So the question is -
Why do we seem to trust the majority of information/opinions from people here that, unless disclosed, are NOT immigration lawyers, consultants, etc.? Most of us `seem' to be regular people that have learned/gleaned our limited information and are offering to help others...even when we get it wrong.
Why do we seem to trust the majority of information/opinions from people here that, unless disclosed, are NOT immigration lawyers, consultants, etc.?
Not sure who here trusts what or how much, but I am far from alone among those who generally approach posts skeptically, and all posts critically, and expect my posts to be approached skeptically and critically, and repeatedly express cautions and caveats. For example, I repeatedly caution anyone and everyone against relying on or trusting personal advice in this or any other similar forum. With some exceptions, generally for what is more or less obvious. Should be no controversy or doubt, for example, about advice to
follow the rules if in doubt, and otherwise, yep, follow the rules.
Among the tools the critical thinker employs is distinguishing information from opinion. The distinction between these is critical. Sure, more than a few commentators will fudge and state things as if it is information, when they are actually expressing an opinion. Real information can be cross-checked or verified in other sources. And those of us who make a concerted effort to get things right will cross-check one another here; I am not alone among those who appreciate being corrected or challenged, always appreciative of clarification.
It can be harder to further distinguish reasonable inferences or conclusions from unfounded opinions. One of the reasons my posts go long is that I make an effort to share the work, the rationale underlying inferences and conclusions. This is to help readers judge the reasoning for themselves and thus the validity of the inferences and conclusions.
There is for sure a lot of untrustworthy information, opinion, and advice in this forum. For example, there is no shortage here, throughout the forum, of utterly unreliable statements, some explicit, many indirect, in the form "
I did X and it was OK, so it will be OK for you." No, no, no. Maybe it will be, by chance, but what happens to one person does NOT illuminate what is even typical, let alone likely, let alone what will for sure happen, and does NOT necessarily illuminate the rule or even a common procedure, and it is far, far more common there are additional
it-depends factors which will affect the outcome in any given individual's case.
For how blatantly unfounded such reasoning (or more to the point, a lack of reasoning) is, that is matched and perhaps exceeded by how common it is here. Unfortunately.
In contrast, there are a number of forum participants who make a concerted effort to get things right, many of us willing to invest the time and effort to do the homework and get things as right as we can, remaining open to clarification and correction. Like bodies of information generally, much of what we sometimes refer to as the conventional wisdom here is based on literally years of following and sorting and cross-checking and refining of information, a process in which a body of information is built up and shared. And continually updated and refined. And from time to time, corrected.
I am probably unusual in regards to how much effort I make to cite and link sources, to primarily focus on information (not opinion), to explain what can be gleaned from various sources and, in particular, to explain the reasoning underlying analytical observations, so that no one need rely on me to be an expert (after all, I am not an expert), but so they can follow the reasoning, and consider and as needed consult my sources. But it is clear there are many others who do the homework in an effort to get things right.
Ahhh . . . The Homework . . . The Sources:
This is where, as some say,
the rubber meets the road. For those of us who do the homework, there are plenty of reliable sources, including of course the sources of official information, such as the laws and regulations themselves, but also official sources of information about how the law and rules are applied in actual cases as reported in IAD and Federal Court published decisions.
Unofficial but generally reliable, authoritative sources, which are very useful sources, include:
-- the PDIs IRCC publishes online
-- the forms, instructions, and guides IRCC provides, most of which are readily accessed online
-- general information IRCC publishes online
-- operational manuals, such as the Enforcement Manuals, such as those prescribing procedures and applicable law governing inadmissibility, PoE examinations, writing and reviewing 44(1) Reports, and loss of PR status; see, for example, ENF 3, ENF 4, ENF 5, ENF 6, and ENF 23, among others, linked here:
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigratio...ns-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals.html
And anecdotal reports are also very important. These must be approached with much skepticism, but mapping what happens in anecdotal reports into known information about the law and rules and procedures is a critical exercise helping us better understand the processes in practical terms. Thus, for example, even though our access to the law and such is equal in regards to inadmissibility for serious criminality as it is for non-compliance with the RO, there is a steady stream of anecdotal reporting about the experiences non-compliant PRs have in PoE examinations, but very few reports here about being subject to inadmissibility proceedings based on serious criminality. So we have a better and broader grasp of RO enforcement than we do about how it goes in cases involving PRs allegedly inadmissible for serious criminality . . . moreover, because the questions and discussions in the forum are far more often about RO enforcement, participants like me are more often and more thoroughly doing the research, the homework, about this . . . and not so much homework in regards to serious criminality.
It is extremely important to compare, contrast, and cross-check the various sources. Both to help understand what one says based on other sources, and to help identify errors and such, including in IAD and Federal Court decisions (yeah, administrative law judges and Federal Court Justices also make mistakes, hopefully not so much as the rest of us, but it happens).
In any event, there are many ways to assess the credibility of what is posted here. Sometimes, probably a lot of time, we cannot know this or that for sure. And we've suffered our share of trolls. But quite a few of us make the effort to get things right, and the credible versus what is not credible is generally even if not perfectly discernible.
