David R . Tucker

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

I think that's exactly right, and in fact said that exact thing in a draft of the
message I sent, believe it or not. (I cut it out because the article had gotten too
long.) Some exercise of discretion is probably necessary, but with the pass mark at
80 the situation would probably be less transparent than the current system of
awarding 10 points for personal suitability. Hardly what the government seems to
have intended.

--
David R. Tucker [email protected]

"I may be wrong, but I'm not Clearly Erroneous."

- Judge Hillman

Andrew Miller

If 80 points mark will be really set then it is clear to me that the only purpose for
such decision is a desire to clear the backlog of pending applications (read: "reject
95% of them"), to provide a "breathing room" to processing officers who will have to
be retrained and to start clean after all the "mess" is out of the way. And after
that the realistic and reasonable pass mark will be set. Brutal, but it may happen as
we were already warned about it not long ago..., although most of us didn't believe
that such brutal move will be really considered, but there is always a first time for
anything...

--

../..

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


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

    >
    >
[usenetquote2]> > This is exactly my conclusion so far as well David, although please note that new[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > Regulations are clearly giving the discretionary power to processing officers to[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > approve applicants who didn't reach the passing mark if in their opinion[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > applicant has good chances to successfully establish himself or herself in[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > Canada. With 80 points pass mark the intended transparency of the selection[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > process will be replaced by discretionary power of processing officers.[/usenetquote2]
-Judge Hillman

Andrew Miller

Please don't be offended Alex but you must be coming from the country where
corruption is the normal way of life to say something like what you just said. The
truth is that CIC has uncovered in the past some facts of corruption in few visa
posts, but all were attributed to locally hired support staff, not to Canadian
immigration officers.

As for lobbying for high pass mark - you must be smokin' somethin'...

--

../..

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

    >
    >
[usenetquote2]> > I agree with you Stuart and it seems to me that setting initially pass mark[/usenetquote2]
at
[usenetquote2]> > 80 indicates two things here. One is probably a strong desire (indicated already[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > earlier) of CIC to clear the backlog almost overnight as less than[/usenetquote2]
5%
[usenetquote2]> > of pending applications will pass the 80 points mark.[/usenetquote2]
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
[usenetquote2]> > Second is that at this time of economical downturn only the brightest and best[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > suited applicants[/usenetquote2]
will
[usenetquote2]> > be allowed in.[/usenetquote2]
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
[usenetquote2]> > Looks to me that at this stage with 80 points pass mark the fight will not[/usenetquote2]
be
[usenetquote2]> > about points anymore - it all will come down to presentation and[/usenetquote2]
discretion.
    >
    >
    >
[usenetquote2]> > the indicated 80 points pass mark closes the door for most otherwise[/usenetquote2]
qualified
[usenetquote2]> > applicants unless the application package is from the beginning prepared[/usenetquote2]
with
[usenetquote2]> > one goal in mind - to impress processing officer and to convince him or her that[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > regardless of points scored applicant has more than good chance to[/usenetquote2]
succeed
[usenetquote2]> > in Canada and thus should be granted visa. It sets a new play field and majority[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > of applicants who don't use professional assistance will have[/usenetquote2]
rather
[usenetquote2]> > slim or no chance to prepare strong and convincing presentation resulting[/usenetquote2]
in
[usenetquote2]> > approval.[/usenetquote2]
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

jaihanumanjee

I would not have aplied for Canada Immigration, if they would have told that the new selection criteria will be setting the passmark at 75/80 for all the applications pending and new ones respectively and had shown the new selection grid in their application form.So in a way this Government cheated me of 328 US dollars by giving false selection ideas with an old passmark and the old selection Grid.It is really sad to see canadian Government collecting aid from qualified third world immigrants(qualified old law potential immigrants but not under the new law which are more than 95% of applicants ) and wasting the time of their lawyers by using Fraud Tactics ,misinformation and cheating(Similar to many fraud Immigration agencies which operate in third world counteries) for feeding canadian Population.As the fraud Immigration agency owners are sent to jail ,I hope the Minister Caplan is sent to jail for advocating cheating and fraud on the net along with adequate compensation to the potential immigrants who are rejected under the new law.This is just a wish.

Conrad

Andrew Miller few hours ago in the thread with the subject line "New Regulations
- what to do" told you that new law is not yet implemented and that the proposed
regulations are just what they are - proposed. So, nobody is cheating you, but
based on your other posts and difficulties to comprehend simple answers it seems to
me that I will send a suggestion to Minister Caplan - to add the IQ factor to
selection criteria, so morons like you will not be able to get approved anyway...

Conrad

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

jaihanumanjee

Well Conrad "the Trailer Trash Einstein" first try to get a sweeper's job at Minister Caplan's house for which you are the most suitable and most qualified.I bet with your dirty putrid smelly mouth coupled with rotten upbringing and a maggot eaten brain, you will be the most qualified for the job.May be Minister Caplan will then give you some hearing trailer trash . Also try to remove that dirty "con-rod" stuck up in your dirty ass,before posting here.
You get it dont you "Trailer Trash Einstein"?

Peter_all

Your pitiful choice of words simply confirms what Conrad said about your IQ.

Are you really intending to land in Canada?

Its no wonder Minister Caplan wants to set a very high mark (80).

Stuart

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

In which case, you clearly did not really want to come to Canada in the first place.

There is no cheating involved, no fraud. Government regulations around the world
change all the time. Things change.

jaihanumanjee

ok Einstein of Trailer Trash.You are surely qualified as a sweeper for Ms Caplan with your maggot filled brain.

jaihanumanjee

Peter_All,
Are you another trash from the same bag as "con-rod",btw
nobody had asked "einstein-conrad" to give his comments as my question was to Mr Miller.You are doing the same as nobody has asked about your comments.

Heather

Then you should've emailed directly to Mr. Miller, cause this is still a public
newsgroup. Where anyone can respond even idiots like you who blame the rest of the
world for your problems. Have a nice day.
--

Heather

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

jaihanumanjee

This is free so I can ask anyone "Heat-Her" or Hit-her or Miller.

jaihanumanjee

heat-her

Andrew Miller

Pavel,

I have to disagree with you. GOL covers les than 50% of occupations classified in
Level 0 and Skill Levels A and B, so abandoning GOL is one of the best things of the
new system. Remember that Canada needs a lot more than just programmers and new law
opens the door to those who previously had no chance because their occupation wasn't
listed on outdated GOL or was rated very low. As it is indicated in the Analysis
Statement during the first period of new law there will be no "black list" of
occupations either, so the door is really wide open. We'll have to see if 80 points
pass mark stands and if it does what effect it will really have on the number of
applications submitted and visas granted.

Today's (or should I say already yesterday's) "hot skills like C++ or Java" may be
very cold tomorrow and someone who is a self-educated programmer with experience in
programming only will find himself or herself on welfare when market decides that
his or her skills are no longer needed or when those currently finishing their
degree in computer science in Canada will enter the market. Very soon majority of
self-educated programmers with no formal university education will be at the bottom
of food chain - although there may be some exceptional talents who will survive and
strive. But in this world there is a room for only one Bill Gates and for very few
like him. Graduates from universities and technical/technology institutes will take
over in just short period of time. The immigration policy has to be tailored towards
the long term, short term needs can always be taken care of by work visas under
certain pilot programs.

So, I and most of my colleagues I already have spoken with are happy with the end of
GOL, although I'm still in shock with the pass mark. I assume that there are some
reasons behind such high barrier to be set initially and I hope that it will be
lowered rather soon after initial period - maybe not a lot but just enough to
accommodate those with Bachelor degrees and just 2 or 3 years of work experience.

I agree with you that there is no "silver bullet" or perfect system, but the current
system stopped serving our country long ago and we badly needed new, more flexible
system. And I think that what we see may be just what we need, but new system will
require some tweaking and pass mark left outside of the Act and Regulations to the
discretion of the Minister is one of those tweaks.

--

../..

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

Unfortunately every change in law takes long time to show real effects and weaknesses
of new system and majority of us here are looking at new Regulations from the rather
small perspective of our own circumstances today.

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

Pavel

Andrew,

Allow me to disagree. First of all, I'm not talking about those who finished 3 month
computer cources and present themselves as experienced programmers. I was talking
about a programmer with a bachelor's degree, which in 99 persent of cases is a
maximum requirement for employment. Attaining a Master's or Ph.D. degree in this
field does not provide much benefits. Software Engineering occupation has been around
for many years, and it will not go away; things that change are programming languages
and technologies, but if you can find a job programming in C++ or Java and stay a
couple of years, you are not going to be thrown out on the street for no reason.
Also, technical people who immigrate here tend to have moderate levels of English,
which does not hinder their ability to find and hold employment, as it is the case
with Management or Social sciences occupations.

On the other hand, people in occupations such as Sociology, Psychology, Linguistics,
or management occupations, which usually require PhD or Masters/MBA degree, and
excellent level of English, will greatly benefit from the new regulations at the
expence of techies. Thus, a PhD in some rare (and probably unneeded in Canada)
occupation, holding a degree from some unknown university from some unknown country
in the middle of the Pacific would have more chances than BS Comp Sci from MIT. (I
have nothing against PhD in social sciences, but selection system has to be fair!)

Let's say the pass mark is lowered to accomodate bachelors with a few years of
experience. AFAIK 20% of the world population hold or capable of holding bachelors
degrees, and among those, we can safely assume that majority worked in professional
or skilled occupation, and a many know English. We are immediately swamped with
millions of applications, in the absence of preferred occupations or any other ways
of distinction between people holding the bachelor's.

In my opinion, pass mark is set to 80 for the following reason: we allow all with
Master's and above, but for Bachelors, you have to show ties with Canada, like
studying/employment/job offer/arranged employment. Effectively, Canada's selection
system now resembles more the American system, where the job of selection is put in
the hands of employers. That's what they want, but that's not how it's gonna work:
given similar selection systems, people will choose US.

I think, if not GOL, there should be at least a list of high demand professions, like
in NZ, to let in people with Bachelor's who have no ties to Canada and have never
been to Canada.

    >
    >
    >
classified
    >
    >
    >
chance
    >
low.
    >
new law
    >
wide
    >
    >
visas
    >
    >
    >
Java" may
    >
    >
when
    >
    >
the
    >
    >
may
    >
    >
Graduates
    >
just
    >
the
    >
under
    >
    >
    >
the
    >
there
    >
that
    >
just
    >
work
    >
    >
    >
the
    >
new,
    >
need,
    >
the Act
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
Regulations
    >

[usenetquote2]> > Thank you Andrew for review. I agree with you and want just add the following:[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > The major mistake they make is discontinuing an occupation-based[/usenetquote2]
selection
[usenetquote2]> > system. While there are problems with it, it should just be frequently reviewed[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > and improved, but not be abolished altogether. It is much[/usenetquote2]
easier to
[usenetquote2]> > find a job for computer programmer with hot skills like C++ or Java, who[/usenetquote2]
has
[usenetquote2]> > just a bachelor's degree and moderate command of English, than it is for[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > mechanical or civil engineer with Master's and fluent English. The government has[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > means and resorces to monitor the labor market, they just don't want to do their[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > job. The GOL pretty much covers majority of professional occupation, and I think[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > there's no large pool of people who cannot apply due to their occupation or[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > education which they anticipate. The selection system if fine; what they really[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > should do is to combat[/usenetquote2]
fraud.
[usenetquote2]> > There is huge amount of cases with fishy diplomas and work experiences[/usenetquote2]
in
[usenetquote2]> > Asian, Afrikan and Eastern European countries. Those people come here,[/usenetquote2]
go to
[usenetquote2]> > menial jobs or just sit on welfare. They don't want to do their job, and want to[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > cover that by devising a new magical selection system. But there's no silver[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > bullet.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >[/usenetquote2]