Urgent: Sudden Increase in PR Processing Times for Refugees and Protected Persons (Up to 99 Months!)

[Banky@77]

This is a member who has stated what I'd see as pro-protect person changes before.

E.g. See https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-i...-for-citizenship.333455/page-74#post-11086166 where the member questions if IRCC should stop trying to pursue cessation for refugees who are long established in Canada.

As well as generally lamenting on the state of affairs for this class of people in general, e.g. https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-i...-for-citizenship.333455/page-76#post-11095885

Regarding "The fundamental issue is where do you find the extra PR quota?" I'm very pro immigration but I also follow the state of the public mindset. As much as we might dislike it, as much as I disagree with parts of the public sentiment, it's very much the case that this member has an accurate pulse on the public discourse among the voting public...

Congratulations!!!

 

[abff08f4813c]

Congratulations!!!

Yeah, so, I was looking at alternatives that might work if the direct issue (long PR wait due to quotas) couldn't be addressed. E.g.

But really what seems to be a reasonable compromise is to make it more comfortable to wait for PR for those approved refugees in the queue. There is already a guarantee of PR, it's just a matter of when. In the mean time, if barriers are removed so approved refugees can get gov't jobs, the comforts of having a permanent SIN, and less discrimination from banks when applying for loans and mortgage, the need for getting PR quicker goes away - but extending these comforts also wouldn't go against public opinion on keeping the quotas down.

So I would ask - is this enough? If not, what is specifically missing from the above proposal?

 

[canuck78]

This has been a genuine argument of one of the member of this forum.I know if it does not favor protected person,he should have been here writing epistle .I said it before that he is bias.

How is this a bias against protected people? This is just common sense. Governments have a target PR number. You have to cut somewhere else to reallocate quota. I have suggested 2 places where quotas could technically be available but would have significant consequences with a variety of groups including voters when it comes to PGP. I would be in favour of pausing both PGP indefinitely and refugees resettled from abroad until backlogs in Canada are cleared or we have enough healthcare capacity but for a variety of reasons these don’t appear palatable for governments and voters. Canada will always favour economic immigration over every type of immigration. Immigration policy is mostly to benefit Canada.

 

[PR waiting]

How is this a bias against protected people? This is just common sense. Governments have a target PR number. You have to cut somewhere else to reallocate quota. I have suggested 2 places where quotas could technically be available but would have significant consequences with a variety of groups including voters when it comes to PGP. I would be in favour of pausing both PGP indefinitely and refugees resettled from abroad until backlogs in Canada are cleared or we have enough healthcare capacity but for a variety of reasons these don’t appear palatable for governments and voters. Canada will always favour economic immigration over every type of immigration. Immigration policy is mostly to benefit Canada.

U were literally saying people to stay on temporary residence saying to people who can’t go back to their country anymore and thanks to government new policies understanding situation and providing them.

 

[canuck78]

This is a member who has stated what I'd see as pro-protect person changes before.

E.g. See https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-i...-for-citizenship.333455/page-74#post-11086166 where the member questions if IRCC should stop trying to pursue cessation for refugees who are long established in Canada.

As well as generally lamenting on the state of affairs for this class of people in general, e.g. https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-i...-for-citizenship.333455/page-76#post-11095885

Regarding "The fundamental issue is where do you find the extra PR quota?" I'm very pro immigration but I also follow the state of the public mindset. As much as we might dislike it, as much as I disagree with parts of the public sentiment, it's very much the case that this member has an accurate pulse on the public discourse among the voting public...

More about responsible use of resources and government efficiency. Wanting protected people and refugees to follow the rules, not misrepresent their case and actually having their life at risk in their home country shouldn’t be controversial. There are people whose lives are at risk in their home country who we should want to give status in Canada but sadly there are many who are not at risk who have received status. There is a limited capacity so we should all want those who are truly at risk to be the ones who get status in Canada.

 

[canuck78]

U were literally saying people to stay on temporary residence saying to people who can’t go back to their country anymore and thanks to government new policies understanding situation and providing them.

I said that the priority is safety and that speed of PR is not the priority when it comes to refugees/protected people.