Applying both US and Canadian green card
Dec 4th 2001, 10:00 am
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
>
>
>
>
>
>
Yes .. there are problems. You can have one or the other but not both. If you attempt
to get both, you will lose one or the other, or maybe even both. Decide which country
you want to move to and go with that and stick with that.
>
>
>
>
>
Yes .. there are problems. You can have one or the other but not both. If you attempt
to get both, you will lose one or the other, or maybe even both. Decide which country
you want to move to and go with that and stick with that.
Dec 4th 2001, 1:46 pm
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hello. I am thinking of applying both US and Canadian green card simultaneously.
Would there be any legal problem of doing it? FYI, I currently resides within US.
Thanks,
Georcons
Would there be any legal problem of doing it? FYI, I currently resides within US.
Thanks,
Georcons
Dec 5th 2001, 1:19 am
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
While I have no objection to people covering their bases, this is not really even
covering their bases ... this is trying to cheat the system. Most of the people who
try to play this game have NO INTENTION WHATSOEVER of actually remaining in Canada
any longer than they have to. They have NO INTENTION of making Canada their permanent
home. They will attempt to get into the US and use Canada as a temporary backup,
hoping they can get back into the US more quickly than by returning to their home
country when their H1B expires or as they wait for a GC. They contrive to "land"
(note the number of questions "Can I land then go back ...", they contrive
"residence" (note the number of questions "How can they prove I wasn't"). They even
contrive residence for citizenship so they can escape back to the USA on a TN.
Basically a high proportion of people who do this are trying to cheat. The rules are
clear enough. They just don't want to follow the rules of the American system, so
they take advantage of Canada's shorter times to further their own goal of returning
to the US.
Stuart
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
While I have no objection to people covering their bases, this is not really even
covering their bases ... this is trying to cheat the system. Most of the people who
try to play this game have NO INTENTION WHATSOEVER of actually remaining in Canada
any longer than they have to. They have NO INTENTION of making Canada their permanent
home. They will attempt to get into the US and use Canada as a temporary backup,
hoping they can get back into the US more quickly than by returning to their home
country when their H1B expires or as they wait for a GC. They contrive to "land"
(note the number of questions "Can I land then go back ...", they contrive
"residence" (note the number of questions "How can they prove I wasn't"). They even
contrive residence for citizenship so they can escape back to the USA on a TN.
Basically a high proportion of people who do this are trying to cheat. The rules are
clear enough. They just don't want to follow the rules of the American system, so
they take advantage of Canada's shorter times to further their own goal of returning
to the US.
Stuart
Dec 5th 2001, 11:56 pm
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
I am with Berto. It's really amusing to see how some people go furious about other's
intention to apply for both USA and Canadian immigration.
>
>
system.
Why would it be cheating the system? As Berto has already pointed out that ultimately
he is able to keep only one. When I apply for job or University enrollment I don't
just apply for only one post and then wait while I know I am not able to continue
with more than one job or school if I have been offered at the same time. Should it
be labelled as cheating too? Probably not.
>
have NO
>
get
>
back
What is wrong with that? After all main reason for immigration is to seek better
life. If some other country can offer even better life than Canada then people will
move out of this place. It is called survival for the fittest. Should we think that
this guy should be loyal to Canada and stay here just because he has been given
opportunity to enter? Then I think he should be even more loyal to his own country,
who provided all the support to make him "skilled worker", and not make any move.
I can't understand the emotion behind this. Personally I wouldn't take that road. But
I don't see any reason why it would be damn wrong if somebody wants to take chance.
Do we really have to bash any guy whoever think to apply for both country?
--
B.W.
intention to apply for both USA and Canadian immigration.
>
>
system.
Why would it be cheating the system? As Berto has already pointed out that ultimately
he is able to keep only one. When I apply for job or University enrollment I don't
just apply for only one post and then wait while I know I am not able to continue
with more than one job or school if I have been offered at the same time. Should it
be labelled as cheating too? Probably not.
>
have NO
>
get
>
back
What is wrong with that? After all main reason for immigration is to seek better
life. If some other country can offer even better life than Canada then people will
move out of this place. It is called survival for the fittest. Should we think that
this guy should be loyal to Canada and stay here just because he has been given
opportunity to enter? Then I think he should be even more loyal to his own country,
who provided all the support to make him "skilled worker", and not make any move.
I can't understand the emotion behind this. Personally I wouldn't take that road. But
I don't see any reason why it would be damn wrong if somebody wants to take chance.
Do we really have to bash any guy whoever think to apply for both country?
--
B.W.
Dec 6th 2001, 12:17 pm
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
>
>
>
>
[usenetquote2]>> While I have no objection to people covering their bases, this is not really even[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>> covering their bases ... this is trying to cheat the system.[/usenetquote2]
>
>
>
OK, consider this ... You go to a car dealer and sign the papers to buy a car, but
you're not sure, so you go to another dealer and sign the papers on another car and
try to back out of the first. You made a committment in signing the papers. You make
a committment when signing the application for PR. You are at least in the case of
PR, given the option to back out by not landing.
>
[usenetquote2]>> of actually remaining in Canada any longer than they have to. They have NO[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>> INTENTION of making Canada their permanent home. They will attempt to get into the[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>> US and use Canada as a temporary backup, hoping they can get back[/usenetquote2]
>
>
>
Red herring. The flaw with this kind of logic is that it misses the basic element of
the contract one is making in the application for PR.
>
>
>
[usenetquote2]>> While I have no objection to people covering their bases, this is not really even[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>> covering their bases ... this is trying to cheat the system.[/usenetquote2]
>
>
>
OK, consider this ... You go to a car dealer and sign the papers to buy a car, but
you're not sure, so you go to another dealer and sign the papers on another car and
try to back out of the first. You made a committment in signing the papers. You make
a committment when signing the application for PR. You are at least in the case of
PR, given the option to back out by not landing.
>
[usenetquote2]>> of actually remaining in Canada any longer than they have to. They have NO[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>> INTENTION of making Canada their permanent home. They will attempt to get into the[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>> US and use Canada as a temporary backup, hoping they can get back[/usenetquote2]
>
>
>
Red herring. The flaw with this kind of logic is that it misses the basic element of
the contract one is making in the application for PR.
Dec 6th 2001, 3:52 pm
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
>
>
>
in
>
>
>
Stuart, I think this analogy works much better than the "two girlfriend" analogy...
>
-Lute.
>
>
in
>
>
>
Stuart, I think this analogy works much better than the "two girlfriend" analogy...
>
-Lute.
Dec 6th 2001, 4:50 pm
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
In case of buying car and signing paper , you haven't paid anything and it's car
dealer not you , who is losing. that's why it's morally wrong.
In case of Permanent residence , a person is paying for what he want. Canada is not
doing a social service , they are charging and it's ultimately there economy which is
going to gain. And the person has every right to decide. in this case it's the person
who will lose the money and time not the canada Immigration authorities. In fact by
paying the application fee , that person is creating job for some people and giving
something to Canada.
--
Posted from fgusap1400io.abbott.com [130.36.61.238] via Mailgate.ORG Server -
http://www.Mailgate.ORG
dealer not you , who is losing. that's why it's morally wrong.
In case of Permanent residence , a person is paying for what he want. Canada is not
doing a social service , they are charging and it's ultimately there economy which is
going to gain. And the person has every right to decide. in this case it's the person
who will lose the money and time not the canada Immigration authorities. In fact by
paying the application fee , that person is creating job for some people and giving
something to Canada.
--
Posted from fgusap1400io.abbott.com [130.36.61.238] via Mailgate.ORG Server -
http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Dec 6th 2001, 5:18 pm
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
>
>
Moral wrongness aside, you have entered into a contract that dealer 1 has the right
to enforce. He could keep you to buying the car, or demand damages. They make you
an offer of a car in exchange for your money. You consumate that contract by
signing the deal.
When you apply for PR, you are entering into a contract. They make you an offer to
live in the country in exchange for your services to the country by your labours and
your purchasing. You have the right to back out until you land which becomes the
equivalent of consumating that contract.
>
>
>
>
It's a two way street ... The payment for processing is also made to the car dealer
aka the "delivery charge"
>
>
If you choose not to land then you are breaking an agreement but one that the country
you are sought PR in has not chosen to enforce or even seek damages.
In fact by paying the
>
>
It costs a lot more than your pitiful application fee, even after the ROLF has been
paid to admit you to Canada.
>
Moral wrongness aside, you have entered into a contract that dealer 1 has the right
to enforce. He could keep you to buying the car, or demand damages. They make you
an offer of a car in exchange for your money. You consumate that contract by
signing the deal.
When you apply for PR, you are entering into a contract. They make you an offer to
live in the country in exchange for your services to the country by your labours and
your purchasing. You have the right to back out until you land which becomes the
equivalent of consumating that contract.
>
>
>
>
It's a two way street ... The payment for processing is also made to the car dealer
aka the "delivery charge"
>
>
If you choose not to land then you are breaking an agreement but one that the country
you are sought PR in has not chosen to enforce or even seek damages.
In fact by paying the
>
>
It costs a lot more than your pitiful application fee, even after the ROLF has been
paid to admit you to Canada.
Dec 6th 2001, 6:41 pm
#9
Concierge
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 46,399
Stuart
Forget it. There are too many people without scruples and who are living to the fullest the "I" theory. They will never see that there is a moral rightness or a black and white issue to somethings and will only see shades of grey. In immigration issues, remember these are often people unhappy with the life that is offered them in their country so they will hunt around and around until they find a country with an immigration policy they can work with or around but will never be happy with the new country. They will continue to look for a new place to live and work in hopes that they will happy. But since they don't want to return to their original country because that country has nothing to offer them they will hedge their bet by trying to retain their residency in their first/second/third country of choice.
Also remember that they are the migrants and the country they are living in is just another place for them to be. It provides them with a living but they have no loyalty, respect or love for it.
Just as many immigrants do not assimilate to a country's language or living style and in turn their little corner of the US into a replica of their country retaining their language, culture, customs, etc. I'm sure you, as I, know many immigrants who have lived in the US for 5 years or longer who do not speak more than a hello or goodbye in the English language. Personally, I know one Japanese family where the mother and father do not speak more than that and they have lived here in New York for over 30 years. Their daughter, who is friend of my daughter, was born in the US, lived here all her life with her mother and father, went to public schools with my daughter and she must still act as interpreter for her parents as they do not know the language.
Rita
Forget it. There are too many people without scruples and who are living to the fullest the "I" theory. They will never see that there is a moral rightness or a black and white issue to somethings and will only see shades of grey. In immigration issues, remember these are often people unhappy with the life that is offered them in their country so they will hunt around and around until they find a country with an immigration policy they can work with or around but will never be happy with the new country. They will continue to look for a new place to live and work in hopes that they will happy. But since they don't want to return to their original country because that country has nothing to offer them they will hedge their bet by trying to retain their residency in their first/second/third country of choice.
Also remember that they are the migrants and the country they are living in is just another place for them to be. It provides them with a living but they have no loyalty, respect or love for it.
Just as many immigrants do not assimilate to a country's language or living style and in turn their little corner of the US into a replica of their country retaining their language, culture, customs, etc. I'm sure you, as I, know many immigrants who have lived in the US for 5 years or longer who do not speak more than a hello or goodbye in the English language. Personally, I know one Japanese family where the mother and father do not speak more than that and they have lived here in New York for over 30 years. Their daughter, who is friend of my daughter, was born in the US, lived here all her life with her mother and father, went to public schools with my daughter and she must still act as interpreter for her parents as they do not know the language.
Rita
Dec 6th 2001, 7:00 pm
#10
Forum Regular
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 62
Hi there..
Applying for Canadian PR does not guarantee the approval of PR. So is same with the US PR.
Might as well people want to apply for both of them.
Its better to be safe than sorry.
I do not see any harm in applying for both of them.
I do not see this as an abuse of system.
Thanks
Vj
Applying for Canadian PR does not guarantee the approval of PR. So is same with the US PR.
Might as well people want to apply for both of them.
Its better to be safe than sorry.
I do not see any harm in applying for both of them.
I do not see this as an abuse of system.
Thanks
Vj
Dec 6th 2001, 8:58 pm
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
It's far better to decide where you want to go and focus on that and ensure that you
are going to get that.
If you want to apply for both, then so be it while I don't approve of that, that part
is not illegal ... BUT As I've stated before, the abusers are those who apply for
Canada when their real intent is to go to the US at the earliest opportunity they can
get, and those who do anything they can to actually be a PR in both countries at the
same time.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
It's far better to decide where you want to go and focus on that and ensure that you
are going to get that.
If you want to apply for both, then so be it while I don't approve of that, that part
is not illegal ... BUT As I've stated before, the abusers are those who apply for
Canada when their real intent is to go to the US at the earliest opportunity they can
get, and those who do anything they can to actually be a PR in both countries at the
same time.
Dec 6th 2001, 10:00 pm
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
>
buy a
>
papers
>
committment in
>
This analogy is invalid. When I sign paper with car dealer I commit to buy the car.
But when I apply for immigration nowhere I agree that I must land and continue to
live there for my life if the application has been successful. You have to understand
that immigration is, unlike buying a car, a big life turning decision. People just
can not commit to live anywhere that they have never experienced before.
>
>
out
>
If you don't like the car you can always sell the car off and go with another dealer
for a better car. Nothing wrong with that.
>
basic
>
You missed the point, there is ONLY intention, but NO contract or promise to live in
one country for life after immigration.
--
B.W.
buy a
>
papers
>
committment in
>
This analogy is invalid. When I sign paper with car dealer I commit to buy the car.
But when I apply for immigration nowhere I agree that I must land and continue to
live there for my life if the application has been successful. You have to understand
that immigration is, unlike buying a car, a big life turning decision. People just
can not commit to live anywhere that they have never experienced before.
>
>
out
>
If you don't like the car you can always sell the car off and go with another dealer
for a better car. Nothing wrong with that.
>
basic
>
You missed the point, there is ONLY intention, but NO contract or promise to live in
one country for life after immigration.
--
B.W.
Dec 6th 2001, 10:51 pm
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
>
>
>
>
The thing is rather straight forward. It's a give and take policy. Do you think that
Canada welcomes new immigrants just because they love them or they want to see those
people happy? Definitely not. Canada is bringing in people because without them the
economy will go belly up. Canada needs more people to maintain their economy and
population growth. The day Canada will be able to keep that growth internally or find
out that they don't need any more people for that purpose they will stop bringing in
any more people. Same reason why most of the countries don't open the door for
immigration.
>
>
will
>
>
new
>
People migrate not not necessarily because they are unhappy. It is mostly because
they want a better opportunity. If the new place does not offer what they expected
then why should they be happy?
>
>
This is wrong. There is no country that has NOTHING to offer to her citizens. The
reason they don't go back to original country because that country offers LESS to
them. For the same reason they will go to another country which offers oven more.
>
living
>
Exactly, That's why there is no question of loyalty here.
>
>
York
>
>
went
>
interpreter
>
And what is your point?
--
B.W.
>
>
>
The thing is rather straight forward. It's a give and take policy. Do you think that
Canada welcomes new immigrants just because they love them or they want to see those
people happy? Definitely not. Canada is bringing in people because without them the
economy will go belly up. Canada needs more people to maintain their economy and
population growth. The day Canada will be able to keep that growth internally or find
out that they don't need any more people for that purpose they will stop bringing in
any more people. Same reason why most of the countries don't open the door for
immigration.
>
>
will
>
>
new
>
People migrate not not necessarily because they are unhappy. It is mostly because
they want a better opportunity. If the new place does not offer what they expected
then why should they be happy?
>
>
This is wrong. There is no country that has NOTHING to offer to her citizens. The
reason they don't go back to original country because that country offers LESS to
them. For the same reason they will go to another country which offers oven more.
>
living
>
Exactly, That's why there is no question of loyalty here.
>
>
York
>
>
went
>
interpreter
>
And what is your point?
--
B.W.
Dec 6th 2001, 11:10 pm
#14
Guest
Posts: n/a
When I sign an agreement to buy a car, I am sure to get it. When I = apply for
immigration, nothing is sure. If I sign a deal for a car and = the dealer tells me
by the way, we will see if you right for this car = after you pay for it, I would
think twice.
Also, it is etimated that 150 million people are on the move around the = world for
one reason or another. Global movement of skilled workers = will increase and
competition for the same will increase. =20
--=20 Good luck,
Berto Volpentesta, B.A. (Spec. Hons.), B.Ed. Member, OPIC Director, OPIC and
Education Committee Chairman
Sidhu & Volpentesta Inc. Serving people around the world since 1991
www.svcanada.com
>
[usenetquote2]> > I am with Berto. It's really amusing to see how some people go =[/usenetquote2]
furious
[usenetquote2]> > about other's intention to apply for both USA and Canadian =[/usenetquote2]
immigration.
[usenetquote2]> >=20[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >=20[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >> While I have no objection to people covering their bases, this is =[/usenetquote2]
not
[usenetquote2]> >> really even covering their bases ... this is trying to cheat the system.=20[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >=20[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > Why would it be cheating the system? As Berto has already pointed =[/usenetquote2]
out
[usenetquote2]> > that ultimately he is able to keep only one.[/usenetquote2]
>
>
buy a=20
>
papers=20
>
committment in=20
>
application=20
>
out=20
>
>
[usenetquote2]> >=20[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >> of actually remaining in Canada any longer than they have to. They have NO[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >> INTENTION of making Canada their permanent home. They will attempt to get into[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >> the US and use Canada as a temporary backup, hoping they can get back=20[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >=20[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > What is wrong with that? After all main reason for immigration is to seek[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > better life.[/usenetquote2]
>
>
basic=20
>
immigration, nothing is sure. If I sign a deal for a car and = the dealer tells me
by the way, we will see if you right for this car = after you pay for it, I would
think twice.
Also, it is etimated that 150 million people are on the move around the = world for
one reason or another. Global movement of skilled workers = will increase and
competition for the same will increase. =20
--=20 Good luck,
Berto Volpentesta, B.A. (Spec. Hons.), B.Ed. Member, OPIC Director, OPIC and
Education Committee Chairman
Sidhu & Volpentesta Inc. Serving people around the world since 1991
www.svcanada.com
>
[usenetquote2]> > I am with Berto. It's really amusing to see how some people go =[/usenetquote2]
furious
[usenetquote2]> > about other's intention to apply for both USA and Canadian =[/usenetquote2]
immigration.
[usenetquote2]> >=20[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >=20[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >> While I have no objection to people covering their bases, this is =[/usenetquote2]
not
[usenetquote2]> >> really even covering their bases ... this is trying to cheat the system.=20[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >=20[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > Why would it be cheating the system? As Berto has already pointed =[/usenetquote2]
out
[usenetquote2]> > that ultimately he is able to keep only one.[/usenetquote2]
>
>
buy a=20
>
papers=20
>
committment in=20
>
application=20
>
out=20
>
>
[usenetquote2]> >=20[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >> of actually remaining in Canada any longer than they have to. They have NO[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >> INTENTION of making Canada their permanent home. They will attempt to get into[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >> the US and use Canada as a temporary backup, hoping they can get back=20[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >=20[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > What is wrong with that? After all main reason for immigration is to seek[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > better life.[/usenetquote2]
>
>
basic=20
>
Dec 7th 2001, 1:02 am
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Still people miss the point, but I'm not going to belabour it any further other than
to say that I haven't seen a logical argument for trying to get two PRs
simultaneously ... (I didn't say apply) ... I will grant that it is a very important
decision, and I do believe people should be *required* to be better prepared to make
that decision as a part of the process. And it still misses the point that people
use Canadian PR when they have NO INTENTION WHATSOEVER of making Canada their
permanent home.
Stuart
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Still people miss the point, but I'm not going to belabour it any further other than
to say that I haven't seen a logical argument for trying to get two PRs
simultaneously ... (I didn't say apply) ... I will grant that it is a very important
decision, and I do believe people should be *required* to be better prepared to make
that decision as a part of the process. And it still misses the point that people
use Canadian PR when they have NO INTENTION WHATSOEVER of making Canada their
permanent home.
Stuart