Conservative Immigration Policy

[jade_lee]

Historically Canada has always picked her favorites to enter this great country. I mean we did have the underground railroad leading to relative freedom here at one point in time

 

[kEiThZ]

I am just glad there's movement on this front. It's ridiculous that a qualified migrant or entrepreneur has to wait years for a visa, while we spend time processing family class migrants. Clearing the queue for family class migrants is not going to make it any better either. As afransen pointed out, you'll just enter the conundrum of attracting more applicants as the line gets shorter. In that scenario, we might as well expedite those who have the most to offer Canada.

 

[nfitz]

That makes sense!

 

[Hydrogen]

... they probably are about something. Not sure I see the big deal - I'm not the one having a freak attack about pointing out the obvious - it was simply one adjective in a whole paragraph - it was never the point of the post. I don't see the need for people to take this thread off-topic to discuss an adjective I used. I don't think anyone can deny that some Conservative policies are bigoted ... so let's not get off-topic with it.

Please remember the context of why I used the word in the first place. I was merely answering the comment of "I still can't get why anyone opposes this idea". And note that I did say perhaps it is a good idea ... I was simply trying to explain why some (not me, but some) might be speaking out against this proposal - and that's because of those who are proposing it - not the actual content of the proposal. Shooting down a proposal based on who it comes from is also wrong - and I guess ironically bigoted - however I was simply trying to provide the mindset of those who are shooting first and asking questions later.

You were the one, nfitz, who took the thread off topic by raising the canards of bigotry and racism. You also admit knowing nothing about the content of this policy. You then tried to shield yourself with the issue of same sex-marriage, which is not the topic of the thread.

The very purpose of your initial post on this thread was to go about "shooting down" the immigration policy of the present government by alluding to accusations of bigotry and racism. You come off sounding like you are the one shooting first and asking questions later.

The suggestion that perhaps you could support this policy initiative indicates that you really don't know anything of the content, yet you felt the need to raise your beliefs about bigotry and racism with regards to it and to the (off topic) topic of same-sex marriage.

If you honestly believe that everyone is a bigot about something, then why even bring it up? That would clearly indicate a natural inclination of all people - including yourself. Your own position is well-indicated by your casual admission of slander.

Immigration policy is selective. Any such process always will be. As a result, it is subject to change and revision. The trouble we have in this country revolves around the issue of selection and settlement. Even when the selection process becomes more refined, we still face the issue of new arrivals actually finding work in their given professions once they are here. It's not only a national issue then, but also a provincial issue as well.

 

[ungodlycrosscheck]

Hydrogen, I appreciate the balance and fairness of your reality checks. A nuanced look at the Conservatives reveals they are far from the unflattering labels that have been used to describe them.

There are certainly elements of social-conservatism within the Party, but those same elements exist within each of the other major parties in Ottawa. Moreover, social conservatism has often been bastardized to mean racist or intolerant, which it is not.

The key thing, which is deliberately forgotten by Conservative opponents (or conveniently dismissed because the Conservative's are governing while in a minority), is that the Harper Conservatives have been remarkably moderate in their social policies. As a "red Tory", I've been pleasantly surprised.

The red meat that's been fed to placate the more right wing elements within the party have tended to involve changes enforcing the criminal code, but it's not racist and not-homophobic, if it were then I think the face of the federal Conservative Party would not be as ethnically and lifestyle diverse as it is today.

 

[nfitz]

You were the one, nfitz, who took the thread off topic by raising the canards of bigotry and racism.

I did not ... I was simply answering the question of why some people might question what seems to be a reasonable suggestion. And that is because of the canard of bigotry and racism that exists.

I couldn't answer that question, without raising it - because that is why many people react overly extremely when the Conservatives speak on immigration issues.

I wasn't raising it for any other reason than within that context.

If you want to debate whether that perception exists or not - that is fair game. And I thought that perception is what we were debating ... but now I'm not so sure ...

I should have been a lot simpler in my earlier follow-up responses - I fear I have confused people.

 

[rpgr]

rpgr. Fine words from an immigration consultant. My guess is that you are unhappy because business might be starting to decline as the immigration process gets reformed.

1st personal attack

Lovely. Accusing our immigration staff of being corrupt.

2nd attack in reasponse to this:

What's unknown to you is that the other guy got a free pass because he was a relative to someone the officer works for yet it is still perfectly legal even though it's an abuse of power.

In this case it has to to with the people in charge meaning the minister (this shows you don't know the policy otherwise you'd know that it deals with instructions given by the ministers office w/o having to pass a law effectively giving the ministers office to change a law without having to pass it in parliament) and those parties close to him 'cause that was what the chain of thought was.

So where's your evidence that qualified migrants are being turned away?

As I said before, I'm not allowed to disclose confidential information but the law is being challenged by Immigration groups (via lobbying) and lawyers (via the courts). It is however a very costly procedure for individual immigrants to challenge. On one hand, the government is allowed to make laws but on the other hand, this particular law is unfair because it goes against precedence.

If someone manages to finally get a court date and decision (you would need someone who is normally qualified with the money and balls to do this) it would be reported in the newspapers. Right now successful challenges in private tribunal hearings cannot change the law and it is impossible to bring things to the forefront because of what a tribunal is. If I talked about it freely, I could be arrested for breaking another law but it is well documented that people are passing under tribunal because the law is unfair.

On that note, how many qualified migrants that have been rejected could afford to challenge the law in federal court? They would need money that they don't have as well as they would have to wait for a trial date and if they stay in Canada, they would not be able to work (no work permit). To suggest why YOU don't know about it doesn't mean others don't and that it isn't happening.

 

[ungodlycrosscheck]

^^^ Then you should also know that as a public servant you are protected under Whistleblower legislation. Introduced by the Conservatives, the law provides for punishment of up to two years imprisonment and/or up to a $10,000 fine for reprisals against a whistleblower or a public servant who participates in an investigation. Reprisals can range from firings and demotions to threats of discipline.

If you have compelling evidence that Minister Kenney abused his authority or interfered on an immigration matter then isn't there an obligation as a public officer to serve the public's interest by giving voice to the alledged violation?

I'm coming in half way into the thread, but from what I've pieced together, it strikes me as a bit unfair to use the blanket of protection and anonymity the internet provides to directly implicate a Minister of the Crown in a criminal activity or at the very least an abuse of power, without providing substantiating details. You'll forgive me for saying it doesn't exactly smack of credibility.

It would add to the legitimacy of your argument if you would be a bit more forthcoming. Not expecting miracles, you might wish to contact the Opposition critic for Citizenship and Immigration, I'm sure they are looking for dirt on the Minister. You can contact the Hon. Maurizio Bevilacqua, (who I might add is a very fair and decent fellow) at his Ottawa office at 613-996-4971. Good luck, I'll look forward to reading about this in the Toronto Star, I'm sure they'll be quick to print Minister Kenney's missteps.

 

[Hydrogen]

I did not ... I was simply answering the question of why some people might question what seems to be a reasonable suggestion. And that is because of the canard of bigotry and racism that exists.

I couldn't answer that question, without raising it - because that is why many people react overly extremely when the Conservatives speak on immigration issues.

I wasn't raising it for any other reason than within that context.

If you want to debate whether that perception exists or not - that is fair game. And I thought that perception is what we were debating ... but now I'm not so sure ...

I should have been a lot simpler in my earlier follow-up responses - I fear I have confused people.

In post #3 you mentioned these items. No one else had mentioned them before that point. You raised them.

What do you say we leave it there and get back on with the topic of immigration policy?

 

[nfitz]

In post #3 you mentioned these items. No one else had mentioned them before that point. You raised them.

Because post #2 said "I still can't get why anyone opposes this idea." I simply answered why some people would oppose the idea. I also commented that it may well be a good idea - to make it clear I was distancing myself from those views.

Then, in post #5 you accused me of supporting racists - which quite frankly has to be one of the most bizarre posts I've ever seen on this forum.

What do you say we leave it there and get back on with the topic of immigration policy?

I'm quite happy to leave it there. But I'm pretty sure you won't.

So here's an immigration suggestion. Given that immigration drives growth for housing, consumables, etc. Perhaps we should for the next couple of years, increase our immigration rate, as an attempt to counter the recession - similiar to what the Tories did during the last recession.

 

[kEiThZ]

1st personal attack

rpgr. Fine words from an immigration consultant. My guess is that you are unhappy because business might be starting to decline as the immigration process gets reformed.

You have come on here claiming to be an authority by virtue of your expertise. And you have come on here making political claims rather than discussing the impact of a policy change without presenting any evidence. I have questioned your neutrality (not in the least because you seem to have a political agenda) and because this policy change may directly impact your livelihood (causing you to speak irrespective of whether the changes are positive). How is that a personal attack?

Lovely. Accusing our immigration staff of being corrupt. If you have evidence of this, please do pass it on to the RCMP, otherwise please stop with the baseless accusations. These are hard working civil servants who put in long hours to get the best and brightest into Canada as quickly and painlessly as possible.

2nd attack in response to this:

What's unknown to you is that the other guy got a free pass because he was a relative to someone the officer works for yet it is still perfectly legal even though it's an abuse of power.

In this case it has to to with the people in charge meaning the minister (this shows you don't know the policy otherwise you'd know that it deals with instructions given by the ministers office w/o having to pass a law effectively giving the ministers office to change a law without having to pass it in parliament) and those parties close to him 'cause that was what the chain of thought was.

Please point out again where you said it was the minister. 'Someone he works for or with' could be anybody from the filing clerk to a staff member who approves the visa, to the immigration officer at the counter in an airport. As for my 'attack'. It stands and I don't apologize for it. If you are going to toss out random smears against some very hard working and good people without any evidence whatsoever to back it up, you should not be surprised if someone calls you out on it. It's not an attack to challenge your smears. And if as you say, you have evidence that somebody is being given special treatment because they are related to the minister (Jason Kenney has relatives outside Canada?) then you should definitely share that information with the opposition, the media and the RCMP. It is after all illegal for any civil servant to break policy because of political interference. Certainly, most of the folks I know at immigration would not be that susceptible to the whims of a politician...it would not pass what we in government service call the 'globe and mail' test.

As to your assertion that I don't understand the policy....as someone who works in government and has plenty of colleagues who work at immigration and border services, I fully understand the policy change and its implications. I simply dispute your assertion that the minister has done something wrong. You, on the other hand, are already showing the limits of your comprehension by being unable to distinguish between the law passed by parliament and its policy outcomes. Parliament has passed a law empowering the minister to create policies which fast-track or reject applications. So far all that's being done is fast-tracking. If you have evidence that says a new policy of mass rejections is in place please put it up. And even if that came to pass, that would not be illegal. It would merely be a question of fairness, which of course, could be settled politically. To wit, you should note there has not been too much of a public uproar about the government's suggestion that immigration should be scaled back during this recession. It's evidence that the public may not see the conspiracy you see.

As I said before, I'm not allowed to disclose confidential information but the law is being challenged by Immigration groups (via lobbying) and lawyers (via the courts). It is however a very costly procedure for individual immigrants to challenge. On one hand, the government is allowed to make laws but on the other hand, this particular law is unfair because it goes against precedence.

Good luck with that. Thankfully, lobbying won't work because it's a sensible law and the government has the common sense not to give up the powers parliament just gave it. The law merely empowers the minister to make policy. The results of the use of those added powers could be positive or negative depending where one stands. Hence, it is not an unfair law. You can quibble about the policy but you can't quibble about the laws. I am also willing to bet good money that the Liberals won't reverse this ruling when they come back into power.

And please do put up the docket number for a court challenge to this law. I'd love to see the courts overturn a law passed by parliament particularly one that was voted on by parties on both sides of the aisle. It would be quiet entertaining.

If someone manages to finally get a court date and decision (you would need someone who is normally qualified with the money and balls to do this) it would be reported in the newspapers. Right now successful challenges in private tribunal hearings cannot change the law and it is impossible to bring things to the forefront because of what a tribunal is. If I talked about it freely, I could be arrested for breaking another law but it is well documented that people are passing under tribunal because the law is unfair.

So first you are complaining about the new immigration law. Then you mix up confidentiality rules (which were present before the new immigration law) and slam both. There is absolutely no law that prevents you from speaking about a case (in the courts or in front a tribunal) as long as you leave out identifying information and as long as there's no gag order on the case. Given that, I am willing to bet that you don't have a shred of evidence that the Minister has misused his powers

On that note, how many qualified migrants that have been rejected could afford to challenge the law in federal court? They would need money that they don't have as well as they would have to wait for a trial date and if they stay in Canada, they would not be able to work (no work permit).

Boo hoo. As an immigrant, I know first-hand that immigration is expensive. And I will tell you without batting an eye, that a person who cannot afford the few thousand dollars to launch an appeal (which by the way can be done without being resident in Canada...making your point about needing to work while living here moot) in federal court is probably not the type of person who would qualify for immigration anyway.

Moreover, if they are qualified why would they get rejected? This country is not in the habit of declining immigrants who meet all the criteria to come here. More than likely I suspect that they have quibbles with Immigration Canada about their qualifications.

To suggest why YOU don't know about it doesn't mean others don't and that it isn't happening.

This is an internet forum. If you claim confidentiality on everything, there is no discussion. Are we just supposed to take your expert opinion on everything and stop discussing it altogether? If you can't add the discussion stay out of it.

 

[Hydrogen]

Then, in post #5 you accused me of supporting racists - which quite frankly has to be one of the most bizarre posts I've ever seen on this forum.

You go on about rampant bigotry and racism, then suggest you might support the policy - even on the basis that you lacked knowledge of the content. You appear to have a problem in presenting your ideas.

Because post #2 said "I still can't get why anyone opposes this idea." I simply answered why some people would oppose the idea. I also commented that it may well be a good idea - to make it clear I was distancing myself from those views.

Here's what you said from your original post:

Because it's being proposed by a party founded by white right-wing bigots, whose previous immigration proposals were trying to shroud racist beliefs in seemingly sensible policies.

Sounds like you describing your own opinion. Ever since then you've been trying to dodge your own statements. And how about post #32?

I'm not the one defending anti-immigration bigots!!!

You refer to the Conservative party as having bigoted and racist undertones, then deny that you did so, then claim you're not defending anti-immigration bigots (you're still calling them bigots), then go on to admit that you are engaging in slander - though not with respect to defaming members or the party whom you suggest hold bigoted or racist attitudes.

Ah, but I haven't slandered them about what you think I'm slandering them about. I'm slandering them not because I think they are racist, or because I disagree with their politics - but because they have clearly evidences that they are bigots by many, many, statements that many of their members, including their leader, have made on the same-sex issue. But it's a big boat - the current American president has also shown he is a bigot.

I should have been a lot simpler in my earlier follow-up responses - I fear I have confused people.

Simplicity would have primarily aided you. Otherwise, your political attitudes and approach come through quite clear.

 

[kEiThZ]

^ That whole public record thing can really bite you in the six on forums.

 

[jade_lee]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20090326&articleId=12913

Here is an interesting read. Perhaps the influence about who enters Canada is coming from agreements we have made with Isreal.

 

[afransen]

You have to wonder why the CPC has some of its Members of Parliament rise to defend in the House a conservative blogger who called muslims and aboriginals 'parasites' and blacks 'filthy' and 'illiterate'. I'm talking about Kathy Shaidle, of course. This doesn't say to me that these people are racist, but it does say that they don't particularly abhor racism.