Mr. Cohen and Mr. Miller, are you sure?
Jun 21st 2002, 3:21 am
#16
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mr. Cohen and Mr. Miller, are you sure?
Mr. Miller,
We are not "trying" to argue. As for me, I question your opinion because the law does
NOT say that single Bachelor means 20 points.
If you could quote the law saying that single Bachelor degree gives only 20 points
nobody would argue with you but you can't. Nobody can so far.
It's just your opinion. It's just another guess the same as what and whom Canada
needs more. You are not Canada, Mr. Miller.
I've sent a request to CIC with regard to the issue. Whatever the reply would be, if
any, it would be published here.
I never read Mr. Cohen's opinion with regard to the issue here. I would appreciate if
you could provide a link.
If I do not not see his input here for me it means he probbaly has a
different opinion.
Rgds Steve
We are not "trying" to argue. As for me, I question your opinion because the law does
NOT say that single Bachelor means 20 points.
If you could quote the law saying that single Bachelor degree gives only 20 points
nobody would argue with you but you can't. Nobody can so far.
It's just your opinion. It's just another guess the same as what and whom Canada
needs more. You are not Canada, Mr. Miller.
I've sent a request to CIC with regard to the issue. Whatever the reply would be, if
any, it would be published here.
I never read Mr. Cohen's opinion with regard to the issue here. I would appreciate if
you could provide a link.
If I do not not see his input here for me it means he probbaly has a
different opinion.
Rgds Steve
Jun 21st 2002, 3:21 am
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mr. Cohen and Mr. Miller, are you sure?
Mr. Miller,
We are not "trying" to argue. As for me, I question your opinion because the law does
NOT say that single Bachelor means 20 points.
If you could quote the law saying that single Bachelor degree gives only 20 points
nobody would argue with you but you can't. Nobody can so far.
It's just your opinion. It's just another guess the same as what and whom Canada
needs more. You are not Canada, Mr. Miller.
I've sent a request to CIC with regard to the issue. Whatever the reply would be, if
any, it would be published here.
I never read Mr. Cohen's opinion with regard to the issue here. I would appreciate if
you could provide a link.
If I do not not see his input here for me it means he probbaly has a
different opinion.
Rgds Steve
We are not "trying" to argue. As for me, I question your opinion because the law does
NOT say that single Bachelor means 20 points.
If you could quote the law saying that single Bachelor degree gives only 20 points
nobody would argue with you but you can't. Nobody can so far.
It's just your opinion. It's just another guess the same as what and whom Canada
needs more. You are not Canada, Mr. Miller.
I've sent a request to CIC with regard to the issue. Whatever the reply would be, if
any, it would be published here.
I never read Mr. Cohen's opinion with regard to the issue here. I would appreciate if
you could provide a link.
If I do not not see his input here for me it means he probbaly has a
different opinion.
Rgds Steve
Jun 21st 2002, 4:20 am
#18
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mr. Cohen and Mr. Miller, are you sure?
I think we are all hopeful that the direction given will be to not penalize the
bachelor degree holders. But I do think it would take an ammendment to the
regulations as they clearly left that out. Generally, these are not stupid people and
we must assume they did so for a purpose.
As far as I know, there has been no word from the policy group and naturally those
being trained on the subject are questioning. Just as we are.
--
All responses IMHO and no one else's.
Berto Volpentesta Member OPIC, Director OPIC
Sidhu & Volpentesta Inc. Serving People Around the World Since 1991 www.svcanada.com
321-3701 Chesswood Dr., Toronto, ON M3J 2P6 Canada
_________________________________________
Berto Volpentesta +1(416) 398 8882 Office +1(416) 787 0612 Office 2 +1(416) 892 2916
Cell e-mail: [email protected] ICQ#: 50212503 SMS ICQ): +278314250212503
"Aluru" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mr. Miller, I beg to disagree with your last posting which you have repeatedly
> emphasized. According to a reliable CIC source (even CIC staff currently in
> training have questioned this), people with a Bachelors degree obtained after
> three or more years of study and with more than 15 years of completed full-time
> or full-time equivalent studies will still get 22 points. I only felt the need
> to point this out. As I know you're bound to argue with this, all I can say for
> now is that a statement/clarification to the effect will come out by next week
> or the week after. So let's all wait and see.
>
>
>
> --
> Posted via http://britishexpats.com
bachelor degree holders. But I do think it would take an ammendment to the
regulations as they clearly left that out. Generally, these are not stupid people and
we must assume they did so for a purpose.
As far as I know, there has been no word from the policy group and naturally those
being trained on the subject are questioning. Just as we are.
--
All responses IMHO and no one else's.
Berto Volpentesta Member OPIC, Director OPIC
Sidhu & Volpentesta Inc. Serving People Around the World Since 1991 www.svcanada.com
321-3701 Chesswood Dr., Toronto, ON M3J 2P6 Canada
_________________________________________
Berto Volpentesta +1(416) 398 8882 Office +1(416) 787 0612 Office 2 +1(416) 892 2916
Cell e-mail: [email protected] ICQ#: 50212503 SMS ICQ): +278314250212503
"Aluru" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mr. Miller, I beg to disagree with your last posting which you have repeatedly
> emphasized. According to a reliable CIC source (even CIC staff currently in
> training have questioned this), people with a Bachelors degree obtained after
> three or more years of study and with more than 15 years of completed full-time
> or full-time equivalent studies will still get 22 points. I only felt the need
> to point this out. As I know you're bound to argue with this, all I can say for
> now is that a statement/clarification to the effect will come out by next week
> or the week after. So let's all wait and see.
>
>
>
> --
> Posted via http://britishexpats.com
Jun 21st 2002, 4:20 am
#19
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mr. Cohen and Mr. Miller, are you sure?
Would have to agree. If it doesn't fit 25 or 22 then you are left with 20 or less.
--
All responses IMHO and no one else's.
Berto Volpentesta Member OPIC, Director OPIC
Sidhu & Volpentesta Inc. Serving People Around the World Since 1991 www.svcanada.com
321-3701 Chesswood Dr., Toronto, ON M3J 2P6 Canada
_________________________________________
Berto Volpentesta +1(416) 398 8882 Office +1(416) 787 0612 Office 2 +1(416) 892 2916
Cell e-mail: [email protected] ICQ#: 50212503 SMS ICQ): +278314250212503
"Andrew Miller" <millercitelus.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Please don't be offended but it is a moot argument. You agreed that a
single
> Bachelor degree doesn't fit into any category with 22 or 25 points as
those
> have been very clearly defined. There is nothing between d(ii) and e or f
> categories, so only d(ii) applies, providing that it is at least 15 years
of
> education program (not years attended) with at least 2 years Bachelor
program
> within it. Your arguments here (and anyone else's for that matter) will
not
> change the facts as they are in the Regulations, sorry.
>
> --
>
> ../..
>
> Andrew Miller Immigration Consultant Vancouver, British Columbia email:
> millercicanada.com (delete REMOVE and INVALID from the above address before
> sending email)
> ________________________________
>
>
>
>
> "levu" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > No mr Miller it isn't clear at all.
> >
> >
> > I agree it doesn't fit into any of the 22 point categories. But neither do I
> > think it fits into the d(ii) category you identify.
> >
> > "(ii) a two-year university educational credential at the bachelor's level and a
> > total of at least 14 years of completed full-time or full-time equivalent
> > studies;"
> >
> > While it does say "at least 14 years" implying 15 years would fit here. It also
> > says clearly that this is a two-year university credential.
> >
> > It doesn't say 'at least a 2 year'....it says 'a two year'....no more, no less.
> > Therefore I don't think a 3 year credential does fit into this category either.
> >
> > I agree out of all the categories listed, d(ii) is the most likely one into which
> > a single 3 year degree would fit....but as it presently described, I don't think
> > anyone can say with certainty that this indeed is where it belongs.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Posted via http://britishexpats.com
--
All responses IMHO and no one else's.
Berto Volpentesta Member OPIC, Director OPIC
Sidhu & Volpentesta Inc. Serving People Around the World Since 1991 www.svcanada.com
321-3701 Chesswood Dr., Toronto, ON M3J 2P6 Canada
_________________________________________
Berto Volpentesta +1(416) 398 8882 Office +1(416) 787 0612 Office 2 +1(416) 892 2916
Cell e-mail: [email protected] ICQ#: 50212503 SMS ICQ): +278314250212503
"Andrew Miller" <millercitelus.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Please don't be offended but it is a moot argument. You agreed that a
single
> Bachelor degree doesn't fit into any category with 22 or 25 points as
those
> have been very clearly defined. There is nothing between d(ii) and e or f
> categories, so only d(ii) applies, providing that it is at least 15 years
of
> education program (not years attended) with at least 2 years Bachelor
program
> within it. Your arguments here (and anyone else's for that matter) will
not
> change the facts as they are in the Regulations, sorry.
>
> --
>
> ../..
>
> Andrew Miller Immigration Consultant Vancouver, British Columbia email:
> millercicanada.com (delete REMOVE and INVALID from the above address before
> sending email)
> ________________________________
>
>
>
>
> "levu" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > No mr Miller it isn't clear at all.
> >
> >
> > I agree it doesn't fit into any of the 22 point categories. But neither do I
> > think it fits into the d(ii) category you identify.
> >
> > "(ii) a two-year university educational credential at the bachelor's level and a
> > total of at least 14 years of completed full-time or full-time equivalent
> > studies;"
> >
> > While it does say "at least 14 years" implying 15 years would fit here. It also
> > says clearly that this is a two-year university credential.
> >
> > It doesn't say 'at least a 2 year'....it says 'a two year'....no more, no less.
> > Therefore I don't think a 3 year credential does fit into this category either.
> >
> > I agree out of all the categories listed, d(ii) is the most likely one into which
> > a single 3 year degree would fit....but as it presently described, I don't think
> > anyone can say with certainty that this indeed is where it belongs.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Posted via http://britishexpats.com
Jun 21st 2002, 4:20 am
#20
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mr. Cohen and Mr. Miller, are you sure?
It seems to me that the framers of the rules have been unclear and I would say
deliberately so.
It is obvious to me that it is intended that 2- points apply however in other cases
where N or more applies the phrase "at least" has been used e.g. "and a total of AT
LEAST 14 years of completed full-time or full-time equivalent studies"
So why not say "a post-secondary educational credential of at least 2 years and ..."
As someone who writes requirements for a living, I would rightly be castigated for
such sloppy language and the people implementing my requirements would come staright
back and ask what happens for a degree of more than 2 years. If they meant to say one
thing then it should be stated.
Mr Miller's argument concerning shopping is just irrelevant, the law is rarely
follows the rules of common sense.
However he is correct in stating that as the rules are written, a 3 year or longers
bachelors degree does not apply to any of section (d). I think that I could make an
argument that anyone with a 3 year degree should only get 5 points since the only
section that they meet is that one.
Richard
>What really blows my mind is that you are looking for something that simply is not
>there. In any rules if one meets or exceeds (even if rule is saying nothing about
>exceeding) requirement for level "X" but cannot meet such for the higher level "Y"
>than s/he is in level "X". Or when you go to the store to buy let's say a snack bar
>- you have $3 but store in this example has a single bars for $2 and a 3-pack for
>$5. So, what do you get? You get a single bar for $2 and keep the change - you can't
>get a 3-pack and store doesn't have anything is between.
>
>Following your thinking such person couldn't get to any level just because a 3 years
>or longer Bachelor degree is simply not specifically (in "black and white" as you
>pointed) listed.
>
>--
>
>../..
>
>Andrew Miller Immigration Consultant Vancouver, British Columbia email:
>millercicanada.com (delete REMOVE and INVALID from the above address before
>sending email)
>________________________________
>
>
>
>"levu" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Andrew,
>>
>> Please don't talk so condescendingly. I'm not trying to read more into something
>> than what I see in Black and white and I'm a native english speaker so theres no
>> question that something simply isn't sinking in properly.
>>
>> I have agreed with you that out of all the categories listed D(ii) would appear to
>> be the one where a single 3+ year degree should go. But its still a round peg in a
>> square hole because the text of the Gazette simply does not say, as you have said
>> that this category is for a degree of "at least 2 years".
>>
>> It clearly says "A two year" degree. I'm sorry but as far as I know "A two year"
>> program is not the same thing as "A three year", "a four year" or "a 20 year"
>> program.....it is no more and no less than 2. just 2.
>>
>> I know this sounds picky, but where laws and rules are concerned things should
>> rightly be described without any ambiguity. These categories of education clearly
>> do not fit that bill.
>>
>> Probably the CIC will award 20 points. But they'll do so based on assumption not
>> fact of law. The regulations are for some reason deliberately unclear as to what
>> points a 3 or more year bachelors degree should get.
>>
>> I think a 3 year or more single degree will get 20 points. But I think perhaps
>> they made it ambiguous on purpose to allow an officer to make their own
>> interpretation.....the rules as they stand do not define the points awarded for
>> such degrees, they only make an general indication.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Posted via http://britishexpats.com
deliberately so.
It is obvious to me that it is intended that 2- points apply however in other cases
where N or more applies the phrase "at least" has been used e.g. "and a total of AT
LEAST 14 years of completed full-time or full-time equivalent studies"
So why not say "a post-secondary educational credential of at least 2 years and ..."
As someone who writes requirements for a living, I would rightly be castigated for
such sloppy language and the people implementing my requirements would come staright
back and ask what happens for a degree of more than 2 years. If they meant to say one
thing then it should be stated.
Mr Miller's argument concerning shopping is just irrelevant, the law is rarely
follows the rules of common sense.
However he is correct in stating that as the rules are written, a 3 year or longers
bachelors degree does not apply to any of section (d). I think that I could make an
argument that anyone with a 3 year degree should only get 5 points since the only
section that they meet is that one.
Richard
>What really blows my mind is that you are looking for something that simply is not
>there. In any rules if one meets or exceeds (even if rule is saying nothing about
>exceeding) requirement for level "X" but cannot meet such for the higher level "Y"
>than s/he is in level "X". Or when you go to the store to buy let's say a snack bar
>- you have $3 but store in this example has a single bars for $2 and a 3-pack for
>$5. So, what do you get? You get a single bar for $2 and keep the change - you can't
>get a 3-pack and store doesn't have anything is between.
>
>Following your thinking such person couldn't get to any level just because a 3 years
>or longer Bachelor degree is simply not specifically (in "black and white" as you
>pointed) listed.
>
>--
>
>../..
>
>Andrew Miller Immigration Consultant Vancouver, British Columbia email:
>millercicanada.com (delete REMOVE and INVALID from the above address before
>sending email)
>________________________________
>
>
>
>"levu" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Andrew,
>>
>> Please don't talk so condescendingly. I'm not trying to read more into something
>> than what I see in Black and white and I'm a native english speaker so theres no
>> question that something simply isn't sinking in properly.
>>
>> I have agreed with you that out of all the categories listed D(ii) would appear to
>> be the one where a single 3+ year degree should go. But its still a round peg in a
>> square hole because the text of the Gazette simply does not say, as you have said
>> that this category is for a degree of "at least 2 years".
>>
>> It clearly says "A two year" degree. I'm sorry but as far as I know "A two year"
>> program is not the same thing as "A three year", "a four year" or "a 20 year"
>> program.....it is no more and no less than 2. just 2.
>>
>> I know this sounds picky, but where laws and rules are concerned things should
>> rightly be described without any ambiguity. These categories of education clearly
>> do not fit that bill.
>>
>> Probably the CIC will award 20 points. But they'll do so based on assumption not
>> fact of law. The regulations are for some reason deliberately unclear as to what
>> points a 3 or more year bachelors degree should get.
>>
>> I think a 3 year or more single degree will get 20 points. But I think perhaps
>> they made it ambiguous on purpose to allow an officer to make their own
>> interpretation.....the rules as they stand do not define the points awarded for
>> such degrees, they only make an general indication.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Posted via http://britishexpats.com
Jun 21st 2002, 4:20 am
#21
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mr. Cohen and Mr. Miller, are you sure?
I am affraid that Andrew's reading is correct. While the points can be argued in
court there is no doubt that the framers wanted the ratings that way to put more
emphasis on technical skills (after all, the Minister is the son of a carpenter).
"at least" qualifies the number of years. So it can be more but not less.
The arguement under the other section you mentioned would seem to provide less points
(ie equal to the number of years of study) In the end you are left with the higher of
the two scores.
I think the criteria could have been written to include another level just
for clarity.
--
All responses IMHO and no one else's.
Berto Volpentesta Member OPIC, Director OPIC
Sidhu & Volpentesta Inc. Serving People Around the World Since 1991 www.svcanada.com
321-3701 Chesswood Dr., Toronto, ON M3J 2P6 Canada
_________________________________________
Berto Volpentesta +1(416) 398 8882 Office +1(416) 787 0612 Office 2 +1(416) 892 2916
Cell e-mail: [email protected] ICQ#: 50212503 SMS ICQ): +278314250212503
"steve" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mr. Miller,
>
> Thank you. I appreciate your comments and do respect your opinion.
>
> But there is no indication that it falls into 78(2)(d) either. I can't believe that
> immigration considers a five-year university program equal to a two-year program.
>
> If what you assert is true why would they award different points for one-year and
> two-year university programs? Is the diference between "one" and "two" bigger than
> between "two" and "five"?
>
> I really hope that it's developers' error otherwise it will make frustrated so many
> of my fellow citizens.
>
> Mr. Cohen, Berto please share your opinion on that.
>
> Regards Steve
court there is no doubt that the framers wanted the ratings that way to put more
emphasis on technical skills (after all, the Minister is the son of a carpenter).
"at least" qualifies the number of years. So it can be more but not less.
The arguement under the other section you mentioned would seem to provide less points
(ie equal to the number of years of study) In the end you are left with the higher of
the two scores.
I think the criteria could have been written to include another level just
for clarity.
--
All responses IMHO and no one else's.
Berto Volpentesta Member OPIC, Director OPIC
Sidhu & Volpentesta Inc. Serving People Around the World Since 1991 www.svcanada.com
321-3701 Chesswood Dr., Toronto, ON M3J 2P6 Canada
_________________________________________
Berto Volpentesta +1(416) 398 8882 Office +1(416) 787 0612 Office 2 +1(416) 892 2916
Cell e-mail: [email protected] ICQ#: 50212503 SMS ICQ): +278314250212503
"steve" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mr. Miller,
>
> Thank you. I appreciate your comments and do respect your opinion.
>
> But there is no indication that it falls into 78(2)(d) either. I can't believe that
> immigration considers a five-year university program equal to a two-year program.
>
> If what you assert is true why would they award different points for one-year and
> two-year university programs? Is the diference between "one" and "two" bigger than
> between "two" and "five"?
>
> I really hope that it's developers' error otherwise it will make frustrated so many
> of my fellow citizens.
>
> Mr. Cohen, Berto please share your opinion on that.
>
> Regards Steve
Jun 21st 2002, 5:20 am
#22
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mr. Cohen and Mr. Miller, are you sure?
Article from today's Vancouver Sun including interview with Immigration Minister
Denis Coderre:
http://tinyurl.com/g2l
Denis Coderre:
http://tinyurl.com/g2l
Jun 21st 2002, 5:20 am
#23
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Mr. Cohen and Mr. Miller, are you sure?
On Fri, 21 Jun 2002 15:18:27 GMT, Berto Volpentesta wrote in
<[email protected]>:
> I am affraid that Andrew's reading is correct. While the points can be argued in
> court there is no doubt that the framers wanted the ratings that way to put more
> emphasis on technical skills (after all, the Minister is the son of a carpenter).
I didn't realize that our Minister of Immigration is Pinocchio but I guess it can
explain some things...
Best regards, Alex.
--
To email me, replace "myrealbox" with "alexoren". Sorry for the inconvenience. Blame
the spammers.
<[email protected]>:
> I am affraid that Andrew's reading is correct. While the points can be argued in
> court there is no doubt that the framers wanted the ratings that way to put more
> emphasis on technical skills (after all, the Minister is the son of a carpenter).
I didn't realize that our Minister of Immigration is Pinocchio but I guess it can
explain some things...
Best regards, Alex.
--
To email me, replace "myrealbox" with "alexoren". Sorry for the inconvenience. Blame
the spammers.
