oceanMDX

It's rather unrealistic (and unreasonable) to demand that Canada - or any other country - depreciate the value of its citizenship to please foreigners who want to immigrate there. No country needs that type of immigration.

Iain Mc

A while ago someone said...

Absolutely. We're in the queue (for British Columbia, PR) and expect a decision one way or the other in the first half of 2006. The long wait isn't actually such a bad thing for those with professional qualifications who need to transfer to Canadian licenses - it can be a lengthy process.

It's worrying reading the Liftman's accounts, but in the field of Physiotherapy in BC at least it doesn't seem TOO bad. My missus has to do two exams (in Vancouver) this coming year to give her license to work, having spent much time last year getting her UK credentials checked and Ok'd by the profession Physio body in BC.

With the timelines involved, and presuming she can pass (she's a senior physiotherapist with seven years experience so I'm hopeful she'll do Ok mixing with the new Canadian university leavers) at least she'll know she can work in her profession before potential issue of a PR. This is stamped-and-official now, if the exams go Ok (and she gets more than one shot) she CAN work as a Physio. That's BC only, of course, but then that's already been covered in this thread!

We're under no illusions that her specialities will probably be ignored and she may have to start lower down the ladder but physiotherapy is a relatively small world and hopefully such things will iron themselves out in a year or two when she has built up the necessary "who you know" contacts in the health authorities. Having been in touch with other ex-pats in the field, at least it seems that relevant work shouldn't be too hard to find. We're not adverse to traveling round BC either, after all it's a big place.

So that's one of us who will, hopefully, be able to continue in her profession. If we stay and it works out we'll be looking to get citizenship as soon as we're able, and I don't think either of us are adverse to looking in Washington State for jobs a few years down the track under NAFTA if that seems more rosy.

Having lived in Vancouver myself for a year or two in the past and having been reading these forums, mailing groups etc. for the past twelve months I have no illusions about being able to continue in my line of work if we get to land in Canada. Nor, happily, do I really want to. I'm in IT and am fairly high up the tree as an analyst which is a wishy washy sort of job description that I know will hold no weight in Canada. I hate office work in general now and the idea of starting back at the bottom is a non-starter. I don't want to trade one grey air conditioned box for another with a nicer view out the window but only two weeks vacation to enjoy it. It does seem to be the case that a large percentage of the disgruntled "they won't take my experience seriously" complaints appear to be in the field of IT. But perhaps that's just because a disproportionate number of emigrants are tecchies who've had enough

Therefore I'll be starting from scratch again and picking up a trades qualification at one of the technical colleges in Vancouver and plan on taking a couple of years to reskill. This puts me at the bottom of a new ladder, but it'll be a new ladder with Canadian qualifications and contacts and hopefully will enable me to bypass a lot of the protectionist bias toward Johnny Foreigners (although it's kind of hard to hide a British accent).

I have a couple of other irons in the fire too, and we're lucky that I have some savings that allow me to be a bit speculative for a couple of years. I appreciate this simply isn't an option for many, although we're going to have to forgo the big house for a bit. Although given the houseprices in Greater Vancouver at present it wouldn't have been that big anyway.

We shall see how it all pans out, best laid plans and all. I'll probably be working in Tim Hortons in three years time but c'est la vie. As some others have said, Canadian immigration is a non-starter if you're looking at it in terms of career progression, we're viewing it simply as "starting again".

And I'll probably be holding on to the property in Bournemouth, you never know

Sorry, this was a fairly directionless rambling post!

Cheers, Iain

Grah

Very unlikely http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/abo...lprest2002.pdf

Shows about 600,000 legal permanent resident and eligible to naturalize canadians.

Another interesting fact -http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/030121/d030121a.htm

As of May 15, 2001, 5.4 million people, or 18.4% of the total population, were born outside the country. This was the highest proportion since 1931 when foreign-born people made up 22.2% of the population. In 1996, the proportion was 17.4%.

For the first 60 years of the past century, European nations such as the United Kingdom, Italy, Germany and the Netherlands, as well as the United States, were the primary sources of immigrants to Canada. Today, immigrants are most likely to be from Asian countries.

goodgal

It is sad to hear but goodluck to you in whatever you decide

CalgaryAMC

I am surprised it's that many -- most people legally living and working in the US (like me) are in neither category.

CalgaryAMC

US employment law prevents discrimination based on immigration status. Few Americans would claim their citizenship is demeaned by that. To the contrary, that's what America is about - the melting pot. Citizenship or national origin are pathetic things to discriminate on for employment. I think immigrants have every right to demand a fair crack of the whip if they are there legally.

The value of citizenship should not be established in unequitable employment practices. I would point to any Persian Gulf country as an example of where it is, and the result is very very silly.

oceanMDX

Thanks for the link. I think you're incorrectly interpreting the numbers though. Since the number of legal permanent residents eligible for naturalization is a subset of the legal permanent residents group, you have counted the numbers twice. I appears that there are only (according to the data) 323,000 Canadians in the US with LPR. This seems reasonable since only around 10,000 - 12,000 Canadians are emigrating to the US each year. At that rate, how could there ever be millions of Canadians living in the US - excluding the tourists.

oceanMDX

How do you know that most people (foreigners) legally living and working in the US aren't part of the LPR category?

oceanMDX

After doing 10 seconds of research, I determined that your statement is either wrong or at least very misleading. The necessity of US citizenship appears to depend on what state you are in as well as the job category:

http://www.visalaw.com/99oct/18oct99.html
"The first major study on state laws requiring US citizenship for employment in over 20 years has just been released by the Tomás Rivera Policy Institute. The study focused on five states, California, Florida, Illinois, New York and Texas (which have over 70% of the US’s immigrant population), and examined 23 occupations that require a license from the state. Overall, restrictions on the employment of noncitizens have dropped significantly since the last major study was released in 1977.

In 1977, Illinois excluded noncitizens from 18 of 23 licensed professions, California 3, Florida 11, New York 11, and Texas 13. Today, California, Florida and Texas have no such restrictions. Illinois and New York have restrictions only on the teaching profession, and each state will license a noncitizen as a teacher for a probationary period during which they must apply for citizenship.

The authors of the report credit the change to court rulings finding such employment restrictions a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution, which applies to all people in the US, whether citizens or not. Another significant factor behind the change was the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Illinois dropped its citizenship restrictions as a direct response to NAFTA.

The professions examined in the study ranged from attorney, accountants, doctors, nurses, cosmetologists and embalmers. The study did not examine jobs that are considered “political� that states are allowed to restrict to citizens only. The authors did note that many jobs are considered “political� for licensing purposes, but seem to have little to do with politics, such as cemetery guards and food inspectors."

I have never heard of a professional association in Canada that required Canadian citizenship as prerequisite for membership. In other words, permanent residents may also apply for membership.

It is important to note that the "Canadian Human Rights Act" proscribes many types of discrimination:

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/H-6/31147.html#rid-31155
" For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for which a pardon has been granted."

I know lots of Americans who would disagree with your view. I think your view regarding what most Americans think about immigration and what the value of US citizenship over immigrant status in their country should be is rather dated - despite what the courts have to say about such matters.

CalgaryAMC

This is ridiculously cursory research. Although neither of us are employment lawyers, so we are rather fumbling around, I am comfortable enough in my research over the past six months to maintain my claim that the US prohibits immigrant-related employment discrimination where Canada does not. Let me get you started.

There are a number of different laws that speak to the matter in the US. I would recommend reading the Immigration Reform and Control Act (1986) as a good jumping off point. There are a number of scholarly articles that can be accessed through the internet that deal with this Act and its consequence to employment law. Google it.

If you want a straight forward general guide I would consider looking at the Handbook for Employers produced by the US Department of Justice. This does a good job at summarizing most of the pertinent legal issues. It can be found here:
http://uscis.gov/graphics/lawsregs/h...k/hand_emp.pdf

There are myriad other statutes and sections of the constitution that further strengthen the rights of immigrants in employment. But even more important, I would argue, is the impact of case law, which has nailed this issue down where the statutes may not have done.

oceanMDX

LOL!!! I told you that I only spent 10 seconds researching this - because that's all it took to determine that for some jobs US citizenship is required - and such jobs aren't limited to high-security positions.

You may very well be correct to claim that the majority of US-immigrant job seekers may not be discriminated against on the basis of their immigrant status, but it is also clear that I have shown that exceptions do exist.

CalgaryAMC

I am unwilling to get into an internet statistics tit-for-tat with you. Anyone can prove anything with internet statistics. And no two internet statistics on the same subject ever agree.

I am arguing, however, that more people - many more - enter the US on non-immigrant visas (NIVs), than as legal permanent residents (LPRs). US immigration is so utterly chaotic (Canada's is to be admired for its relative simplicity, if nothing else), with so many classifications, that actual permanent residents are only a small number of what we're talking about.

Let's see if I can defend my point sensibly without relying on a single shaky source of statistics. You say that somewhere in the region of 10,000 Canadians immigrate (as LPRs) to the US each year. All right, fine, I won't contest that. Butu see if you can find out how many Canadians enter the US each year on just one type of non-immigrant visa: the TN. I have found statistics that put the number of Canadian entries on this visa at over 30,000 every year. And then what about H1Bs (~ 25,000 Canadian entries each year), or E2s, F1s, or J1s, or any number of others...

Now, I'd like to question the person who posted the Australians in the UK statistics, and I'd like to ask that person how many of those Australians were immigrants, and how many were simply non-immigrant workers. I'm guessing that only a tiny fraction are actual full blown immigrants. The rest are on an equivalent of the TN or some other work visa.

So let us not loose sight of how this trivial debate began: I was claiming that the reason why the number of Canadians going to the UK is smaller than the number of Australians, is not because Canadians are any less migatory, but that their destination of choice is the US instead. If the number of Canadians in the US turns out to be 893,000 - fine, I'll live with it. I think it is in the millions but I have no intention of citing random statistics to prove it. The actual point - that Canadians move to the US rather than the UK - has been entirely proven.

tonster

Having moved to Nova Scotia (with company sponsor), back to the UK and now back to Ontario I completely understand the Liftman problems.

I was easily accepted by HRDC but as a Chemical Engineer. I am an Environmental Scientist by trade. OK, sort of similar ( ), but seemed a bit like bending the rules to allow me in quicker.

Once I landed I learned that I was being paid less than my peers and, in my industry, my job is almost identical in Canada as it is in the UK. However, I could not obtain registration as professional engineer or geoscientist which looked like stunting my career in the long run and certainly made me a 2nd class citizen in the workplace (even though the Canadians would say otherwise - I was not allowed to sign a report off regardless of my experience and qualifications).

The Canadian government desparately wants to increase the population in the hope that this will drive economic growth, especially with the population rate falling. However, if they don't need skilled workers, why ask for them? Anyone can flip burgers but a well skilled professional might get a bit bored doing it!

Anyhow, NS didn't work out. They were too short sighted. However, on planning to return to Ontario I was better prepared and told the whole truth - i.e I WILL NOT BE REGISTERED AS ENGINEER OR SCIENTIST. I ended up with good job (albeit only been here 2 weeks) paying 50% more than in NS and NO the cost of living isn't 50% more! A little bit in housing but everything else seems to be cheaper.

Morale of the story - if coming to Canada, visit first, have interviews and get a job before leaving the UK. Otherwise, make sure you have every qualification under the sun and then some, plus experience!

Overal though, so far, much happier in Ontario. Long may it continue. There is light at the end of the tunnel - I think!

CalgaryAMC

On this I don't doubt you are right. But then again, Americans voted for George Bush.

oceanMDX

Okay, assuming your estimates are correct (more or less), how long do those Canadians (on those visas) remain in the US? I suspect that they're intention is to remain in the US for only a short time. Take university students for an example. Another example would be the trucker driving from Vancouver to LA to pick up a load of bananas, he would need a visa, but will only be in the US for about 1 week at a time. Or what about the nurses who live in Canada's Niagara Region who work in Buffalo. They live in Canada, but work in the US - they would need one of the visas you listed, but they don't even live in the US.

It's very reasonable to claim that the US is the destination of choice for Canadians - no one has contested that. What was contested were claims regarding that there are millions of Canadians in the US - and we weren't talking about short-term visitors, be they in the US for business or tourism.

You don't have to use "random statistics", but you could cite the US Government statistics that would support your argument, someone else did just that to argue their point, even though they were only referring to legal permanent residents in the US. To be candid with you, I expected the numbers to be higher.