Berto Volpentesta

They have to do something to control the backlog, no doubt. But there = are other
ways and it was Ms. Caplan's job to consider those other ways.

Wait and see is okay, but far better to have your voice heard and = express your
(read not only Andrew Miller) views put to the law makers. = Afer all, that is
democracy in action.

--=20 Good luck,

All opinions expressed are IMHO, not anyone else's

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

    >
major
    >
selection
    >
quo of
    >
wants.
    >
rules, but
    >
of
    >
wrong
    >
the next
    >
be no
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

[usenetquote2]> > I guess the more important question is: will the new proposal =[/usenetquote2]
regulations
[usenetquote2]> > become the law?[/usenetquote2]
    >

Berto Volpentesta

What??? Spend money? Train staff? Become more efficient? Hire staff?

Wake up. Wake up.

--=20 Good luck,

All opinions expressed are IMHO, not anyone else's

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]> > As I said earlier - we'll have to wait and see, but don't count on =[/usenetquote2]
any
    >
[usenetquote2]> > changes. Government is changing the law for a reason and lowering[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > criteria in any substantial matter will just leave the existing =[/usenetquote2]
status quo
    >
[usenetquote2]> > years long backlog of applications - this is not what the government[/usenetquote2]
    >
    >
    >
can't
    >
money
    >
to
    >
    >
    >
    >

Berto Volpentesta

You can pay a foreign service officer 40 000 per year. You can hire an = additional
100 for one year, clear up the back log and break even.

--=20 Good luck,

All opinions expressed are IMHO, not anyone else's

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

    >
more
    >
limitations.
    >
additional work
    >
covers all
    >
are wrong.
    >
    >
years of
    >
immigrants
    >
115,000 and
    >
granted.
    >
more
    >
    >
    >
don't be
    >
Canada and
    >
like
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

    >
[usenetquote2]> > I have stupid question - you always mention long backlog - why govs =[/usenetquote2]
can't
[usenetquote2]> > just hire some extra clerks for application processing, using that =[/usenetquote2]
money
[usenetquote2]> > they already collected from applicants ( _application_ fee) and =[/usenetquote2]
trying to
[usenetquote2]> > change rules instead?[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > Thanks, Mike[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]

[usenetquote2]> > > As I said earlier - we'll have to wait and see, but don't count on =[/usenetquote2]
any
[usenetquote2]> > major[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > changes. Government is changing the law for a reason and lowering[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > selection[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > criteria in any substantial matter will just leave the existing =[/usenetquote2]
status quo
[usenetquote2]> > of[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > years long backlog of applications - this is not what the =[/usenetquote2]
government
[usenetquote2]> > wants.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
    >

Berto Volpentesta

I agree the laws should serve Canadians. But I don't think you will see = the mark
set at 80 forever. This would mean that we actually need the = people but we just
shafted a large group so we could take care of a = backlog. This is not a policy
issue, this is a matter of being a good = world neighbour and good business.

--=20 Good luck,

All opinions expressed are IMHO, not anyone else's

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

    >
more
    >
limitations.
    >
additional work
    >
covers all
    >
are wrong.
    >
    >
years of
    >
immigrants
    >
115,000 and
    >
granted.
    >
more
    >
    >
    >
don't be
    >
Canada and
    >
like
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

    >
[usenetquote2]> > I have stupid question - you always mention long backlog - why govs =[/usenetquote2]
can't
[usenetquote2]> > just hire some extra clerks for application processing, using that =[/usenetquote2]
money
[usenetquote2]> > they already collected from applicants ( _application_ fee) and =[/usenetquote2]
trying to
[usenetquote2]> > change rules instead?[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > Thanks, Mike[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]

[usenetquote2]> > > As I said earlier - we'll have to wait and see, but don't count on =[/usenetquote2]
any
[usenetquote2]> > major[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > changes. Government is changing the law for a reason and lowering[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > selection[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > criteria in any substantial matter will just leave the existing =[/usenetquote2]
status quo
[usenetquote2]> > of[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > years long backlog of applications - this is not what the =[/usenetquote2]
government
[usenetquote2]> > wants.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
    >

Berto Volpentesta

They could have easily attended to the backlog at any time. Remember = that
"Demographic Factor"? That was intended to curb the supply and = demand factor.
Instead they tried to use the occupation list.

Now they will use the overall passmark, which is essentially the same as = the
demographic factor.

In the end they still have not understood the basic principle of = plumbing. That is,
just becuase you turn the valve off does not mean = their is no water in the pipe. It
takes time for the water = (applications) to work through. Try to guess with the
water will run = out and time the valve is a very difficult thing.

--=20 Good luck,

All opinions expressed are IMHO, not anyone else's

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

    >
    >
    >
is few
    >
take the
    >
fixing/eliminating
    >
set by
    >
needed
    >
really
    >
was in full
    >
ready and
    >
    >
    >
seen, but
    >
other hand I
    >
    >
those
    >
regulations I'm
    >
qualify under
    >
fact that
    >
that we
    >
seen on
    >
supply and
    >
    >
    >
be
    >
will be
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

[usenetquote2]> > Andrew[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > It seems to me like it's a basic matter of supply and demand economics.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > The Canadian government fixed the annual supply of visas at the 115k or[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > thereabouts mark you mention. They also fixed the price (under =[/usenetquote2]
the
[usenetquote2]> > old system) at about 70 points.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > Problem was that at 70 points the demand (ie qualified applicants =[/usenetquote2]
with
[usenetquote2]> > the pass mark or more) was in excess of the supply of visas. So an ever[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > increasing backlog built up.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > The real questions is why did the Canadian government allow the backlog to get so[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > large without changing the selection criteria at =[/usenetquote2]
an
[usenetquote2]> > earlier stage? Had the system been brought into balance at an =[/usenetquote2]
earlier
[usenetquote2]> > stage (with a smaller backlog) it might have been easier to exempt people[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > qualified under the old rules already in the system.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > Having let the backlog rise to such a high level, it only seems fair that the CDN[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > government should decide that someone who qualified under the old rules but not[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > the new ones should be refunded their C$500 application fee.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > I still remain to be convinced that under the new system they'll =[/usenetquote2]
find
[usenetquote2]> > enough qualified people at 80 points who want to go to Canada over =[/usenetquote2]
and
[usenetquote2]> > above all other alternatives. That factor, plus the fact that =[/usenetquote2]
word's
[usenetquote2]> > now going round that Canada's no longer interested in having more immigrants[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > (however far from the facts that may be) risks causing a shortfall in migrant[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > applications in the next few years. Same =[/usenetquote2]
pattern
[usenetquote2]> > as was seen with Australia where an increase in the passmark by the new[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > government in 1996 ended up being reversed 2/3 years later when the skilled[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > program became undersubscribed.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > Jeremy[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > >On Wed, 16 Jan 2002 01:21:28 GMT, "Andrew Miller"[/usenetquote2]

[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > >There are several reasons behind the backlog. CIC already assigned =[/usenetquote2]
more
[usenetquote2]> > >officers to most stressed visa posts, but the budget is one of the[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > >It is not only assigning people - you have to provide them with =[/usenetquote2]
additional
    >
[usenetquote2]> > >space, tools, etc. and it costs money. If you think that Can$ 500 =[/usenetquote2]
covers all
[usenetquote2]> > >the cost associated with processing immigration application then =[/usenetquote2]
you are
    >
[usenetquote2]> > >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > >But the major issue is to some extend similar to the reasons behind =[/usenetquote2]
years of
[usenetquote2]> > >waiting for US Green Card - Canada cannot simply take in that many[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > >at once. Our annual target for Independent immigrants is between =[/usenetquote2]
115,000 and
[usenetquote2]> > >125,000 for next few years and this is the number of visas to be =[/usenetquote2]
granted.
[usenetquote2]> > >Speeding up the process will not make more jobs or room in Canada =[/usenetquote2]
for more
[usenetquote2]> > >immigrants.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > >And finally you are forgetting the most important factor here. =[/usenetquote2]
Please don't
    >
[usenetquote2]> > >offended, but Canadian immigration law is here to serve the needs =[/usenetquote2]
of Canada
    >
[usenetquote2]> > >Canadian economy, not the desires of potential immigrants. Exactly =[/usenetquote2]
like
[usenetquote2]> > >immigration laws in any other country.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > >--[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
    >

Berto Volpentesta

What??? In the analysis they comment that if anything they would = recommend more
refusals through discretion to balance it out more.

--=20 Good luck,

All opinions expressed are IMHO, not anyone else's

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]> >snip<[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > As for the final impact of the 80 points pass mark - it remains to =[/usenetquote2]
be
[usenetquote2]> > seen, but it may be adjusted on the go, so it shouldn't be a =[/usenetquote2]
problem.
[usenetquote2]> > On the other hand I myself used to receive about 10 - 20 inquiries =[/usenetquote2]
for
[usenetquote2]> > assistance in the immigration process weekly before December 15th, =[/usenetquote2]
and
[usenetquote2]> > only about 15% of those asking for help qualified. Now, since the publication of[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > new regulations I'm getting twice that many inquiries and about 50% from people[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > who qualify under new law and didn't have =[/usenetquote2]
any
[usenetquote2]> > chances under the old rules due to the fact that their occupation wasn't on GOL[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > or was rated too low. So, I don't think that we will =[/usenetquote2]
have
[usenetquote2]> > a shortage of candidates here, but again - it remains to be seen on =[/usenetquote2]
the
[usenetquote2]> > longer run. Adjustable pass mark will take care of management of =[/usenetquote2]
supply
[usenetquote2]> > and demand.[/usenetquote2]
    >
    >
the=20
    >
even=20
    >
use=20
    >
getting=20
    >
    >
    >

    >
    >
of=20
    >
    >
    >

Mikhail Ivanov

Parkinson's laws work well, as usual.....

What??? Spend money? Train staff? Become more efficient? Hire staff?

Wake up. Wake up.

--
Good luck,

All opinions expressed are IMHO, not anyone else's

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]> > As I said earlier - we'll have to wait and see, but don't count on any[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > changes. Government is changing the law for a reason and lowering[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > criteria in any substantial matter will just leave the existing status[/usenetquote2]
quo
    >
[usenetquote2]> > years long backlog of applications - this is not what the government[/usenetquote2]
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

Vladimir Potapenko

Mr. Miller if you really believe so, you got the wrong message. There are two for
tango. I am not going to discuss here that Canada does need money. And a couple
of extra giga bucks taken out from not too well-off people (just for the sake of
lax and mysterious assessment process) is really convenient.

By the way those "potential immmigrants" are also potential citizens of your country.
Not mentioning those who already settled in Canada and gave birth to kids - 100% pure
Canadians, not a bit less then you, Mr. Miller.

Please don't play with words - sometimes they can reveal what you really think. Of
course, it is your right to think whatever you think of the "potential immigrants".
And of course, not only your right but also of those funny guys, "Immigration
Officers" - Gods to play with lives of bloody "potential immigrants". (Still remember
the good old days of yore?)

But don't forget who feeds you. You and the guys, will you please, Mr. Miller?

And finally you are forgetting the most important factor here. Please don't be
offended, but this particular group is for potential immigrants. You may advertise
your services here. But it is just uncivil to post your rude opinion, even you have
the one, Mr. Immigration Consultant.

Regards, Vladimir Potapenko, "potential immigrant". Russian Federation.

"Andrew Miller" <[email protected]>

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

Andrew Miller

First please enlighten me - what message are you talking about?

I believe that you are the one who takes my posts wrong. I'm not trying to defend or
oppose the government decisions here - I just try to explain the repercussions of
such as I see them as well as reasons behind those decisions as I suspect. I'm not
here to promote new rules, to praise them or to try to scream at our government to
back off - it is not what my intentions are or my contribution to this group should
be. I only try to portray them as they are (or may be) and what they mean for
potential immigrants.

I'm not the politician nor the activist - I am trying to interpret the rules for you
guys, so you know what they really are and what you should do to adjust to them if
you want to immigrate to Canada. Like you said, it takes two to tango - your desire
to immigrate to Canada is not enough if you are not meeting Canada's requirements.
And I'm sorry, but regardless how harsh it is - but it is our law.

Tell me when and how I portrayed what I think about potential immigrants that
offended you so much. What was so "uncivil and rude" in your opinion?

You are the one who is using now racial slurs And you are the one who is insulting me
now - I am an immigrant as well, like millions in this country and I'm trying to help
others as much as I can by offering my time and expertise for free in this group.

If you think that new law is being put in place to grab your money then you are
wrong. I said here many times that I don't like the retroactivity. But instead of
screaming and fighting with it in this group I already sent my comments to few places
long ago. Here I only try to deal with questions by giving constructive (if possible)
answers and simple explanations.

I didn't try to get more clients here during the period of new law deliberations and
approval process since it was tabled back in February, while some of those who now
loudly criticize what is happening had no problems pushing people to hire them by
telling that it is their only chance before new law is coming and promising them that
as long as application is submitted under old law it will be decided under such -
while at the same time government was telling us all along that they want to have
some rules retroactive. Why are you not attacking those who took clients' money using
scare tactic and false promises, and now when it is finally (maybe not finally yet)
known what was indicated for last 6 or more months they are trying to save their
reputation. Check many of my replies to such "promotions" since last summer in this
group and warnings I was giving.

If you don't like my comments then simply ignore them or just filter them out in your
news reader, so you won't even see them.

--

../..

Andrew Miller Immigration Consultant Vancouver, British Columbia email:
[email protected] (delete REMOVE and INVALID from the above address before
sending email)
________________________________

"Vladimir Potapenko" <[email protected]>
    >
[usenetquote2]> > And finally you are forgetting the most important factor here. Please don't[/usenetquote2]
be
[usenetquote2]> > offended, but Canadian immigration law is here to serve the needs of Canada[/usenetquote2]
and
[usenetquote2]> > Canadian economy, not the desires of potential immigrants. Exactly like[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > immigration laws in any other country.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > --[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > ../..[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > Andrew Miller Immigration Consultant Vancouver, British Columbia email:[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > [email protected] (delete REMOVE and INVALID from the above address before[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > sending email)[/usenetquote2]

jaihanumanjee

This also goes for Racist Pigs like "Conrad" who come here and abuse potential immigrants here.

craig

I think your doing a fantastic job, Mr Miller, its a shame nobody really notes the amount of time u spend giving potential advise on this forum. Forget those people who's minds breed negativity, im sure if they ever reach the shores of Canada one day, they will still be very unhappy people.
In short Mr Miller, keep up the good work.

Craig,

Potential Immigrant.

Mikhail Ivanov

    >
you are
    >
Of course, authors of act just forgot such small detail as $500 refund for these
people who faced new point system and couldn't apply in that case. By a way, do you
know how long an average person should work to save this amount in China, Russia or
other good place?

Berto Volpentesta

Sorry. Not familiar with Parkinson's law. Appreciate if you could = explain.

--=20 Good luck,

All opinions expressed are IMHO, not anyone else's

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

    >
    >

    >
staff?
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]

[usenetquote2]> > > As I said earlier - we'll have to wait and see, but don't count on =[/usenetquote2]
any
[usenetquote2]> > major[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > changes. Government is changing the law for a reason and lowering[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > selection[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > criteria in any substantial matter will just leave the existing =[/usenetquote2]
status
    >
[usenetquote2]> > of[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > years long backlog of applications - this is not what the =[/usenetquote2]
government
[usenetquote2]> > wants.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > I have stupid question - you always mention long backlog - why govs =[/usenetquote2]
can't
[usenetquote2]> > just hire some extra clerks for application processing, using that =[/usenetquote2]
money
[usenetquote2]> > they already collected from applicants ( _application_ fee) and =[/usenetquote2]
trying to
[usenetquote2]> > change rules instead?[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > Thanks, Mike[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
    >

Ng

Any of several satirical observations propounded as economic laws, especially "Work
expands to fill the time available for its completion."

--
NG


Sorry. Not familiar with Parkinson's law. Appreciate if you could explain.

--
Good luck,

All opinions expressed are IMHO, not anyone else's

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]> >[/usenetquote2]

[usenetquote2]> > > As I said earlier - we'll have to wait and see, but don't count on any[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > major[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > changes. Government is changing the law for a reason and lowering[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > selection[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > criteria in any substantial matter will just leave the existing status[/usenetquote2]
    >
[usenetquote2]> > of[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > > years long backlog of applications - this is not what the government[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > wants.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > I have stupid question - you always mention long backlog - why govs[/usenetquote2]
can't
[usenetquote2]> > just hire some extra clerks for application processing, using that money they[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > already collected from applicants ( _application_ fee) and trying[/usenetquote2]
to
[usenetquote2]> > change rules instead?[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > Thanks, Mike[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]

jaihanumanjee

Mr Miller,
You dont think canadian Govt has grabbed our money because your business has increased by 50% after the new law.I dont think you know the percapita income of counteries like India,Pakistan,Sri Lanka,china.I see many comments of yours in which you have espoused the new law with respect to your business and clients(presentation of the cases).
No wonder you are getting hateful responses from other potential immigrants.So,in the garb of helping,you are just marketing your skills here nothing more.