vile comments on that article against immigrants of all kinds. Your point about the backlog is valid and that needs to fix, but you're also being very selfish. You're not the only one in need of protection and the world has been facing a refugee crisis. Don't you think the same thing is happening in other developed countries that refugees are flocking to? Plus, we're in a pandemic where immigration operations stopped for several months globally.
 
Last edited:

Smartzz

Full Member
May 16, 2021
26
9
Both the conservatives and the liberals raised the application fees to try and cover at least a good proportion of the cost of processing the application. The taxpayers were covering a large percentage of the cost before which seemed unfair. 5+ years is the most common wait to apply for citizenship in other countries. The majority of applicants in the US wait 5 years to apply for citizenship and must remain in the US during the process. Sponsored spouses are a small subsection that get citizenship after 3 years. If you were working or studying in Canada you can apply after 2 years of being a PR. So either you can apply after 2-3 years and can leave Canada once you apply. Pretty well known that Canadian citizenship a very fast citizenship process. Personally think we give it away far too easily and we would retain more people if the requirement was 5 years plus having to remain in Canada until you get citizenship. We are proud to be Canadian so why should we give away citizenship so easily. Giving out citizenship so easily doesn’t benefit Canada.
You are making a baseless claim, what evidence or statistics do you have to prove that most immigrants after becoming citizens leave Canada? Please post reliable statistics and not right-wingers' anti-immigrant propaganda. My reference to other changes conservatives made to the citizenship requirement had nothing to do with increased processing fee. Again, do your research. I have no issue with the two-year PR requirements for students, workers and protected persons. These are people who lived and invested socially and economically in Canada for 2 years before becoming PR. That's 5 years it will take most to become citizens after living in the country. Also, you don't have to reside in the U.S. after applying for citizenship if you meet the 5 years residency requirements or 3 years as a US citizen spouse. And, it's 2.9 years eligibility to apply as a spouse of a U.S. citizen and 4.9 years otherwise, but you have to remain in the country to complete the full 5 years. A large amount of immigrants in the U.S. becomes PR through marriage and family sponsorship. The U.S. doesn't have an economic immigration system like Canada. Finally, making citizenship requirements longer doesn't improve a country's quality of citizens.
 

Simba112

Champion Member
Mar 25, 2021
1,724
594
Canada is a liberal progressive country, over 65% of the population are liberal progressive, and that's why it's welcoming to immigrants. So I don't see your point about enslaving to a party. The conservative base is anti-immigrants, particularly from developing countries; just look at the vile comments on that article against immigrants of all kinds. Your point about the backlog is valid and that needs to fix, but you're also being very selfish. You're not the only one in need of protection and the world has been facing a refugee crisis. Don't you think the same thing is happening in other developed countries that refugees are flocking to? Plus, we're in a pandemic where immigration operations stopped for several months globally.
I guess your 65% reflect popular votes for 2019 and 2021 elections and the minority outcome. I dont know how you make up your number..
Same time you accuse me of being selfish, while your post #9 you said you dont agree with this policy. that makes two of us. I can't be two places at the same time, while I support fixing backlog, you dont fix backlog by creating another backlogs at another Roxhall. It makes no sense. By the way, it is the same liberal Government that appealed third country safe agreement and will definitely appeal Ms. Ghufran Almutadi and Mr. Abdulrhman Taskia vs Canada case. Why appealing Safe country agreement then???? and why they appealed? one reason is because of the Roxhall Road situation.
 
Last edited: