BristolUK

Occasionally there's a topic on the immigration forum that generates interest but it's not appropriate for discussion in that place.
One coming to mind is the discussion over the reasonableness of insisting Citizens take an oath to the queen but others have related to criminal records, language tests, whatever.

We could discuss these things here in a general way, if anyone's interested.

A new one just cropped up recently featuring a husband and wife sponsored as parents. So they're not qualifying due to the job or qualifications of one more than the other, they're both equal except that one had to be the lead applicant, and this was chosen by the couple. Once they have landed/activated PR, either would be free to come and go independently of each other.

Stop me if I've got that wrong.

There's a snag which means the husband can't/won't land first (the reason doesn't really matter) which means the wife cannot land either, even though she wants to. Had she been named lead applicant, she could.

I can see the need, administratively, for a lead applicant but in these days of equality I don't see why they can't both have equal rights and equal responsibilities. By all means have a procedure that involves the lead applicant first but be flexible enough to reverse it if needed.

I believe there are a number of situations involving Federal government, Provincial government and private businesses where either one of a couple can act for both, one signs as applicant and the other as spouse and on another day they can change which one signs first. For tax purposes, for example, one could claim medical expenses and another time it could be other or they split them. They can do whatever is advantageous and whatever is advantageous may change.

Just as something may change after one had been chosen to be lead applicant.

I'm not suggesting something be done about it but maybe if we were Immigration Minister for a day there might be some things we would like to change. Or not.

Siouxie

How about that thing that most Canadians believe to be true - you know, you must have heard it when you mention you are married to a Canadian.
"Oh that means you are a Canadian Citizen" "What do you mean you have / had to apply to get residence status, you married a Canadian, it's automatic" "What do you mean you had to apply to stay here "You're British!"

I know of a lady who has been married to a Canadian for 12 years.. I recently learned that he has never sponsored her and that she has been without any status for years.. no healthcare, no work permit, no drivers license, no bank account, no income, no security, no PR card, no chance of getting any of them.. and she's too old to apply under any other route now.

If I was Immigration Minister for a day I'd say anyone who has been married and residing with their Canadian spouse for a period of 3/5/10 years automatically becomes a Permanent Resident, no sponsorship necessary.

dbd33

For anyone here to be immigration minister in Canada, or Botswana for that matter, would be absurd; inmates running the prison. It's not your country. It's rude and presumptive to seek authority over the locals.

Partially discharged

Even for those of us who have lived in Canada longer than we have in the UK?

dbd33

Yes. We're here but we're not from here, what the locals choose to do really isn't anything to do with us. It may be that we're no longer properly part of the UK either but our displacement is our own fault and not an excuse to tell the Canadians what to do.

BristolUK

Sounds like a good idea. Have some checks in place but much less formal maybe.

I assume you said that in full knowledge of the current immigration minister having been born and raised elsewhere.

If it's good enough for him, it's good enough for any of us for a day.

dbd33

The minister in Canada? No, I wouldn't have reason to know that.

BristolUK

The Honourable Ahmed D. Hussen

MillieF

Former Lancastrian

I don't think a few on here would want me as Immigration Minister for the day as I might be classed as anti immigrant. Nothing much you could do in a day anyway as legislation amendments or new legislation sometimes moves at the speed of a sloth.
Should there be changes yes but we also need to have a fair system for all.

So what would you do with this person?

Arrives in Canada on a valid student visa from Nigeria. Approx 2 months later files a refugee claim. Has the hearing at the IRB and is denied protection. Submits an appeal and has the appeal heard by the Refugee Appeal Division which is also denied. Appeals to the Federal Court of Canada and that is also denied. Is now under an enforceable removal order and is due to be removed. Prior to removal gets married and submits a FC1 application within Canada. CBSA agrees to postpone the removal until decision made on FC1 application. Turns out the documentation regarding divorce from previous partner submitted to IRCC is not genuine. Now dependent on what happens next what is the betting that if issued with another removal order for misrepresentation if referred to the IRB she would then apply for Leave or Judicial Review with the Federal Court or can IRCC refuse the application and removal can take place on the original Departure Order which is now deemed a Deportation Order which again would be subject to an application to the Federal Court.

And you sometimes wonder why there is sometimes an anti immigrant stance when it can take several years to remove someone.

Also forgot to add that the Pre Removal Risk Assessment was done which was negative for this person.

BristolUK

Someone who wants to stay that much, despite all those non welcoming responses? Might just be best to let them stay, amnesty style.

Former Lancastrian

So what about the other 68 million displaced persons? Why just this one and not all of the others. Why even have an Immigration system or even a border if people are willing to let non genuine people who have had their day in several judicial proceedings and submitted false documentation to Immigration authorities.

BristolUK

I seem to recall that the UK had an amnesty a few years ago on asylum applications going back beyond a certain date. From googling it seems to have happened on more than one occasion. It meant they could focus on 'current' applications - not to mention speed them up and saved resources. I'm fairly sure the UK immigration system wasn't abandoned.

Partially discharged

It happened to my MIL. She was born in the USA to an American mother and Canadian father and they moved back to NB where he was from a year later. The father became a member of parliament and member of the provincial cabinet amongst other things with a grade 8 education.

MIL was born in the 1930's. She married a canadian (british father, canadian mother) in Canada and had 3 children. After the 3rd child was born she and her husband planned a trip to Bermuda from Canada. They needed passports (which they had never had before. They had been to the USA many times but passports were never needed. With just a few weeks before the trip to Bermuda my MIL discovered she was not a Canadian citizen and she had to quickly get that organized before the trip. Passports issued etc just in time.

Siouxie

As her Father was Canadian, I believe she would have been Canadian by descent, nothing to do with the marriage.