iaink

Sounds like you have found what you are looking for in the states, but the same reasons make me happier to be in Canada. I would object to the tired old cliche of those on welfare not wanting to work though. May be true of a few, but not for the majority. Have you ever tried to live off of welfare? Thought not Having a good laugh at your police state comment. Have you looked around where you live now, fingerprinting at the airport, registration of foreigners etc! Overwheling undemocratic "national security" powers

Not sure it makes sense to object to a country as both too liberal and a police state in the same sentence.

MJ23

I'm glad I'm not the only one who read the statement about the "police state and lebiral" 10 times and couldn't make sense of it

merdealorsen

Canada wouldn’t be Canada without American rejects. Tar and feathers anyone?

You got to love someone who comes to Canada _because_ he is Muslim. Percentage of Canadian population that is Muslim: 2%.

There are ten times more people without religious affiliation than there are Muslims in Canada.

Source: http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/demo30b.htm

Perhaps he chose Canada because of the beer and the world famous Canadian Bacon. ;-)


My immigration web site:
http://www.geocities.com/merdealorsen/immigration.html

Sam

iaink

He's not coming here because of the proportion of people who are muslims, but because of the proportion of people who dont care that he's muslim.

orazone

Yap. Thats right.

You are wrong. I am not an american reject. I am on job and working for american's number 5 consulting company. Once i get the immigration, Its more than likely that I will be permanently posted to their Canada based office.. As i mentioned in my post, I just listen to my heart's voice and love peaceful places where people dont ask me questions related to politics and religion. I clearly mentioned in my post , i dont have anything against America but at the same time i believe all Muslim non-US citizens should seriously think about packing up and leaving.

Abe S

The factors I mentioned are my opinion regarding what I see in Canada. I don't see it as a second tier destination at all. I find much of what I like in the US available in Canada and don't see much of what I don't like about the US. I find Canadian society (in Montreal at least) much more open minded, sympathetic, and socially conscious than in then the US Northeast where the general social atmosphere can be very cold. The only places I know in the US with a similar 'joie de vivre' are Miami and LA (with a bit of pretention added).

In terms of social programs that I pay taxes for (50% of my personal income goes to taxes) I don't feel it is wrong to give to those less fortunate in the society we live in. I like the fact that Quebec & Canada have a strong program to help lower income individuals, and that medicare and education are so cheap. Most people that use the assistance would rather be working and doing better in life, despite the cliche that they're happy to be doing nothing and getting a government check. Many people truely need it and don't have the same opportunities that others have.

As for strict gun control, the stricter the better. I travel often to places like Colombia, Venezuela, Brazil, and Mexico and they could use some strict gun controls (not to mention neighborhoods in many US cities).

ghitchi2

The fees immigrants pay do not cover the costs of running Citizenship & Immigration Canada - it's an enormous federal department. CIC's website says that in 2001 the department spent $903million while immigration fee revenue was only about $500million - so the Canadian tax-payer had to stump up the other $400million to keep the operation going.

It's a double slap in the face for Canadian tax-payers, and Quebecois tax-payers especially that they should be subsidising a system which gives visa's to people who quite openly describe the province's language/culture/history are being an annoyance. Somehow I very much doubt that Quebecors would wish to see their own tax $$$ being spent on importing people who undermine their lingual heritage.

The argument that immigrants are here to grow the economy is a bit dated these days. In the past this was true but over the last 10 years the economic performance of immigrants has been less than inspiring. Immigrants are fast becoming a subculture in Canadian society with high unemployment, high rates of poverty and crime.

Personally I think its high time the government made some major changes to CIC. I think it should cover it costs - I don't think tax $$$ should be spent on it....fees would have to at least double to cover the costs.
I also think we should be looking for people who want to come to Canada because they love Canada. Not because they got rejected from their first-choice or because its like the US only easier to get into. Not because they just want to get rich quick and not just for economics reasons - they should be choosing Canada because they believe in its ideals and want to join Canadians in the building of a great nation. They should be expected to demonstrate an appriciation for its culture, its languages and its history. Certainly it shouldn't be choosing immigrants who describe French as an "annoyance". Quebec is almost 1/2 this country and more than 1/2 its history. It's been the home of most of our Prime Ministers and it's the root of our social and environmental consciousness - without Quebec, Canada probably WOULD just be a mini-USA - and thats the last thing most Canadians and most people of the world would want.

bartM

Last time I checked, there were special rules for immigration to Quebec, so I guess their tax money is not spent on importing English-only speakers that loathe French.

Secondly, I would like to see sources for your claim that:
"Immigrants are fast becoming a subculture in Canadian society with high unemployment, high rates of poverty and crime."

And finally, Canada being, at least in theory, bilingual does not mean that everyone MUST love the French and Quebec. Not even born and raised Canadians love all provinces. I can tell you that here in Alberta, neither Ontario nor Quebec are particularly loved and I am not sure that all Quebecois dream of going to Calgary Stampede. What do you want - Ein Volk, Ein Fuerhrer ?

tony_ZZZ

I'm originally from Montreal but am currently in Arizona and live about 2.5 hrs from the Mexican border. If you are not a criminal, in Arizona you can legally own a firearm with no licensing or registration required (as law abiding individuals should be allowed to do). However, in Mexico (another example of a police state), you cannot even bring in gun ammo. You will be arrested if you do. There are warning signs before you enter Mexico.

ghitchi2

Quebec does have its own system but that doesn't mean someone admitted by the federal system can't immediately settle in Quebec.

The statistics regarding the economic underperformance of recent immigrants is well documented on CIC's own website. For Crime information, check out Toronto. The city is home to 40% of immigrants and the city is becoming more dangerous every year as the levels of poverty among those immigrants increases. I'm not suggesting immigrants are bad people, they aren't I'm sure, however, its clear that if you import 100's of thousands of people and then have them live in poverty and without hope/opportunity then anger/frustration and crime are inevitable.

I did not say everyone must speak french, or even love french. I do however think that its not too much to ask to expect everyone, even Albertan's, to acknowledge (and respect) the critical role that French Canada played in the development of the country. Its true that many Canadians lack this respect themselves, however given the opportunity to choose people, as the country is with regard to immigrants, it seems counter productive to choose people who regard about 1/3rd the country as annoying - it's not exactly well-planned nation-building is it?

Here in Ontario we're well aware of Alberta's contempt for all things central Canada but to be honest i'm not sure where it comes from. Considering that Alberta has a wealth and quality of life higher than that of any other region of Canada the whole chip-on-shoulder thing is a bit tired. Few other governments in this world would permit a single region of the country to keep the lions share of natural resource wealth such as that Alberta enjoys. In the UK, Scotland is the only oil producing region and yet its the poorest part of Britain (and one of the poorest places in Europe) because the UK governments takes ALL of Scotland's oil revenue - you should count yourselves lucky.

merdealorsen

So you don’t like to talk about politics or religion eh? Well I hope you like hockey because otherwise it’s going to be a lonely life for you up here. Especially since you don’t drink! (I assume)

I’m not sure your impression of Canada is quite accurate, however. Religion has always been a sensitive issue in Canada. Catholics have certain constitutional rights. There are publicly funded Catholic schools in Ontario. I have heard many derogatory remarks made about Catholics, Protestants, Jews , Muslims, Hindus (confused with Muslims) etc... Many Canadian women are down right offended when they see a covered Muslim woman. There was a huge controversy with regards to people wearing religious head gear in the police or in Legion halls. Many people in Quebec supported France’s ban on religious clothing in France’s schools.

Also, Canada participated in the Gulf War in Koweit in 1991. Canadian soldiers are currently in Afghanistan. The Canadian Liberal government barely won the recent elections and is in a minority situation. The other main party, the Conservatives, SUPPORTED the Irak invasion! The third party, the Bloc Québécois, wants the province of Quebec (83% Catholic, 5% Protestant), to be an independent country (officially for linguistic and cultural reasons).

If you’re Muslim and coming to Canada, I’d recommend Toronto or Montreal if you want to try and blend in. Ottawa is OK too, especially if you’re not Arab (large Somali population). By the way, would I be wrong to suggest that the extra attention you are getting in the USA has more to do with your ethnicity then with your religion?

Sam

http://www.geocities.com/merdealorsen/immigration.html

oceanMDX

No tar and feathers, but the US wouldn't be the US without Canadian rejects.

oceanMDX

What hyperbole. Quebec is a "have-not" province with 24 % of Canada's population. It also has nowhere near 1/2 of Canada's history. Fundamentally, it's a selfish, ethnocentric place. If Quebec could ever drop it's "have-not" status so that it no longer qualified for "transfer payments" from the Federal Government, they'd vote to separate. But like former Quebec Premier Robert Bourassa once stated, as long as federalism is profitable for Quebec, then Quebec's place is in Canada.

The root of our social and environmental consciousness? Are you trying out to be a comedian? Healthcare policy originated in Saskatchewan, and Quebec supports Kyoto because they believe it gives them an economic advantage. Quebec puts out so much water pollution that the Beluga whales in the Gulf of St. Lawrence have to be treated as toxic waste when they die.

JAJ

So a New Zealand born naturalised US citizen who wants to come to Canada would be refused because he previously immigrated to the US?

Even if he has a Canadian spouse and children, or a job offer from a Canadian corporation or university?

Jeremy

JAJ

Technically no. If an immigrant applying federal indicates an intention to settle in Quebec, they will not be accepted without a Quebec selection certificate.

Someone could declare an intent to move to Ontario, land there, and then immiedately move to Quebec. CIC has no way of policing this - but realistically, most people wanting to live in Quebec will speak French and if you do speak French, the Quebec selection criteria are much easier to meet than the federal selection criteria for the vast majority of cases.

Which was the reason for the 2002 changes to the federal skilled immigration selection grid. However it will take many years before it's apparent whether these changes have had any benefit, especially in the light of the concessions given that allowed pre-2002 applications to be assessed under the old rules.

Not insisting on complete fluency in English or French was a big mistake of CIC in the past, as without this language competency it's virtually inevitable that a migrant will work in an unskilled job, irrespective of qualifications.


The federal selection grid does give additional points to those who are competent in *both* English and French.

Although one can prove or disprove almost anything with statistics, I think today Scotland is the second *richest* region in the UK, only behind the south east of England (and probably ahead of the latter in terms of quality of life).

Jeremy