As a gay American who lives abroad and has the right to live in Canada...

[Brian_Expat]

. . . I say forget Canada.

Unless you have a Canadian spouse, it's not worth the process. You have to open up your job, credit, criminal, medical and financial history to the government, pay thousands of $$$s to lawyers and the government (which you lose even if they go against you), wait for years for a decision, and then bring another at least $10K with you to Canada when they say go.

Put that time into fighting for change in your own community and you can help create the sort of things that the hard work of Canadian gay activists created in the northern Dominion.

[SunDrop23]

1. Good post.

[terrya]

2. I hadn't realized it was that complicated.

Doug has really been urging me to come up there especially now that down here we're gearing up for "Bush 2, the crappy sequel"

Doug said that I MUST have a job up there. Otherwise, he said that if we got married (which he wants to do), then he can sponsor me for citizenship. I'd get dual citizenship, if I could.

But I didn't realize how hard it is to go up there to live.

T

[Maple]

3. No harder than

becoming an American, or any other nationality.

[Brian_Expat]

4. You and Doug can get married

Then you get a visa. For the vast majority of people who just want to up-and-move, though, it's a long, drawn-out process.

It's easy for me, but I have friends who suffered through the process and gave up. If, for instance, every employer you've ever had won't write a detailed letter explaining your prior job and salary and agree to answer any questions, it's unlikely you'll get in without paying your lawyer thousands of $$$s to jump through hoops.

It's wonderful if you're wealthy and highly degreed, but it's not an option for most American gays.

[hinachan]

5. Go to Mexico, instead

Here's the beauty of this idea....

* Much nicer weather than you'll ever find in Canada (their winters are hellish, folks!)

* If you go there before the dollar completely tanks, your money will go a long way

* Prescription drugs are cheaper than in the USA, and in many cases, available without a prescription. (I'm not endorsing illegal drug use, just saying that if you're on a medication for life, you can get it whenever you need it.)

* And just think, we're overrun by illegals coming to the USA...so if Mexico were suddenly overrun by gringos, they'd actually put some real effort into working with the United States on combating the illegal immigration problem

* There are people there who speak English in order to deal with all the tourists, but even if you decide to learn Spanish, it's one of the easiest languages in the world. (But hey, they don't bother learning English when they come here, so let's return the favor...this could go a long way toward making the Mexican government a lot more cooperative with the US, as per the point I made above.)

Canada's got a major nerve, making immigration so hard for Americans, when you consider they've been known to harbor mass murderers who were being pursued by American authorities. Screw them, and their crappy winters...as anyone in a border state can tell you, Mexico has better weather, and a flourishing tourism industry. :D

[Maple]

6. Pardon me?

Winters here are no different than winters in the US.

And Canada is a sovereign country, that can 'have a nerve' if it jolly well wants to.

[Brian_Expat]

7. I'm Canadian and I agree with the prior post about "nerve"

Canada earns LOTS of money from its special status with the USA -- for instance, Canadian-built cars are counted as "made in the USA" for tax purposes -- but it treats its American neighbours like foreigners.

Americans SHOULD get an easier time of migration there than someone from Bangladesh or Australia, but no, Yanks (Canada's "free trade partners") have to wait for years to get in and get utterly raped in the process.

Canada is an option if you're rich and don't mind some bureaucrat prying into the intimate details of your entire adult life. For most gay Americans, that makes it unacceptable.

[Maple]

9. Ahem. Americans ARE foreigners

And we already have NAFTA fast-tracking in place. The US decided it wanted tougher laws regarding border crossing, so don't blame Canada for this.

And btw the process isn't nearly as difficult as you're making it out to be.

[Brian_Expat]

17. I've helped dozens of friends. . .

. . . most of whom were rejected because they're not rich.

[tuvor]

10. Aren't your last two paragraphs fairly representative

of Canadians wanting to emigrate to the states, too?

(The part about being raped notwithstanding.)

[Brian_Expat]

18. Nope

The USA's H-1B program, with its preferential treatment for Canadians, makes it easy for Canadians to immigrate in weeks, rather than years.

[SnowBack]

53. Oh yeah, VERY preferential...

You get tied to a job... Lose the job, you have 3 WEEKS to leave the country...

Change jobs? Not allowed. And the Visa only lasts up to 6 years...

The whole program can be changed at any time by Congress... No guarantee it will be a permanent thing...

This year's target is 65,000 visas... For the whole WORLD... It is NOT something just for Canadians...

Change it into a green card? If you get lucky... Takes about 5 years... If you can jump through all the hoops and prove that you are the BEST in your field... Better than EVERY American... Along with police checks, fingerprints and tons of letters from references...

And then you still aren't sure you can get in...

Oh, and it can't really be done on your own... My lawyer cost about $6,000 U.S. - and that was about 5 years ago...

Sure... Easy...

:eyes:

[Dez]

12. Have you experieced

crossing into US at Peace Arch Crossing?? See all the doggies and nazis there?? Welcome home! The Americans are the ones who make life diifficult, not the Canadians..

[Brian_Expat]

19. Nonsense

The Americans might suck, but so does Canada.

Trust me, my friends have gone through the process -- often at my urging -- and the USA has NOTHING to do with Canada's requirement that you be wealthy, open up your private life to their probing, and taking years to process you.

The fact that the Americans are nasty doesn't excuse Canada's stupid immigration system, custom-made for only the wealthy.

I'm telling people this not to diss Canada (I lived there for years!) but to warn people that Canada is NOT a viable option for the vast majority of gay Americans. Period. It isn't. Gay Americans, unless they're rich, shouldn't waste their time.

[SnowBack]

16. Took me almost 7 years to finally become a Permanent Resident

of the U.S. to be able to stay with my Same Sex Partner...

Oh, and by the way, I moved from CANADA...

I had to go through fingerprinting, police checks and spend THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of dollars.

So I guess America is an option if you're rich and don't mind some bureaucrat prying into the intimate details of your entire adult life.

And by the way, having lived in both countries, I'd be very comfortable with a Canadian bureaucrat investigating my personal life...

[iverglas]

25. with friends like this

I'll take my chances without.

for instance, Canadian-built cars are counted as "made in the USA" for tax purposes

Do you have a clue about the former auto pact, or the FTA, or NAFTA, or really, anything at all?

Maybe you've heard of softwood lumber or beef cattle. Perhaps you're aware that the US continues to violate its trade agreements with Canada with wild abandon. Perhaps you don't give a shit how many Canadians lose their livelihoods as a result. Perhaps you think that everything in the world should be arranged for the profit and enjoyment of the USofA, eh?

Americans SHOULD get an easier time of migration there than someone from Bangladesh or Australia, but no, Yanks (Canada's "free trade partners") have to wait for years to get in and get utterly raped in the process.

The fees charged to immigrants for "processing" applications -- which progressive Canadians have opposed since they were first instituted, actually because of the negative impact they have on people who are NOT USAmericans and who tend to be considerably less wealthy than USAmericans, all other things (i.e. their qualifications for immigrating) being equal -- are the same for all applicants.

In point of fact, USAmericans DO have an easier time of immigrating to Canada. The ratio of Cdn visa offices/officers to population is many times higher in the US than in, say, Bangladesh, and USAmerican applicants have considerably greater access to Canadian immigration services, and this makes a significant difference in terms of ease of immigrating.

But you're right. We don't assign "quotas" to nationals of certain countries the way the US does. We don't regard race, religion, country of origin and that sort of thing as suitable criteria for discriminating among immigration applicants. (And we actually regard the diversity of our population, and the contribution of immigration to that diversity, as an asset.) Gosh, sorry about that.

Canada is an option if you're rich and don't mind some bureaucrat prying into the intimate details of your entire adult life. For most gay Americans, that makes it unacceptable.

And that is simply utter nonsense, in so many ways.

To begin with, OF COURSE the "bureaucrats" "pry into" the past of immigration applicants. This is how we try to avoid admitting war criminals, drug lords, and otherwise undesirable applicants. (And how we try to avoid damaging the important trading relationship with the US, by demonstrating what good, security-conscious neighbours we are.) "Undesirable" has NOT included, for a very long time, "homosexual". This is another way in which we are different from the US.

Some 15 years ago, before applicants could be sponsored for immigration by their same-sex partners in Canada (which they may now be), I had experience, as one of those dreadful gouging immigration lawyers, with the attitude of visa offices toward obviously gay/lesbian applicants. One of my clients in the US was petrified about the "prying" that she expected at her interview. (The visa officer had already guessed that a highly qualified middle-aged professional woman wasn't wanting to come to Canada for the weather.) In actual fact, she was offered a work permit immediately while her application was processed, and she was asked NO questions about her sexual orientation or personal situation. And she was bowled over by the difference between the Canadian attitude she was greeted with at the visa office and what she experienced in the US.

There are nasty apples in every bureaucratic barrel, and Canada is not exempt from that rule. But your diatribe against Canadian immigration policy and procedure, apart from being ethnocentric in the extreme, is just silly.

[Brian_Expat]

32. That's just plain wrong. . .

USAmericans DO have an easier time of immigrating to Canada.

Nope, wealthy Americans have an easier time of immigrating to Canada than wealthy Bangladeshis.

But average Americans and average Bangladeshis -- neither of whom have tens of thousands of dollars in cash for expensive lawyers and required "investments" in the country -- have an equal chance. None at all.

[iverglas]

38. this is appalling

Your behaviour in this thread is beyond the pale.

I'm not interested in reading the words of someone bent on twisting the meaning of what anyone else says, and then pretending to reply to something that was never said. It's a behaviour that is far too common in general among certain elements at DU, and I don't plan to play the game.

Just to conclude, your continuing assertion that wealth is the criterion for immigration to Canada is what is "just plain wrong" here. As in: false. As you know. You absolutely know that the "investor" category is ONE class of immigrant, and that a majority of the immigrants to Canada who are not either family-class (sponsored) or refugees are independent applicants ("skilled worker" category).

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pub/immigration2004.html#1700

Skilled workers - 56,611
Business immigrants - 4,176
Provincial/territorial nominees - 2,354
Live-in caregivers - 813
Total Economic Class (including dependants) - 63,954

Fewer than 7% of "economic class" immigrants (i.e. who were not sponsored family members, not refugees and not admitted for humanitarian reasons) were in the business class. Almost 9 out of 10 were independent skilled workers.

A total of about 221,000 immigrants were admitted in 2003. (The above figures are from the annual report issued last week.) That is approximately equivalent to the US admitting nearly 2,000,000 immigrants. In fact, as I understand it, the actual figure was slightly more than half that.

(Obviously, no straight-up comparison is particularly useful, since the factors that influence immigration policy are legion, and the circumstances in the two countries vary widely. The point remains that Canada has a relatively open immigration policy.)

The fact is that Canada is not a large country, population- and economy-wise, and that when we accept 56,000 people in the independent skilled worker category (and that includes their dependants), i.e. applicants who are likely to integrate into the economy successfully, and as many of them as it is determined are likely to be able to do that, not everyone is going to qualify, and not everyone who wants in is going to get in. Fuckin' duh.

I just can't see why that fact calls for the kind of abusive disinformation you've been spewing.

[Brian_Expat]

44. God save me from the hypersensitive crowd

Canada is not a welcoming place for average gay Americans. The statistics PROVE it.

If you're rich, with lots and lots of cash, and an advanced degree, yeah, Canada is great.

If you're not, FORGET about it.

Those are the facts.

You don't like them, but that's the situation. Why not try applying under the Canadian system yourself sometime with your present economic statistics?

I fail it -- and I'm a Canadian. I'm not rich enough and don't have the advanced education required.

If I fail it, most gay Americans fail it too.

[iverglas]

50. an amazement

"Why not try applying under the Canadian system yourself sometime with your present economic statistics?"

How much more obvious could it have been, from my posts, that I AM CANADIAN. Why the fuck would I apply to immigrate to Canada?

But given your question, how much more obvious could it be that you don't even bother reading what other people write, except for the purpose of twisting it to suit your purposes?

"I fail it -- and I'm a Canadian. I'm not rich enough and don't have the advanced education required."

I pass it. I have two degrees -- undergraduate arts and a professional degree -- and over 25 years of experience in my current highly skilled occupation (in fact, I'm about the most skilled/qualifed person in the country in this occupation), as well as over a decade in legal practice, and some assets.

But Canada doesn't need workers in either category, so there's simply no guarantee that I would be one of the people selected. And while I could liquidate assets for cash, I am *not* a "business" person and I do not have sufficient cash to qualify as an investor. So do I whine that Canada would not welcome me BECAUSE I'M A WOMAN? I'm not so dim or disingenuous. Canada would be rejecting me BECAUSE I DIDN'T QUALIFY FOR IMMIGRATION.

Canada is not a welcoming place for average gay Americans. The statistics PROVE it.

What the statistics PROVE is that Canada does not accept very many independent skilled worker class immigrants in a year. That has precisely fuck all to do with how "welcoming" Canada is for anyone.

If you're rich, with lots and lots of cash, and an advanced degree, yeah, Canada is great. If you're not, FORGET about it.

And once again, that's FALSE, and you know it. Unless you really haven't bothered to acquire even the most rudimentary knowledge about the Canadian immigration system, despite it having been presented to you over and over.

If you have cash ***OR*** occupational qualifications and experience, you MAY qualify for immigration. If you qualify, you MAY be admitted. Your sexual orientation will have NOTHING to do with whether you are admitted or not.

"If I fail it, most gay Americans fail it too."

If you fail it, MOST PEOPLE IN THE WORLD FAIL IT. So what's your point, again?

And what exactly is your PROBLEM? Are you seriously suggesting that Canada SHOULD admit a few hundred thousand USAmericans (gay or otherwise) next year?

[Dez]

8. Mexico before Canada??

I think not! Canada is a democracy, Mexico isn't. Canada's immigration is no more difficult than USA's. Canada is the much better choice. I'd be up there now, if I wasn't disabled, and had the good job. And I know the language. And Vancouver weather is just like Seattles, one of the most livingist city in the states..

[Brian_Expat]

23. You've just proven one of my points. . .

. . . your disability makes you unable to immigrate.

If you're not rich, 100% healthy, young, with a history of a high income AND a great credit score, forget Canada.

That shuts out the vast majority of gay Americans, by the way, especially considering how Bush wrecked the economy and took away the financial resources many built up during the boom of the 1990s.

[SnowBack]

15. Go to Mexico and have no rights as a Gay person... eom

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[foreigncorrespondent]

11. Brain...

...can I ask what effort you put into the LGBT community back home in the U.S? I am only asking because you titled your post with "As a gay American who lives abroad and has the right to live in Canada..."

You admit you are living abroad, yet you are telling others to put some effort in, so I am wondering what effort you contribute?

No I am not looking for a fight, seriously! It just struck me as funny when I read your post.

As an Aussie with an American partner, I do put a lot of time and effort into the LGBT community in the U.S. Unfortunately, the LGBT community is very lazy when it comes to actually working to gain rights, so no matter how many steps forward Sapph and I take, we ultimately end up taking 10 steps back with each process.

People want everything handed to them on a silver platter. And no, I am not talking about the queer DUers. People here realize it does take hard work to achieve anything.

[Brian_Expat]

20. I took a job abroad. . .

. . . and was lucky.

I am lucky in a few areas.

I also lived in the USA until last year, and fought a number of battles, including the Dean campaigns in Vermont and for president. I think I've got good credentials on that front! ;)

But I want Americans to take a realistic view of the present situation via-a-vis Canada. Most of what you read about how "easy" it is to get in is wrong. It's a MASSIVE pain in the ass, requires documentation that's often impossible to get, and if you don't have tens of thousands of dollars, forget about the process. That's the reality.

Canada is NOT the magical utopia everyone insists it is, unless you've got tens of thousands of dollars in unencumbered cash sitting around.

[foreigncorrespondent]

31. I understand that!

Brian, you know Sapph's and my situation, so of course talking to me about immigration is truly mute. Sapph and I have covered every base, when it comes to immigration for the U.S, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. (And I am probably forgetting about other parts of the world we have looked at over the years.) But, with that said, Canada isn't as bad as you are making out either.

Immigration to any country takes money and time to achieve, unless you want to claim refugee status. And for Australia that means refugee camps, thanks to the religious wacko we have has leader.

But I still find it terribly funny that you yourself are an expat of the U.S. and yet are telling people right here on DU to stay and work with in their community. Tell it to the larger LGBT audience, because I feel most on DU have done their fair share of working for the greater good.

People have a great many reasons to want to immigrate to another country (Canada included.) And the LGBT community have the biggest reasons of all. With Bush* having the control he will have next year, you know that working with in the community isn't going to do a damn bit of good.

You know that the FMA is merely a tactic to see if they will be able to change the Constitution. You also know Musgrave has stated she will reintroduce another FMA next year. And on top of that, Bush* has stated that next year the FMA will pass. Once that happens, what do you think it will be like for queers in the U.S? Remember the FMA represents nothing more than federally sanctioned hate against a group of citizens. Instead you should be telling that group of citizens, begin the immigration process now if you can, before it is too late. If Canada is your choice, then so be it, I wish you all the best of luck.

I would also like to mention that apart from Canadians I have met here on DU, and another Canadian I had a good friendship with through AOL many years ago, every Canadian I have met in person have left a very sour taste in my mouth. Canada is not my favorite country in the world, but if I see it getting knocked for no good reason, I will defend it.

[Brian_Expat]

37. You're misunderstanding my intent

I still find it terribly funny that you yourself are an expat of the U.S. and yet are telling people right here on DU to stay and work with in their community

I'm not telling people to stay.

I'm telling people that, if their only perceived option is Canada, they should stay and fight and not waste their time with CIC. They're not going to get in if they're not rich and willing to open their kimonos.

[foreigncorrespondent]

43. Oh now that isn't exactly true!!!

I know of several GAY people, who aren't rich, and have immigrated to Canada.

[Brian_Expat]

45. Depends on your definition of "rich"

But if you have tens of thousands of dollars in cash to spend on lawyers and the required immigration fees and investment, you're "rich" in my book.

I've already noted that people who immigrate under a partner or marriage visa don't qualify in my assessment.

Why not go and take the Canada points test? Remember you'll need about $25,000 Canadian in unencumbered (i.e. not borrowed) cash.

Go take the test, then come back.

[iverglas]

51. why do you keep stating what is false?

"But if you have tens of thousands of dollars in cash to spend on lawyers and the required immigration fees and investment, you're 'rich' in my book."

An applicant in the skilled workers category DOES NOT NEED FUNDS TO INVEST. Why do you keep saying that s/he does?

The application fee is $550 for the applicant, $550 for a partner, and $150 per child. If the application is accepted, the landing fee is $975 per adult. And as I have pointed out, progressive Canadians have always opposed those fees, which are infinitely more of a hardship for people who are *not* USAmericans.

Applicants do NOT need to retain lawyers, although it is not unreasonable at least to consult a lawyer before submitting an application, if only to avoid wasting the application fee on an application that is unlikely to succeed; and to ensure, if one proceeds, that one is submitting the best possible application and documentation. Would you buy a house without consulting a lawyer?

"Why not go and take the Canada points test?"

I'd taken the test. I took it again, for you:

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/skilled/assess/index.html

My score is affected by the fact that I am highly qualified and educated, and fluently bilingual, *but* am over 49 and have a partner with no post-secondary education and (for the purposes of pretending to be an immigrant) have no Canadian education or experience or family ("adaptability").

Category -- possible points -- my points

1 Education -- 25 -- 25
2 Language Ability -- 24 -- 24
3 Work Experience -- 21 -- 21
4 Age -- 10 -- 4
5 Arranged Employment -- 10 -- 0
6 Adaptability -- 10 -- 0
Total Score 100 -- 74

Pass Mark
The pass mark as of September 18, 2003 is 67.


Even with my handicaps (age, and an equally aging ex rock musician partner), I qualify. An English speaker without my second language skills (-8 points), who was younger (+6 points) and/or had a more qualified partner (+3 to +5 points), would also qualify.

That does not mean that s/he would be admitted. If more people who are qualified apply than can be admitted under the annual target figures, not everyone is going to be admitted.

"Remember you'll need about $25,000 Canadian in unencumbered (i.e. not borrowed) cash."

Can you point to where this requirement is stated, or tell us where you're getting it from?


note: Something that others might want to keep in mind is that skilled tradespeople are in demand in Canada, and that a three-year trade certificate or apprenticeship gets 22 points (two-year gets 20), where a PhD gets 25.

[Brian_Expat]

62. Your facts are, as usual, wrong

You need thousands to pay the government in fees.

You need thousands more to pay lawyers to prepare your application.

You need hundreds for the police clearances.

You need hundreds to pay the doctor for a medical exam.

AND you need at LEAST $10,000 in "settlement funds" that are free and clear of debt.

I don't know about you, but having about $20,000 to cover all those costs, free and clear, strikes me as pretty friggin' wealthy -- especially if you're in your thirties.

You've got theory. I've got friends who have gone through the process and been rejected -- for not being rich enough, amongst other categories.

Canada is not an option for the average gay American.

[iverglas]

69. what is wrong with you?

You need thousands to pay the government in fees.

An applicant needs EXACTLY WHAT I SAID an applicant needs: $550 per adult applicant to apply, $975 per adult applicant for landing.

For two adult applicants, even with no children, this would indeed amount to "thousands" -- $3,050, to be exact (a little over US$2,500) -- only $1,100 of which would be payable at the time of applying and lost if the application were unsuccessful; the remaining $1,950 is payable only if the person immigrates to Canada.

For a single applicant, it would amount to $1,525 in TOTAL, which IS NOT "thousands". (It's about US$875 these days, in fact.)

You state that my "facts are, as usual, wrong".

You have not demonstrated the wrongness of "my" facts in any respect, ever. And yet you make a statement that is tantamount to an accusation of lying -- and then falsely state that an applicant needs "thousands to pay the government in fees". What is wrong with you?

You need thousands more to pay lawyers to prepare your application.

Yeah, and I need a Rolls Royce. People immigrate to Canada without lawyers all the fucking time.

You need hundreds for the police clearances.

This would appear to be a matter between a USAmerican and his/her USAmerican police services. I have no idea what they charge for police clearances.

Perhaps you are suggesting that Canada should "welcome" people without requiring evidence that they are not convicted serial murderers?

You need hundreds to pay the doctor for a medical exam.

Well, I guess those things aren't cheap in the US. Again, perhaps you are suggesting that Canada should "welcome" people with, oh, untreated tuberculosis? (Last I heard, just fyi, testing positive for HIV was not a bar to admission; I discussed it with the then-director of Canada's immigration health services many years ago, and she was adamant that HIV status should not be a consideration.)

And of course, the medical exams and police clearances are requested ONLY of people whose applications are in the approval process. Applicants who do not pass screening are NOT required to obtain such things.

AND you need at LEAST $10,000 in "settlement funds" that are free and clear of debt.

Actually, the amount needed by a single person settling in the largest urban centres (i.e. the maximum amount) is $7,238. That is not a regulatory or statutory requirement, and is not applied across the board. And the obvious fact is that a person WITH ARRANGED EMPLOYMENT, immigrating from the US (i.e. in possession of readily recognized qualifications, with no language difficulties, etc.) is not likely going to be rejected on this basis.

It is also difficult to imagine how anyone in the US with the qualifications and experience that are needed in order to be accepted would not be able to present evidence of US$6,000 in liquid assets. Not having that kind of cash accessible is more likely the result of not being qualified as an immigrant for entirely different reasons.

Edit: I checked the source you provided in your other post, and it differed from mine; both were private, not governmental. And in both cases, the maximum figure cited applies to only the largest urban centres in the country; from your source, the settlement funds required of someone destined to a community of just under half a million -- say, London or Kitchener or Oshawa Ont, or Victoria BC or Halifax, is $6,563 -- about US$5,500.

And NO, this is NOT "the law". It is policy, and it is discretionary, and again, it is my experienced opinion that someone with assured employment is not likely to be rejected on this basis.

You've got theory. I've got friends who have gone through the process and been rejected -- for not being rich enough, amongst other categories.

Actually, you've got allegations of anecdotes, from all I've seen.

"Amongst other categories" ... would that mean something like "for not being qualified"?

Are you actually saying that you know someone who was offered an immigrant visa if s/he could present evidence of settlement funds, and was rejected because s/he could not?

I don't know about you, but having about $20,000 to cover all those costs, free and clear, strikes me as pretty friggin' wealthy -- especially if you're in your thirties.

Even if we accept your statement of the costs -- no, it isn't very frigging wealthy at all. Not for people with the qualifications and experience required in the first place.

Canada is not an option for the average gay American.

Damn right. Just as Canada is not an option for the average GAY, STRAIGHT, BLACK, WHITE, MALE, FEMALE, MUSLIM, JEWISH, RC, BAPTIST AND ATHEIST citizen of any other country in the world. Just as the US is not an option for 99.999% of the people in the world, including Canada.

http://www.acs-aec.ca/Polls/Poll15.pdf

In 2001, 30,203 Canadians moved to the US (with what status, I don't know). That's just about exactly 1/1000 of the Canadian population. So I guess the US is not an option for 99.9% of Canadians.

30,000 Canadians are about 1/10,000 of the US population.

In 2001, 5,894 USAmericans moved to Canada. That's about 1/50,000 of the US population.

But it's about 1/5,000 of the Canadian population.

USAmericans immigrating to Canada make up about twice as much of the Canadian population, each year, as Canadians immigrating to the US make up of the US population.

Huh. Define "welcoming".

But never mind, you've equivocated on the meaning of the word long enough, I wouldn't expect you to stop now.

[Brian_Expat]

90. lol

30,000 Canadians are about 1/10,000 of the US population.

In 2001, 5,894 USAmericans moved to Canada. That's about 1/50,000 of the US population.

You need to do better math. The US population is about 280 million. And the more relevant number is total Canadians to total US.

Canada, with 30 million people, 30,000 south, or about 1/1000 of its population. The US, on the other hand, didn't even have its visas matched by the Canadian authorities. That means that, per capita, Canada would need to issue 280,000 visas just to reciprocate and not be a net consumer of US immigration per capita.

Heck, I'd settle for simple reciprocity, given the sweet deal that Canadians receive versus citizens of other countries. It's not just a problem vis-a-vis Canada either, the EU also consumes far more permanent resident slots in the US, per capita, than it provides to US citizens.

For Canada to then insist it's protecting its own interests isn't dishonest -- it's living off American largesse whilst refusing to reciprocate to American citizens, and largely getting away with it. Of course, that policy is far from fair, but I'm sure you're going to produce the same tired rationales to defend the byzantine Canadian visa system, all the while insisting that it's wonderful.

[iverglas]

96. nothing wrong with the math

(Spending most of a day marching and clapping and shouting for justice kinda takes it out of you when you're old enough to be losing points on the CIC's scoring system, and I'd been recovering while trying to catch up on work that had been put off. My math was nonetheless impeccable, and I'm quite aware of the population of the US. The US Census Bureau put it at 281,421,906 on April 1, 2000 -- http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/01statab/pop.pdf . I go with a rough 285,000,000, not your 280,000,000, today.)

30,000 Cdns accepted by the US are about 1/10,000 of the US population (I am obviously being very approximate; the precise figures would make a very slightly larger fraction). They are about 1/1,000 of the Cdn population.

6,000 USAmericans accepted by Canada are about 1/50,000 of the US population. (Yup, 5,894 = 1/48,354.258 of 285,000,000. Big important difference there.) And about 1/5,000 of the Cdn population. What aren't you following here?

USAmericans admitted to Canada in 2003 represented just under 0.02% of the Cdn population. Canadians admitted to the US represented just over 0.01% of the US population.

That means that, per capita, Canada would need to issue 280,000 visas just to reciprocate and not be a net consumer of US immigration per capita.

That's close to 1% of the Canadian population per year -- and about 50,000 more than our total annual immigration targets in recent years. We'd be more than doubling our immigration intake, with the excess consisting of USAmericans alone, for some bizarre reason. And just think. In not much more than ten years, an additional 10% of the Cdn population would have been born in the USA. Now there's a way to build a diverse and unique society.

And the more relevant number is total Canadians to total US.

Yes indeed, it just makes ENORMOUS sense to compare immigration levels on an absolute basis. It makes ENORMOUS sense for a country with a population 1/9 of the other country's -- and a GDP even smaller, proportionately -- to have a policy to admit the same number of immigrants as the larger country each year.

And if we were to strike this bargain with every country in the world the game of musical airline seats would be, well, kinda unmanageable. But why not? ethnocentric/racist preferences for USAmericans? I think not, thank you all the same.

Of course, since fewer Canadians presumably want to emigrate to India than Indians who want to immigrate to Canada ... well, we'd probably only be getting a couple of hundred Indians a year at most. All the more room for those nice USAmericans, eh?

Think you might meet some resistance from the corporate interests that WANT the Canadians in question?

Heck, I'd settle for simple reciprocity, given the sweet deal that Canadians receive versus citizens of other countries.

You're the one boasting of being a citizen of the US. Go do something to get this alleged and totally unproven and utterly nonsensical "sweet deal" revoked, why doncha?

And you have yet to establish that the meaning you assign to "reciprocity" has any relevance here. Accepting nearly twice as many immigrants from the US as the US accepts from Canada, on a per capita basis, strikes me as pretty damned reciprocal of us, your silly math notwithstanding.

It's not just a problem vis-a-vis Canada either, the EU also consumes far more permanent resident slots in the US, per capita, than it provides to US citizens.

hahaha. This would be why citizens of the following countries ARE NOT eligible for the green-card lottery:

CANADA, CHINA (mainland-born), COLOMBIA, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, EL SALVADOR, HAITI, INDIA, JAMAICA, MEXICO, PAKISTAN, PHILIPPINES, RUSSIA, SOUTH KOREA, UNITED KINGDOM (except Northern Ireland) and its dependent territories, and VIETNAM. Persons born in Hong Kong SAR, Macau SAR and Taiwan are eligible.

and citizens of these countries ARE eligible:

EUROPE

Albania Lithuania Andorra Luxembourg Armenia Macau Special Administrative Region Austria Macedonia, the Former Yugoslav Republic Azerbaijan Malta Belarus Moldova Belgium Monaco Bosnia and Herzegovina Netherlands (including components and dependent areas overseas) Bulgaria Northern Ireland Croatia Norway Cyprus Poland Czech Republic Portugal (including components and dependent areas overseas) Denmark (including components and dependent areas overseas) Romania Estonia San Marino Finland Serbia and Montenegro France (including components and dependent areas overseas) Slovakia Georgia Slovenia Germany Spain Greece Sweden Hungary Switzerland Iceland Tajikistan Ireland Turkey Italy Turkmenistan Kazakhstan Ukraine Kyrgyzstan Uzbekistan Latvia Vatican City Liechtenstein

Canada, of course, does not have targets or quotas for immigrants from any country. So the only way that you could get the "reciprocity" you seek would be for Canada to adopt the racist structure of the US immigration system. I'll just keep saying "no thanks", if it's all the same to you. I just can't think of a reason why I'd want to increase the number of US citizens admitted to Canada at the expense of applicants from anywhere else in the world.

Canada and the US are traditional countries of immigration. European countries, until recently when they began to be countries of immigration vis-à-vis non-"western" countries, are traditional countries of emigration. What on earth did you think all that old world / new world stuff was about?

For Canada to then insist it's protecting its own interests isn't dishonest -- it's living off American largesse whilst refusing to reciprocate to American citizens, and largely getting away with it.

What the fuck are you whining about now? You're suggesting that it is to Canada's advantage for the US to suck off skilled Canadian workers whose skills (and good health) have been acquired at huge expense to Canadian society?? What nonsense is this?

Canadian emigration to the US is too obviously contrary to Canada's interests. But Canada, being the free and democratic society it is, does not place exit controls on its citizens.

So the US benefits from Canada-to-US immigration, just as Canada benefits from US-to-Canada immigration. And both countries admit precisely as many people from the other country as it appears to them to be in their own interests to admit. Or maybe you really did think that US immigration policy was designed for Canada's and Canadians' benefit ...

[daharyn]

122. I read this thread w. interest.

Tried the test, I got an 80. (advanced degrees and youth in my favor, but language skills are imperfect). I'm not seriously looking to make the move, but thank you very much for posting that link! It was very useful, and I'll pass it on to some people I know in the NYC area that are serious about making the move.

Oh, and as a dyke in her twenties, I have No Wealth to speak of. Funny, the test didn't ask me one question about my assets! :) Seemed a lot more interested in my work history :)

[foreigncorrespondent]

56. Brian...

...I'm not a rich person. In fact I am just making ends meat. I have had to begin saving two months in advance a little money each week, just so I can buy Sapph a nice Christmas present this year.

Because of the life I live, I do not exactly hang around or associate myself with people who might have tens of thousands of dollars to spend on immigration.

You see what I am saying? I don't know a single person with that kind of money. The people I know who have immigrated to Canada over the years didn't need that kind of money to get there.

By the way, I have taken the test and NOWHERE has it ever said during that test that I need that kind of money.

I have read up on a lot of immigration for different countries. I know how much money it would take Sapph and I to have, in order to get her here to Australia. I also know how money it would take if we were to immigrate to Canada under an INVESTMENT visa. Guess what? From what I remember that is the ONLY visa which $10k is needed.

I suggest in stead of telling me to go take the points test, you go take it again. I also suggest you read up on Canadian immigration. Then, I suggest you come here and apologize to the Canadians on this board for dissing their country so bad.

[Brian_Expat]

63. Here's the law.

I'll wait for YOUR apology.

http://www.canadavisa.com/documents/nsf.htm

The following are the figures that the Independent applicant chapter of the Immigration SELECTION AND CONTROL manual state as required settlement funds. Notice that the values vary depending on the population of the intended area of residence, as well as the size of the family. The values all refer to Canadian dollars. 

Note that the minimum settlement funds for a single person to settle in Toronto or another major city are about $10K.

That's the law, which you're obviously unclear on.

As for apologising to the Canadians, I am a Canadian. I am telling American gays that Canada isn't an option unless you have the settlement funds, fees for the lawyers, and fees for the application.

Obviously, you have not looked into the process.

I HAVE.

I'll appreciate you actually doing some examination of the process -- such as the REQUIRED SETTLEMENT FUNDS I highlighted, which you must bring in to invest, before calling me a liar or demanding I apologise for telling the truth about one of my countries of citizenship.

Until the system changes, the average Yankee gay person isn't getting in under the independent class.

Oh, sure, you could do the investor class too. That requires at least $500,000 to get in, and is a program for the fabulously wealthy, not just the sort of person who would have $20K sitting around for lawyers, fees, and settlement funds.

[foreigncorrespondent]

68. You will be waiting a long time...

...before I will apologize for something I haven't actually done wrong.

Brian, I have been right through the official Canadian Immigration Web site, not once, but several times. (http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/index.html) So as for your telling me I haven't actually looked into the process let me just say that you don't know what you're talking about, and it's appallingly presumptuous of you to make such assumptions. And not that I owe YOU any justifications or explanations for YOUR information, you happen to be dead wrong.

By the way, in this one thread alone you have claimed that you are an American, and a Canadian. Tell me, Brian, which are you? Were you born in the U.S.? Were you born in Canada? If I held a citizenship from another country I would be saying that I am Australian but hold duel citizenship with Canada.

And not once in any of my posts have I said that you are a liar! Go back and read what I have said before accusing me of things. How dare you!

[Brian_Expat]

74. You said no investment is necessary

I just proved you wrong. You need a minimum of $10K in unencumbered cash to invest when you migrate, in addition to the thousands more consumed by the process itself -- an attorney and also the fees the government charges (and won't repay if you "fail" their test).

Now I don't know about you, but to me, having about $25K in unemcumbered cash washing around to gamble on an arbitrary visa process strikes me as pretty friggin' wealthy.

[iverglas]

78. more false statements

"Now I don't know about you, but to me, having about $25K in unemcumbered cash washing around to gamble on an arbitrary visa process strikes me as pretty friggin' wealthy."

Funny how you haven't got around to responding to the PROOF I presented that a single individual will invest Cdn$550 in a visa application (about US$450) -- plus lawyer's fees IF s/he chooses to retain a lawyer.

(If the lawyer retained is Canadian -- as the lawyer retained by a wise applicant would be -- s/he is NOT an "attorney", unless s/he practices in Quebec.)

NO ONE gambles "about $25K" on ANY visa process.

Cdn$975 is paid AFTER the application is APPROVED, for the immigrant visa. There is NO gamble involved. An immigrant visa is not a lottery ticket -- it is a RIGHT to immigrate to Canada.

Fees paid to third parties for police clearances and medical examinations are paid AFTER the application is APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE, i.e. when it has been decided that a visa WILL BE issued if the applicant's medical/criminal status is acceptable.

Your statement that "having about $25K in unemcumbered cash washing around to gamble on an arbitrary visa process" means that someone is wealthy would be meaningful IF IT WERE TRUE that anyone needed to have $25K to GAMBLE on anything.

It isn't true. It's false.

[Brian_Expat]

93. Now you're just being hilarious

NOBODY with a successful application applies on their own. You know that well, as you were a part of the visa industry in Canada.

You need THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of dollars.

You need money for the application fees. About $3K in total.

You need money to pay the lawyers. About $7K in total.

You need money for flights and hotels for visa interviews, the security and background checks, and the medical exams. Figure about $5K in total.

You need at least $10K for "settlement funds." A family of three requires over $14K in settlement funds.

If you're trying to claim you only need $550 to successfully apply, you're plain wrong.

[iverglas]

97. I know what you know

and you know what I know, and you know that:

NOBODY with a successful application applies on their own. You know that well

is a false statement. But I do love:

as you were a part of the visa industry in Canada.

Ooooh, my goodness. Thank heavens I wasn't a trial lawyer, or you might have got really nasty.

In point of fact, I handled proportionately few independent immigrant applications, and those I did handle were generally of a "humanitarian" nature -- people who had been in Canada for varying periods of time ... or that middle-aged lesbian woman in the US southeast wanting to join her partner in Canada back before the same-sex partner rules existed ... and whom I was able to bring within the points system, with the cooperation of reasonable and decent people in the immigration system. Never handled a business or investor applicant in my life.

A majority of my clients were refugees. Like the various members of several families who fled persecution in Iraq under Saddam Hussein back when the US was busy arming him. Members of persecuted racial and ethnic minorities in Sri Lanka, Somalia, Ethiopia, Sudan; political refugees from Latin America and the Caribbean; women (and a man) subjected to sexual abuse by paramilitaries; just yer average common or garden non-USAmericans whom I happened to think were rather more deserving of my attention than the people you're wailing and gnashing your teeth about.

At the same time, I carried on a completely separate business as a skilled provider of totally different services, in order to support myself while providing cheap or free services to my immigrant and refugee clients. Oh, and free consulting to political and community groups ... like that gay & lesbian rights group ... . The legal fees I charged covered my business overhead, and maybe my groceries.

But I was just part of the "visa industry". Well if it makes you feel good to say it, you just feel free.

You need money for the application fees. About $3K in total.

Funny how you're still not citing any source for this false statement.

You need money for flights and hotels for visa interviews, the security and background checks, and the medical exams. Figure about $5K in total.

Good grief, now the costs of flights and hotels are the fault of the great Canadian electorate. I suppose that we should be opening visa offices in, oh, Moline, Illinois, now?

Last you said, the police clearances and medical exams each cost "hundreds". We're up to 5K now, with some apparently mighty first-class airline tickets and hotel rooms thrown in. Do I hear $10K?

If you're trying to claim you only need $550 to successfully apply, you're plain wrong.

And when you keep misrepresenting what I said and calling me wrong, you're a fair bit worse than that.

[foreigncorrespondent]

114. Well then...

...you must be pretty fucking wealthy, because you did the process!

Every bloody country has immigration laws. With those immigration laws comes the immigration process. With the immigration process comes some sort of cost. But you Brian and talking shit, when you say $25k to migrate to Canada and you know it.

You started this thread with the intentions of it being flame bait only. You have been dissing Canada constantly. How about I begin by dissing the country you have settled in now? Would you like it?

You have sat here and accused me of never once looking into the immigration process for Canada, yet you know Sapphs and my situation, and know damn well we looked at all avenues. So in my eyes your credibility doesn't hold much weight with me. You didn't get your facts right with me, and you certainly haven't gotten them right concerning Canadian immigration.

You have sat here and accused Canada of having a costly immigration system and tried to stop other Americans from going through the immigration process. Yet, you yourself have gone through the process and lived there.

Just because you weren't happy in Canada doesn't mean others won't be. What happened Brian, did you get burned in Canada? Because you know what? I got treated very badly from a Canadian back in 2001. This was the first Canadian I had ever met in person. And this person didn't leave me with such a good impression on the people of Canada. Still, I understand that not everyone would be the same as this person. Just like not all Americans are disgusting repukes. Just like, not all Americans deserve being called an "ugly American" when traveling. So stop dissing the country.

Move on from here, it isn't worth it. You have already lost my respect totally, and I was one who did admire you for a long time. How much more respect do you want to lose?

[Maple]

13. Gays can get

legally married in Canada, and are very welcome here.

We have hate speech laws, and absolute equality hiring laws.

We are a 'live and let live' sort of place.

[Ian David]

14. Canadian Compromise

What if Canada set aside a "Free-Immigration Zone," similar to a Free Trade Zone.

In this zone, they could relax immigration policies, and they could tax us without giving us the right to vote in federal elections, and limit our access to Canadian social programs. We'd be kind of like the Canadian equivalent to Guam.

It's just an idea. It might be stupid.

[Brian_Expat]

22. I suggested the same to an MP in Canada. . .

. . . but it will never happen.

The dirty secret of Canada's immigration program is that about 1/3 of people accepted go home within three years because they cannot find jobs. The idea is to make thousands of dollars in fees for the government (which they keep regardless of the outcome of the investigation) and get another $10K or more invested in the economy by the new migrant.

I love Canada -- and lived there for many many years -- but the immigration system is no panacea and it's not a viable option for the vast majority of gay immigrants from the USA who aren't wealthy. I can say this after urging friends to consider Canada -- and helping them with the often-infuriating process.

That the system "is as bad as the USA" is no excuse, considering the Canadian pretension that it's better than the USA.

The simple reality, my brothers and sisters, is that we're on our own and cannot count on anyone to "help us" beyond ourselves. The Canadian government's not going to do anything for you unless you've got LOTS of cash or you're married to a Canadian citizen.

We have to do something for the vast majority of American gay people who don't have the money to choose Canada's "immigration for the rich" program, but who are just average middle-class people. We need to build a society in the USA that we can be proud of, not just count on an unjustified belief in the unlimited benevolence of Canada or Australia or Europe.

[iverglas]

27. y'know

"... it's not a viable option for the vast majority of gay immigrants from the USA ..."

It's entirely possible to make that point without the bashing.

You're right -- emigration from the US is simply not an option for a majority of people, and there are indeed people who need to realize this.

An awful lot of USAmericans really do seem to think that they can just "move" somewhere else, and be welcomed and fast-tracked to citizenship. Just because they're USAmerican, I guess ... which also seems to be your thesis, in objecting to Canada's immigration policies.

Few countries in the world simply open their doors to anybody who wants to set up house. And the US is very definitely not one of any few there may be.

For pity's sake -- if you think finding a job here is difficult now, how easy is it likely to be if a few hundred thousand USAmericans just up stakes and settle in Vancouver? Immigration policies of all industrialized countries are closely tied to labour market policies and realities. Honestly, what would you expect?

Your notions about the ease with which Canadians can supposedly immigrate to the US are as nonsensical as your tirade against Canadian immigration policy. Have you heard about the lotteries that the US periodically runs, to acquire immigrants from countries for which the quota has not been met? (That is, generally speaking, white European countries, whose citizens are not as eager to move to the US as the US would apparently like.) Canadians enter the draw by the thousands. If they could simply apply and be accepted, why would they?

Just a note, btw. You say you're a US citizen living abroad (by which I gather you do not mean Canada, at present), have recently been living in the US, and have a right to life in Canada. You might want to note that if you do not have Canadian citizenship, you will likely have lost that right (although if your partner/spouse is Canadian, you could be re-sponsored). Permanent residence (the equivalent of US green card status) is regarded as abandoned if the individual is outside Canada for a certain period of time, unless permission has been given to return to Canada outside that time or an acceptable reason is provided for the extended absence.

[Brian_Expat]

33. I'm not "bashing."

I AM CANADIAN.

I ENCOURAGED MY AMERICAN FRIENDS TO CONSIDER IMMIGRATION.

THE CANADIAN SYSTEM IS NOT FAIR TO AMERICANS AND NOT A VIABLE OPTION FOR MOST GAY PEOPLE.

AND AS A CANADIAN I AM TIRED OF CANADA'S "LOOK AT US, WE'RE WONDERFUL" ATTITUDE WHEN IT'S NOT THE TRUTH.

[SnowBack]

40. Says more about your friends than Canada...

I had friends immigrate to Canada... Sure it's a hassle... Like moving to any other country...

But it does NOT take thousands and thousands of dollars.. Some people actually do it themselves, or with a paralegal instead of a lawyer... going both ways - into Canada, or into the U.S.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Brian_Expat]

21. Gay Americans aren't welcome in Canada. . .

. . . and Immigration Canada WILL deport you just like anyone else if you don't go through their process.

There's no special accommodation for gays or gay Americans.

So you'll wait in line, just like everyone else, unless you're one of the lucky few who gets married to a Canadian.

Again, unless you are rich, patient, and willing to invite a bureaucrat to examine your personal, financial and medical life, it's not a good option to apply under the present system.

[SnowBack]

28. Could you be any more inflammatory?

Your subjects are absolutely ridiculous...

"Gay Americans aren't welcome in Canada"? They're just as welcome as anyone else...

I don't know what your problem is with Canada... What other countries did you actually live in?

[Brian_Expat]

34. Canada has turned down seven gay friends of mine so far. . .

And as a Canadian myself, I find that apalling.

[iverglas]

41. you may find it apalling [sic]

but what is quite apparent is that you think that your gay friends should be getting SPECIAL TREATMENT.

What I can't figure out is why.

You cannot help but know that the capacity of Canada to process and integrate immigration applicants is limited. Who, exactly, should be bumped in favour of your friends? Displaced and refugee women and their children? Qualified independent applicants from other countries?

Well, yes, it seems that the latter is what you do think.

And again, what I can't figure out is why.

Oh well.

[Brian_Expat]

47. I don't demand special treatment -- I demand honesty

The reality is that Canada doesn't have a "generous and open system" -- it has a system where rich people can buy visas for themselves.

I am urging my American gay friends not to waste their time if they don't have piles of cash.

And I am also noting the utter irony of Canada's visa system treatment when Canadians get loads of special treatment from the US regime -- everything from expedited H1-Bs to ID cards to the elimination of the requirement to fill out temporary entry visas. It's about time that the immigration system was harmonized -- let Canadians wait two years for H1-Bs, etc. But that's a separate thread.

Everything you've said so far is only bolstering my case -- Canada is NOT a destination that the vast majority of American gay people should consider. And it's a not an open and welcoming country -- as your post also demonstrates.

[iverglas]

52. "Canadians get loads of special treatment from the US regime"

So the US immigration rules are racist. And you want us to take the blame for this??

I see no reason whatsoever why Canadians should get favourable treatment from the US.

I see no reason whatsoever why the US should get the benefit of the education and health care that Canadian emigrants have sucked out of the Canadian systems before leaving.

Clean up that part of your own backyard, if you're that concerned.

"It's about time that the immigration system was harmonized -- let Canadians wait two years for H1-Bs, etc."

Are you seriously suggesting that the US makes these provisions FOR THE BENEFIT OF CANADIANS? What a ludicrous assertion, if so. The US makes these provisions FOR ITS OWN BENEFIT. Purely and simply.

"everything from expedited H1-Bs to ID cards to the elimination of the requirement to fill out temporary entry visas."

Ah. So US citizens are required to obtain temporary entry visas when entering Canada? I don't think so. Again, your problem seems to be with the US immigration rules; in this case, it's certainly not with any non-reciprocal arrangements by Canada.

"bolstering my case -- Canada is NOT a destination that the vast majority of American gay people should consider."

And if you'd ever read anything I'd written at DU prior to this thread, you'd find that I have repeatedly said EXACTLY THE SAME THING. Immigrating to Canada is NOT a practical idea for most USAmericans OF ANY KIND. Canada, with 1/9 the population of the US, is not in a position to take in hordes of its citizens, any more than it is in a position to take in hordes of any other nation's citizens. And Canada, like any other comparable country in the world, requires that immigrants be qualified for and capable of integrating into the Canadian economy.

"And it's a not an open and welcoming country -- as your post also demonstrates."

And once again, you have failed to demonstrate that Canada is not "open and welcoming" by any standard other than the completely loony, impractical, self-interested standard that you apparently want to apply to Canada but that (despite all your talk of H1-Bs) plainly is not applied to any other country in the world.

On that point, and a very quick google, here's a little anecdote that seems to contradict most everything you're saying about the open arms extended by the US to Canadian workers; it contains some of the real facts about that situation. An excerpt:

http://home.earthlink.net/~pudgies/GreenCard/GreenCard.html

February 1999: Renewed TN and TD visas. Still thinking about the green card. But we figured that we should switch to H1-b work authorization and H-4 dependant status so that when we do decide, we can start working on it right away. The H-4 doesn't allow Lynda to work. Volunteering is okay, but nothing that threatens a US citizen's job. Canada extended work permits to dependents of US citizens with TN status in 2000(?) allowing them to work. It was hoped that the US would extend the same benefits to Canadians in the US, but that didn't happen. Oh well, more time for Lynda to work on the webpage and volunteer.

October 1999: Receive the H1-b and H-4. Now we can apply for that green card. There are three ways to apply. One is to get married to a US citizen, one is to get a 'national interest' waiver and the last is to have your employer tell the INS that all their workers are so valuable that they can't let a single one go. In fact, they can't fill all their employment vacancies, so they really must keep you. This involves a lot of steps, but we're raring to go.

November 1999: ABS lays people off. This pretty much negates our green card application because layoffs make it all a big lie! Thanks ABS. Our immigration lawyer tells us that we'll have to re-start the green card application under the other scenario available to us, but we should wait until the summer.

Imagine that; an immigration lawyer.

August 2000: Joe begins again the long process of the green card application. You apply to the INS for a green card but must pass 'labor certification' -- a process whereby you prove that you're the only person out there who can do the job you are doing. You are irreplaceable to the company precisely because you're the only one available to do your job. But this means submitting to the labor certification process. First you have to have a job description and your employer needs to create a job ad for your job (this doesn't sound good, does it?). They must also prove that they are paying you the prevailing wage for a job like yours. You must show all your education (order those transcripts!), and list all your employers so that both the state and the federal Department of Labor can check that you do in fact fulfill your job description. You must also submit letters of reference from your previous employers. ...

Horrible; what an invasion of privacy, eh?

AND JUST IMAGINE ... IF JOE'S PARTNER Lynda ...

Lynda's combination of skills, experience and education doesn't qualify her for her own employment authorization so she becomes a TD or dependent of the TN visa holder. The TN visa (a NAFTA visa) is good for one year and renewable indefinitely. You cannot apply for a green card on a TN visa because the process takes longer than a year.

... HAD BEEN a Lyndon ...

[Brian_Expat]

64. Oh yeah, Canada IS welcoming. . .

. . . of the wealthy.

As for the USA's immigration regime, Canada is all too happy to demand special conditions for its own citizens who cross the border -- but not return the favour to Americans.

But I waste my time here, I am going to get a load of hypersensitive bullshit rather than a balanced view of the situation.

And again, I don't understand how indicating that the US regime isn't perfect exonerates Canada. As far as I see, the example you cite is an exception to the norm, whereas Canada's poor treatment of US citizens is standard fare. I know. I was the one who had to apologize on behalf of Canada to several American friends of mine who were poorly treated.

[SnowBack]

54. Get your facts right before you post...

I feel sorry for your friends... I sure hope they do their own research and don't believe the things you're saying...

[Brian_Expat]

65. You're obviously clueless about the process. . .

. . . and still afraid to take the points test and settlement funds test, eh?

Why is that?

Because you'd fail Canada's test, just like I do. Of course, I have a Canadian passport, so I could get all huffy and insist that this is perfectly OK because, well, I'm one of the lucky ones.

It is a bit embarrassing though, since Canada touts itself internationally as a country open to immigration -- yet makes immigration virtually impossible. Even the UK's HSMP and Australia's immigration programs are more open, and are a far better option for gay friends of mine who are serious about heading to greener pastures. I've so far helped two friends apply under the HSMP law in Britain -- and they got in much faster.

And Britain's a crowded, small country, not a vast empty country in need of immigrants to keep the economy going like Canada.

[SnowBack]

120. I just tried out the HSMP test for England and....

If I had only an Associates Degree, had no graduate level work experience, made under 40,000 pounds per year and was under 28, my point total would have been FIVE...

If I was over 28, my point total would have been ZERO...

Doesn't seem very open to me...

So how is it possible that your friends got in on the Highly Skilled Migration Program if all they have is Associate Degrees? (And if they DO have Graduate Degrees, they would have passed the points test in Canada...)

And Australia just passed a totally anti-Gay-marriage law with the support of the Government AND the Labour party... So I'm not sure why it's some kind of Gay eden...

And Britain's a crowded, small country, not a vast empty country in need of immigrants to keep the economy going like Canada. Cite please?

[Brian_Expat]

123. England doesn't tout itself as a tolerant, immigrants' gay-friendly place

And HSMP visa is a visa for the rich.

Comparing Canada to the UK or US systems is like Robert Mugabe claiming he's not so bad by comparing himself to the Saudis and Russians.

[SnowBack]

121. Oh, and on the Canadian test, I scored 86

Guess I'm not too afraid of it... No I wouldn't fail Canada's test... Or England's test...

And just because we're pointing out where you're wrong, doesn't mean we're "huffy" and are "one of the lucky ones"...

[Brian_Expat]

125. Well if you don't fail England's test and you're over 28. . .

. . . you earn about $100,000 per year.

Which is nice, but far from average.

[iverglas]

29. what appalling bullshit

"Gay Americans aren't welcome in Canada. . .
. . . and Immigration Canada WILL deport you just like anyone else if you don't go through their process.

Uh, yeah. Just as it will deport heterosexual USAmericans who don't go through the process, or Roman Catholic USAmericans who don't go through the process, or short chubby Russian-speaking celibate female USAmericans who don't go through the process ...

This hardly supports the statement that Gay USAmericans AREN'T WELCOME in Canada. I would really think that you knew perfectly well what Maple meant by saying that they were "very welcome": they are not treated badly, or any differently from anyone else.

We really, actually do understand the value of diversity. A social climate that promotes diversity attracts the innovators, the drivers of modern economies, who tend to like to live in places where they have access to a wide range of cultural products and activities. "Gay culture" is one facet of that diversity, and while not all individual Canadians are fans of either diversity in general or gay culture (or non-anglo-christian culture) in particular, the social climate and social policy reflect that understanding.

[tuvor]

30. What Snowback and iverglas said.

It's incumbent on you to provide proof that "gay Americans aren't welcome in Canada". To the exclusion of everyone else, of course.

It occurs to me that gay Americans are a lot less welcome in much of America than they are in all of Canada.

[Brian_Expat]

36. That's simple

It's incumbent on you to provide proof that "gay Americans aren't welcome in Canada".

Canada turned down several gay friends of mine for immigration because they weren't rich enough.

That's not "welcoming to gays."

[SnowBack]

39. Maybe your friends have no skills, or education...

You seem to be obsessed with the idea of "rich"...

There are other ways to get into Canada other than the Entrepreneur category... Like education and experience...

[Brian_Expat]

48. My friends have associates degrees. . .

. . . but they weren't rich enough and with enough money to pay off the system and circumvent the points system.

One of them even had a job offer, as 1/2 of a very capable couple.

You can try and slander them because of Canada's immigration inequity, but that's a cheap tactic that does nothing but prove what I was saying earlier.

The AVERAGE AMERICAN has no chance of qualifying under Canada's "skilled immigrant" criteria.

[SnowBack]

55. TWO whole years of University? Wow....

Can't get into the U.S. with that either... They won't let you in without at least a Masters... Or you can prove you are published and "internationally known"...

So I guess the AVERAGE CANADIAN has no chance of qualifying under the U.S. "skilled immigrant" criteria...

Maybe your friends should go back and get a Bachelor of Arts Degree and then try to immigrate...

[Brian_Expat]

66. I have plenty of foreign friends who got into the USA with Associates. . .

. . . and the US doesn't have a points test, either.

Of course, if you're going to set the United States immigration system as some sort of Gold Standard, it's hard to brag about how open and welcoming Canada is.

It's so embarrassing to watch my Canadian bretheren respond to an obviously biased-towards-the-wealthy system with a combination of defensiveness, attacks on those people who aren't elite enough to "qualify," and comparisons with the Bush administration's system as proof it's "good enough."

I'm sorta done with the whole topic -- obviously people aren't interested in the reality of the situation. Hopefully I've made some Americans aware of the situation and they'll think twice before wasting thousands of dollars on applications that get rejected -- as several friends of mine did. THAT makes me wonder how much of the immigration fees are a racket for the Canadian government to collect millions from applicants.

[SnowBack]

116. That's amazing, since Associate Degrees are American

eom

[Brian_Expat]

118. Yeah, and NOBODY from outside the US gets a degree IN the US, do they? n/t

[tuvor]

42. WHAT???

You're assertions are totally whacked.

Sorry for being rude, but what you've said makes absolutely no sense.

Canada wouldn't let your gay friend in because the weren't "rich". BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T "RICH". NOT BECAUSE THEY WERE HOMOSEXUALS.

Sorry for screaming, but you said it yourself.

All you've proven is that we want people with $$$$$$. Gay or straight, show us the money.

[Brian_Expat]

49. You're being hysterical.

I said Canada isn't a choice for most gay Americans because it's not welcoming of average Americans.

If you're rich or have a Canadian spouse, it's an OK choice.

For the vast majority of gay Americans, Canada is not a good destination, since the government demands you have large sums of money and a very expensive education in order to even be considered. Most people don't have that.

[glarius]

26. Question: Why, if you feel this way have you urged so many friends to try

to immigrate to Canada?....to quote you in a couple of threads here: "I can say this after urging friends to consider Canada -- and helping them with the often-infuriating process."...."Trust me, my friends have gone through the process -- often at my urging.".....:shrug:

[Brian_Expat]

35. You're thinking backwards.

My post on this subject is as a result of my experience after encouraging Americans who are gay to consider Canada. Canada doesn't want average gay Americans.

You're not going to get in if you're not rich (i.e. have tens of thousands of unencumbered cash).

I'm encouraging US citizens who are gay not to get their hopes up.

And as a Canadian, I am annoyed that the rah-rah Maple Leaf crowd is so willing to dismiss this as a minor thing when, all things considered, it's a damning repudiation of Canada's self-developed reputation as a "welcoming place."

Canada needs to change its system. In the mean time, it's not a good choice for the average gay American -- unless he or she has a Canadian spouse.

[Brian_Expat]

57. For the Canadian Inferiority Complex, there's nothing I can do

For the rest of us who are actually INTERESTED in the subject material, go take the Canadian points test, read over the requirements for finances, and see if you pass.

Dollars to doughnuts, you likely don't.

Most of the Canadians scrambling to justify the system wouldn't pass the points test either. I know I don't.

[SnowBack]

58. Guess you don't bother with facts...

You haven't answered what most of us said on here.. Instead going over the same points over and over...

Enjoy England...

[glarius]

59. He's gone from Canada to U.S.A. to England......

Where to next....perhaps he's looking for utopia...I hope he finds it!!!

[Brian_Expat]

61. It's not about me

I'm lucky.

I have the ability to live in several countries, legally, as an accident of birth and being fortunate enough to fall into those circumstances.

The average American gay isn't going to get such luck.

Going personal is typical of the Canadian National Defensiveness syndrome, but it's not going to change the fact that Canada isn't an option for MOST gay Americans. Canada's system is a system specially designed for the elite, not Joe Average.

The QUEBEC system is much more fair, and certainly an option, if one speaks French or is willing to learn, but then again the Quebec provincial government has been a lot more open to immigration and real multiculturalism than Ottawa.

[glarius]

67. What's with this Canadian National Defensiveness syndrome?

And capitalized yet...You seem to have some sort of a chip on your shoulder about something....Everyone can find examples of problems everywhere, if you look for them....Go have a drink or something.....sheeesh....

[Brian_Expat]

75. It's a knee-jerk defence of the system simply because it's Canadian

Along with personal attacks on me simply for noting the system sucks, is unfair, and is in many ways worse than the American system. And that it's not a system the average gay American should waste any time with. All of which are easily proven.

[Brian_Expat]

60. You haven't provided any facts to respond to. . .

. . . just justifications for the elitist nature of the immigration system and some sop about how my average American gay friends must all be "unskilled."

Which proves my point that the average American gay person isn't going to get in under Canada's system.

[iverglas]

70. funny thing, eh?

Most of the Canadians scrambling to justify the system wouldn't pass the points test either. I know I don't.

I told you that *I* did, despite the points I lose for being old ... and you didn't have a damned thing to say.

I haven't actually noticed anyone "justifying" the system, at least as a whole. I've told you that I objected to the fee system from the moment it was introduced -- in my professional capacity, at the time.

As for the actual points system, I don't see how anyone could say it is NOT justified. Do you want to say that the US accepts Canadians (or anyone else) as immigrants who are not qualified to integrate into the economy / labour market? Please do. We'll all point and laugh.

[Brian_Expat]

73. lol

I find it sort of sad that Canadians who pride themselves on the tolerance of the country versus the bad old Bushies point to the US immigration system as a model and say since Canada's is no worse, that makes everything OK.

Do you want to say that the US accepts Canadians (or anyone else) as immigrants who are not qualified to integrate into the economy / labour market?

The Canadian points test does little to assess one's ability to integrate into the economy or labour market. My friends who were turned down all had excellent savings and the ability to work pretty much immediately -- in fact, one had a job offer.

As for the US system, the US is about to launch a guest worker program for people who earn very small wages indeed. So the supreme irony is that. . .

Yes, the US system will accept Canadians and others who probably shouldn't be in the USA, while the Canadian system can and does reject plenty of qualified people -- including gay people -- based on arbitrary criteria.

And you can't say for sure if you'd pass the points test or not. Trick question. The points for "personal suitability" are arbitrary and nobody knows how many they're going to get. Unless you're a 27-year-old millionaire with a PhD, you're not going to get in without points under that arbitrary category. Ooops.

[iverglas]

76. if only

I find it sort of sad that Canadians who pride themselves on the tolerance of the country versus the bad old Bushies point to the US immigration system as a model and say since Canada's is no worse, that makes everything OK.

If only ANYONE had done that.

If only it were not YOU making false statements about the US's "welcoming" of Canadian immigrants, and others rebutting those statements with facts.

If only what I said in the post that you responded to had in any way resembled what you evidently are attempting to portray me as having said.

The Canadian points test does little to assess one's ability to integrate into the economy or labour market. My friends who were turned down all had excellent savings and the ability to work pretty much immediately -- in fact, one had a job offer.

Dear me, yes, I was addressing the points system as it relates to qualifications and experience: the immigrant's ability to integrate into the economy / labour force.

I could have addressed the points system as it relates to the ability of the Canadian economy / labour force to accommodate new entrants. If I had, your anecdote might have been relevant.

Speaking as a Canadian resident, I must say that I'm not particularly eager to have someone with my qualifications (not that there is anyone, but let's pretend) admitted to Canada to compete with me for my work, quite possibly for lower prices.

Immigration policy is not an easy issue for progressives. It is not an issue that can be addressed, progressively, in isolation. The fact is that no country's immigration policy can be used as a panacaea for the woes of the rest of the world. A country like Canada needs to be actively engaged in finding solutions to the problems that make people want to leave their home countries -- as we are (not that we do enough) when we provide aid to countries like Rwanda and Mali and the Balkan states (which we are doing) to develop the capacities of their justice systems and strengthen the rule of law.

I'm sure Canada would be happy to run a few projects in the US to promote tolerance of diversity and the rule of law, and to enhance the protections that the society offers to vulnerable populations, if the US wished to invite us in. But the US is no different from Rwanda and Mali and the Balkan states in this respect: the job is essentially a do-it-yourself one that the experts can only offer advice for.

Canada's immigration policy is very definitely not, and cannot possibly be, a cure for the woes of the United States. Immigration to Canada is not a solution for more than a tiny percentage of the people who suffer injustice, and worse, in the US. It CAN'T be.

Unless you are proposing that Canada issue immigrant visas to a few million of your gay and lesbian USAmerican friends -- without requiring that they demonstrate that they are not problematic medically or criminally, of course -- I still haven't figured out what your point is.

And you can't say for sure if you'd pass the points test or not. Trick question. The points for "personal suitability" are arbitrary and nobody knows how many they're going to get.

Guess what? I already told you that I scored myself ZERO for personal suitability on the test. And I lost points for age. And I still got above a passing score. And I have acknowledged the discretionary nature of the points. (If you knew anything at all about immigration law, or law in general, you'd know that "discretionary" is not actually the same as "arbitrary".) If I may quote you: "Ooops".

Nobody has yet been able to figure out what your point is, as far as I can tell. A whole lot of complaining, and no basis for the complaints ever demonstrated.

But since you've obviously not read anything I've written so far, I don't imagine you're reading this either.

[iverglas]

77. what a fine example you do hold up: US "guest worker program"

As for the US system, the US is about to launch a guest worker program for people who earn very small wages indeed. So the supreme irony is that. . .

Yes, the US system will accept Canadians and others who probably shouldn't be in the USA, while the Canadian system can and does reject plenty of qualified people -- including gay people -- based on arbitrary criteria.

That's very entertaining, and demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of (refusal to acknowledge?) the nature of the US's immigration policy in particular, and "first-world" immigration policies in general.

Guest worker program? And you think this is going to accommodate fresh-faced young gay folks from Canada? Ask google for "guest workers", and see what you find.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040107-3.html
George W. Bush speaking here:

President Bush Proposes New Temporary Worker Program

... First, America must control its borders. ... We're matching all visa applicants against an expanded screening list to identify terrorists and criminals and immigration violators. ...

... Second, new immigration laws should serve the economic needs of our country. If an American employer is offering a job that American citizens are not willing to take, we ought to welcome into our country a person who will fill that job.

... Fourth, new laws should provide incentives for temporary, foreign workers to return permanently to their home countries after their period of work in the United States has expired.

... Employers who extend job offers must first make every reasonable effort to find an American worker for the job at hand. Our government will develop a quick and simple system for employers to search for American workers. Employers must not hire undocumented aliens or temporary workers whose legal status has expired. They must report to the government the temporary workers they hire, and who leave their employ, so that we can keep track of people in the program, and better enforce immigration laws.

... This program expects temporary workers to return permanently to their home countries after their period of work in the United States has expired. ... Some temporary workers will make the decision to pursue American citizenship. Those who make this choice will be allowed to apply in the normal way.

Far from accepting people who "shouldn't be in the USA", the US is quite obviously planning to do precisely what is necessary to drive US wages and working conditions even farther toward the bottom, in the interests of corporate "America", and not in the interests of anyone else.

(And just look at all the privacy those workers are going to enjoy in their relations with the state, and how easy it's going to be for them to get in ...)

By admitting people to work in jobs that "American citizens are not willing to take" -- i.e. for wages and in working conditions that US citizens will not accept -- the pool of cheap labour will be increased, and competition for even the worst jobs will rise.

Canada has long had "guest worker" programs. The "foreign domestic program" was targetted by women's rights activists and progressives many years ago, with the result that women who came to Canada temporarily under that program, to work as housekeepers and nannies, became eligible to apply for permanent residence -- not "in the normal way" (code language for "ha ha, try if you like, but try not to be too surprised when you're rejected"), but automatically after meeting the criteria of the program. The program continued to be criticized by women's rights activists and progressives, and has continued to be changed to be fairer to applicants.

We have agricultural (seasonal) guest worker programs, because Canadian students stopped being interested in spending their summers in the fields a few decades ago. I am not as familiar with that program, but it hasn't been the subject of huge unrest.

"Guest worker" programs in Europe, where they have existed for a long time, are widely regarded as racist, and unfortunately, because of the various social problems they cause, exacerbate racism.

Can you say "exploitation"? Are you sincerely asserting that an immigration policy devised by George W. Bush and his cronies is meant to be anything but exploitation?

[Brian_Expat]

91. Canadians would qualify under the US guest worker program

Further, it disproves your earlier (incorrect) claim that the United States doesn't accept foreign workers who aren't highly educated professionals.

Finally, the guest worker visas can be traded in for green cards after three years.

[iverglas]

95. crapola upon bullshit

Canadians would qualify under the US guest worker program

They just might ... and if you know of scads of Canadians who want to work for slave wages in menial positions in the households of the wealthy (what do you really think this program is all about?), well you be sure to tell them all about it.

Further, it disproves your earlier (incorrect) claim that the United States doesn't accept foreign workers who aren't highly educated professionals.

Perhaps you'd like to quote me. Or conversely, demonstrate that you aren't talking about apples and oranges. The US doesn't accept foreign workers who aren't highly educated professionals as applicants for permanent residence "in the normal way" any more than Canada does.

Canada, of course, DOES accept immigrants who aren't highly educated professionals. Check out the Live-in Caregiver Program (formerly called the Domestic Worker program):
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pub/caregiver/index.html

Here's the difference between that decades-old program and the proposed US program (emphasis added):

Your application for permanent residence in Canada will not be assessed on the basis of your financial situation, skills upgrading in Canada, volunteer work, marital status or the number of family members you have in your country of origin. However, you could be found ineligible for permanent residence if you, your spouse or common-law partner, or any of your family members have a criminal record or a serious medical problem.

Once you have received a favourable assessment on your application for permanent resident status, you may apply for an open work permit. This will allow you to take any job you wish until you are granted permanent resident status.

Individuals who are admitted to Canada "temporarily" as workers under this program ARE NOT assessed "in the normal way", as workers under the US's proposed "guest worker" program are to be.

Participants in this program are EXEMPT FROM the points system, and are NOT required to have "settlement funds", and may include their family members outside Canada in their applications.

Now there's some apples for your basket of fruit.

And when you say:

Finally, the guest worker visas can be traded in for green cards after three years.

you are just making yet another FALSE STATEMENT. The visas may be "traded in" for precisely bugger all. The individuals with those visas will be allowed to apply IN THE NORMAL WAY for immigration.

To begin with, at least as I understand it, the program has not even been established yet. How 'bout you get back to us in 3 or 4 years and let us know how many of them actually succeed?

Perhaps you'd like to put your money where your mouth is in the meantime. A small wager? My money's on a majority of the applicants being rejected.

Meanwhile, in Canada ...
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pub/immigration2004.html

2,699 people working in Canada under the Live-in Caregiver Program (and a number of their dependants) became permanent residents of Canada in 2003. The target for 2004 was 3,000. (The US would need to grant about 24,000 "guest workers" permanent residence in a year to be on a per capita par with Canada.)

[Brian_Expat]

124. lol

if you know of scads of Canadians who want to work for slave wages in menial positions in the households of the wealthy

The guest worker visas do not set limits on income. And yes, they can be used towards green card status like any other temporary renewable work permit -- including a T1.

Canada, of course, doesn't allow its equivalent of a T1 to be used towards residency in Canada. Why? Doesn't matter, I guess, because it's Canada.

[kayell]

71. I want to make sure I understand this correctly

Brian is saying that it is almost impossible for the average gay American to get into Canada based on the experiences of his 7 friends that were rejected. Yet it appears that they did not pass the points test? Do I have that right?

For those of you who know, what percentage of applicants who pass the points test are eventually accepted?

[Brian_Expat]

72. The points test is arbitrary

That's the dirty secret -- the agents can assign points based on "personal suitability" for which there are no guidelines.

When you take the test to assess yourself, you're assuming you'll get the average number of points that are assigned for suitability. But get someone who is in a bad mood and decides that you're less suitable because you're American, or like Britney Spears, or are wearing the wrong colour jacket, and BOOM. You fail because you don't have "enough points."

That's what happened to several friends of mine. . . they got a point below the pass mark due to the "personal suitability" criteria (which the government recently got in trouble for after giving a refugee visa to a Romanian stripper who volunteered on the MP's campaign and got lots of "suitability points.")

Incidentally, the visa officer does NOT have to explain his or her criteria in detail for the suitability points. They're completely arbitrary. And if you fail on that front, the Canadian government still keeps all the money you've paid -- and so does your lawyer. But you don't get a visa.

The Canadian immigration cash cow, which it uses to raise the hopes of people in countries around the world and then dashes with a "suitability" test -- while keeping the money -- is a scam extraordinaire. It's even worse than the US system.

[iverglas]

79. know-nothing-ness

(which the government recently got in trouble for after giving a refugee visa to a Romanian stripper who volunteered on the MP's campaign and got lots of "suitability points.")

What the Romanian stripper in question got was a Minister's permit to remain in Canada pending processing for permanent residence based on humanitarian and compassionate considerations (marriage to a Canadian), which have fuck-all to do with the "personal suitability" criteria in the points system.

Once again, you demonstrate your ignorance of / disregard for the facts.

The Canadian immigration cash cow, which it uses to raise the hopes of people in countries around the world and then dashes with a "suitability" test -- while keeping the money -- is a scam extraordinaire. It's even worse than the US system.

And yet ... as I said in a much earlier post and, as usual, you ignored:

A total of about 221,000 immigrants were admitted in 2003. That is approximately equivalent to the US admitting nearly 2,000,000 immigrants. In fact, as I understand it, the actual figure was slightly more than half that.

On a per capita basis, Canada admitted nearly twice as many immigrants as the United States did.

Exactly how are you defining "worse"?

Now, you feel free to falsely accuse me of saying that the Cdn system is wonderful just because it's not as bad as the US system. It isn't as bad as the US system, but the only reason for raising that point is to rebut your ongoing ludicrous assertions that it's worse.

[kayell]

80. Iverglas, can you explain the points system to me?

I've taken the points test on the web, and have enough according to it. So it looks like it may be worth starting the application process. But I have to consider that while I can invest the $ and time, that it will be quite a sacrifice for me. I am not well to do and although I have worked in my field for more than 20 years, horticulture is not a very well paid job area. And while I have more than 30% equity in my home, it is a very small house indeed. So I'd like to have an idea of how likely it would be that I'd make it through the whole process, before I spend every single spare penny. Can you give me any idea of what percentage of people who initially appear to pass the web points test, actually are eligible in the real process? What differences exist in the real process? Are there any guidelines for someone to follow who wants to do the process themselves to save on lawyer fees?

[iverglas]

81. not really ;)

My days of practising immigration law are long gone, and I'm very much out of the loop.

It was my practice, at the time, to assemble the basic background info on a potential applicant and present orally it to a visa office with which I dealt regularly and maintained good relations (by not presenting obviously unqualified applicants, and not arguing pointlessly). I'd get a quick yes/no, or an indication of what might improve the person's chances, and sometimes even a suggestion for how to proceed. If the response was quite negative, for plainly valid reasons, I would simply advise the client not to waste the application fee, and decline to waste my own time and his/her money by taking the case.

I realize things may not work that way these days -- although I am sure that there are still lawyers who have such informal pre-screening arrangements and/or can confidently assess a potential applicant's chances. A basic consultation with a competent Canadian lawyer just does not cost "thousands". I can offer some names by PM if someone is serious about applying and wants a referral.

There's no point in "saving" on lawyer fees if spending a bit on them would make the difference between a well-presented application and one that misses the boat. On the other hand, if one's application is unlikely to succeed, spending a bit on lawyer fees might result in saving more by not applying pointlessly.

Nobody likes lawyers. But as I asked our Brian: would one buy a house without consulting a lawyer? Lawyers have knowledge and skills that they are paid to use on clients' behalf when the clients are not sufficiently knowledgeable or skilled in a specialized area. Immigration lawyers are no different.

Immigration law developed as a specialty (certainly not just in Canada) precisely because of the complexity of the administrative processes involved in various aspects of immigration, and the need for individuals' interests in their dealings with government to be protected. Tax law and tax lawyers exist for the same reasons, and various other kinds of specialists do as well. People can prepare their own income tax returns or apply for their own municipal zoning variances, but a lot of people pay to have it done by a specialist.

What percentage of people who pass the points test are accepted will always depend on how many people apply (I state the obvious ...). I don't know current figures on that point. You could take a look at the CIC's annual report, which was released in November: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pub/immigration2004.html#1700
A total of about 56,600 people were admitted under the "skilled worker" category (that figure includes the primary applicants' dependants). I don't know whether figures are released regarding number of applicants. In any event, it still wouldn't be a matter of the odds; the merits of the application (however discretionarily assessed) will govern, along with things like the annual number of visas available and the workload at visa offices.

I can't offer any opinion about the chances of success for someone in any particular occupation, being so long out of the loop. But I would imagine that one would want to do some intensive labour market exploration to see how one's background matches up with demand and opportunities in particular areas, and that such information would be useful in an application/interview. Someone who's done that kind of homework might be expected to score better on that "personal suitability" scale than someone who hadn't bothered, I'd think.

[Brian_Expat]

84. Ha ha ha ha!

My friends consulted a lawyer who promised all the same things, including touting the supposed "special access" to CIC -- and they got SCAMMED. By the Canadian government, who kept their money, as well as their "lawyer" who didn't get them a visa but kept a great deal of their money.

Immigration law developed as a specialty (certainly not just in Canada) precisely because of the complexity of the administrative processes involved

Translation: The system is a completely arbitrary bureaucratic morass with loads of payola (like the Romanian stripper I cited earlier) that masquerades as an objective system based on your career.

There are no guarantees. If you want to gamble your thousands of $$$s and perhaps not get in, that's cool, but I'd think twice.

[SnowBack]

85. Sounds like your friends got scammed by their lawyers...

Maybe all your well qualified but too poor to get into Canada should move to England with you...

Seven of them plus you might be able to afford a flat in Soho...

[Brian_Expat]

92. Well, they got scammed by both the lawyers and the government

I don't see how your persistent personal attacks change that fact. You may be pissed off that I'm not saying everything in Canada is perfect, but it's not. The situation I've outlined is NOT uncommon, because as even one of the defenders of the system said here, there are no consistent guarantees.

Remember, I'm one of the reasons they decided to apply. I encouraged them to give it a shot because there's so much good in the country. I was hoping that Canada's habitual shooting of itself in the foot and desire to remain a middle-of-the-pack country in the first world wouldn't derail their applications. It did.

Several are heading to Oz, the remainder are staying put in the USA. And I'm getting tired of listening to sniffy fellow countrymen on both sides of the border pretend that Canada's this incredible welcoming place while the USA is evil, when the reality is that, even under Bush, the USA is more welcoming of most immigrants.

[iverglas]

100. care to name the lawyers?

Perhaps you would just indicate whether they were USAmerican lawyers, or Canadian lawyers. And maybe explain how your friends decided to retain them.

Anyone who hires a USAmerican lawyer to handle a Canadian immigration procedure wouldn't be showing too much sense. Anyone who picked a lawyer out of the phone book, ditto.

[SnowBack]

105. PERSONAL attacks? I don't think so...

The USA is more welcoming of GAY immigrants?

:wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow:

[Brian_Expat]

83. If you're not confident in your application. . .

. . . and you don't have a friend in Parliament, I'd think twice. Seriously. Or you could be like one of my friends, out $6,000 on fees and lawyer's tabs without a thing to show for it.

[SnowBack]

86. So how did YOU get into Canada to live?

Funny, I couldn't get into the US without the help of a Congressman, and the place that offered me a job had to pay over 4,000 US for a lawyer to get me in here...

It also took 7 years to get a green card...

I really don't get why you're so freaked out by Canada not letting everyone in... You have 7 friends who couldn't get in, but I know of at least 7 Gays and Lesbians who got into Canada no problem...

Did you get kicked out of Canada or something? How did YOU get in to begin with?

You say you're American, and used to live in Canada and now live in Britain... How did YOU get into Canada? Somehow you managed to do it... in spite of those rules you say are unfair to Gay people...

[Brian_Expat]

89. I'm a Canadian citizen

Though I'm not too sure why that's relevant to this discussion.

[SnowBack]

117. I was just wondering what immigration process you went through

You're American/Canadian and live in England. Have you gone through any immigration process, or do you have dual citizenship due to having a parent with each citizenship?

How did you get into England? Through grandparents?

Just curious.

[Brian_Expat]

82. The Romanian woman received an H&C visa. . .

. . . only after her original visa was turned down -- even after the suitability points were allocated.

And again, your comparison to the US system is disingenuous. Population doesn't matter in immigration, especially given the fact that Canada has more land area. I could just as easily argue that the Canadian system is far worse than the US because the US admits far more immigrants per acre.

[SnowBack]

87. I can't seem to find anything called an H and C Visa

Been all over the GIC website... Doesn't seem to be such a thing... Want to explain what it supposedly means?

Population doesn't matter in immigration? Canada has about 30 million people... Maybe Canada should just let in another 20 or 30 million from the US, huh? Who cares about health care, housing and education, right?

Oh wait... All that matters is land area... Canada is supposed to let people in per acre... Sort of like in the 1800's when they were trying to populate the west... Maybe the immigrants can just build themselves a log cabin and hunt for caribou to survive...

[Brian_Expat]

88. Humanitarian and Compassionate visa

As for letting people in from the US, the US issues 50 permanent visas for every permanent visa that the Canadians issue US citizens. If you'd like to talk statistics, perhaps you'd prefer to start with that one?

[iverglas]

101. what in dog's name ...

the US issues 50 permanent visas for every permanent visa that the Canadians issue US citizens

I'll bet the US issues 1,000 drivers' licences for every permanent resident visa that Canada issues to US citizens, too.

You aren't saying that the US issues 50 permanent resident visas to Canadians for every permanent resident visa that Canada issues to USAmericans, are you?

'Cause you know, that would be just ... plain ... false. The US just didn't issue 294,700 permanent resident visas to Canadians in 2001.

What are YOU talking about?

Fun facts about the racist US immigration system:

http://www.kkeane.com/quota-faq.shtml

Imagine ... quotas on immigration by country of birth (NOT country of citizenship).

For an example, look at the Family 1st category. At the time of this writing (Visa Bulletin for July 2003), the current priority date for most countries is December 15, 1999 - almost four years backlog. In June 2000, the current priority date in this category was December 15, 1998. In other words, in this category it took three years for the current priority date to just move by one year! If this rate persists (which by no means is certain), somebody who applies today would be eligible for a Green Card in about ten years rather than the three 1/2 years that the visa bulletin suggests.

Why is the backlog different for Mexico, China, India or the Philippines?

There actually are two separate quota systems in place. The first quota system limits the number of people who can apply in each category, regardless of their country of birth. The second quota limits the number of people who can immigrate from any one country (this goes by the place you were born, not your nationality!). This per-country quota says that no country can send more than 7% of the total worldwide immigration (this translates to 25,620). Unfortunately, this system puts large countries at a disadvantage; the quota is the same for India and China with a billion people each as for Nauru, with approximately 10,000 people.

If many people from one country want to immigrate to the USA. the total number of immigrants may reach the per-country quota, and the number of people admitted in all immigration quotas will be reduced for this country.

Imagine. If you're from Mexico, you'll have to wait years longer to bring your children to the US than if you're from Luxembourg.

Funny how the countries with the big populations are the countries whose nationals are just, kinda, undesirable.

I had clients once who were born in the Philippines but were Canadian citizens, and were being sponsored for immigration to the US by their son in California. They consulted me to find out what the hold-up was. (Hey, I didn't charge them when I found out there was nothing I could do.) I spoke with someone at the US Embassy. I learned that they were being processed as Philippine applicants, and that they could expect to be waiting a few more years. And I just couldn't believe my ears.

And imagine what Canada's immigration figures would look like if THE CANADIAN SYSTEM worked the way THE US SYSTEM works. If Canada assigned quotas to nationalities, regardless of the size of a country's population.

FEWER USAmericans would get into Canada than now do, I suspect. Because the 220,000+ visas issued each year would have to be allocated regardless of national population (or cuteness, or neighbourliness). The US currently places a max of 25,620 on each nationality, out of a total of 1,000,000+ visas. So we'd have to place a max (to be like the great and good USofA) of 25,620/9 x 2 (one ninth by population, twice as many visas issued per capita of population) = 5,693 on each country.

Oh look: 5,894 USAmericans were admitted in 2001. Two hundred and one of them (give or take a few) would have had to stay home.

[iverglas]

98. and your point is?

The Romanian woman received an H&C visa.

Whatever the fuck that might be when it's at home. She received - as I said - a Minister's permit. Since she is in Canada, she does not need, and would not be issued, a visa.

. . . only after her original visa was turned down -- even after the suitability points were allocated.

What orifice do you pull your "information" from?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20041124/STRIPPER24/TPNational/Canada

Alina Balaican, a 25-year-old dancer, said she approached the minister's office after an "incompetent" immigration consultant failed to file her application to renew her temporary work visa.

The woman had NEVER APPLIED for permanent residence / an immigrant visa.

The immigration consultant, she added, delayed sending in her application to extend her work visa and never submitted her landed-immigrant application. Ms. Balaican has filed a complaint about him with the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants, which regulates the industry.

As a spouse of a Cdn citizen, if she applied "in the normal way" -- from outside Canada -- she would be EXEMPT FROM the points system, personal suitability and all.

Frankly, I've never been sure what all the foofarah was about. People marry Canadians and are processed inside Canada -- via the issuance of a Minister's permit if necessary -- all the bloody time. Cases like that accounted for a significant fraction of my practice. My best friend did it about 5 years ago (hey, without a lawyer). Nobody should *have* to approach the Minister about such a case -- let alone work on the Minister's election campaign -- Romanian stripper or otherwise.

Population doesn't matter in immigration, especially given the fact that Canada has more land area.

Is there a reason why YOU aren't living in all that welcoming open territory around, oh, Wabush, Labrador? Any of your USAmerican buddies wanting to live there? Odd, how most immigrants want to live where most Canadians want to live ... places like Toronto and Vancouver. Lots of "land area" in those places, for sure.

I could just as easily argue that the Canadian system is far worse than the US because the US admits far more immigrants per acre.

You could indeed. You might look even more, um, shall we say, naive? than your arguments so far have succeeded in making you look.

But hey, calling me disingenuous, well they say that a good offence is the best defence, eh?

[Brian_Expat]

94. A walk through the visa process

Assume you're a single person moving to Canada (or trying to). Here's the process with a breakdown of costs. Go ahead, call an immigration lawyer, they'll confirm what I tell you.

Step 1: Do application. Collect documentation of all your employment from former employers. Gather bank statements, pay slips, etc. Find lawyer to help you with application. Lawyers cost about $5,000 flat rate. Plus $550 for the application. Cut a couple cheques for $5,500. If you're rejected at this point, you lose $5,500.

Step 2: Assuming your app gets to this stage and isn't rejected, get police clearances from the US government (and other countries you've lived, but let's assume you've been in the USA all your life). Get a doctor's examination. Pay about $200 to $500 for the police clearance and about $350 for the doctor's exam (only given at doctors approved by the government). Figure about $700 or so. Total is now up to $6,200, out of pocket so far, and all lost if you're rejected.

Step 3: If you're like most applicants, and not bringing hundreds of thousands of dollars into the country with you, you'll be called for an in-person interview. Pay $500 for airfare and another $200 or so for hotel and taxi/rental car. $6,900 out of pocket. If you're rejected at this point, you lose it all.

Step 4: Assuming you survive the interview and get approved without further hassle (often the government will call back and demand 5-year-old tax records and similar stuff), you get a visa! Sorta. You have to pay a right-of-landing fee and additional processing fees (which are sometimes assessed before the interview) of about $3,000. Total cost out of pocket so far: $9,900. At this point, if you don't land in Canada within six months, you lose your entire investment.

Step 5: Get your books in order. Pack up everything. Head to the port of entry with your paperwork. Here, you need to prove that you've got "settlement funds" sufficient to keep you going -- even if you have a job. Assuming you're settling where industry is -- a city like Calgary, Vancouver, Toronto, or Montreal -- you'll need $10,000 for yourself -- debt unencumbered -- on entry. You'll need to prove this. Total cash outlay so far -- cash you needed to successfully complete the process: $19,900. And the settlement funds are higher if you're coupled or bringing other family with you. You are not permitted to fly out of the country for 30 days until you receive your "permanent resident card."

There are often other expenses along the way -- for instance, the visa office will often require multiple trips to the consulate to answer other questions, and your lawyer will charge you for faxes and other expenses.

It's pretty easy to see why you need $25,000 -- free and in the clear -- in order to execute this process.

Those are the indisputable facts, for a relatively straight-forward application. Read them and then decide if you want to go do it.

If you want, you can try Quebec, whose application and settlement fees are generally lower, but you'll still have to pay off the federal government. Lower the settlement fees by about $7,000 or so, however, and Quebec doesn't require the funds to be unencumbered -- and also doesn't inquire into your financial history. Of course, you'd better have either perfect English and an advanced degree, or good French, perfect English and a two-year degree.

[iverglas]

99. some better ideas

Step 1: Do application. Collect documentation of all your employment from former employers. Gather bank statements, pay slips, etc. Find lawyer to help you with application. Lawyers cost about $5,000 flat rate. Plus $550 for the application. Cut a couple cheques for $5,500. If you're rejected at this point, you lose $5,500.

Better idea: Find a lawyer who isn't going to rip you off. "You" are a progressive, and obviously have the kind of contacts you need to find such a lawyer. Canada's full of them. Many belong to organizations like the Law Union. A reputable lawyer will not accept your retainer if s/he does not believe that your application has a good chance of success, and will advise you what that chance is.

Step 2: Assuming your app gets to this stage and isn't rejected, get police clearances from the US government (and other countries you've lived, but let's assume you've been in the USA all your life). Get a doctor's examination. Pay about $200 to $500 for the police clearance and about $350 for the doctor's exam (only given at doctors approved by the government). Figure about $700 or so. Total is now up to $6,200, out of pocket so far, and all lost if you're rejected.

Ask Brian why you'd be rejected AFTER being directed to get police clearances and a medical report ... unless you were either criminally inadmissible or medically inadmissible. One would think that you might have known about these things before applying. If you're medically inadmissible and didn't know that you had a health condition that made you someone who

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/i-2.5/sec38.html

(a) is likely to be a danger to public health;
(b) is likely to be a danger to public safety; or
(c) might reasonably be expected to cause excessive demand on health or social services.

then consider your money well invested, and get the necessary medical care.

By the way, while the "police clearance" is the responsibility of the applicant, the "background check" is done by Canadian authorities, like the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. That's included in the application fee, you see.

We do things like that to make sure that the people we're admitting aren't, oh, war criminals or international drug lords, or maybe terrorists (things that don't tend to show up on "police clearances"). And of course so that the US doesn't close its borders to Canadians because we're such slackers when it comes to that security stuff.

Step 3: If you're like most applicants, and not bringing hundreds of thousands of dollars into the country with you, you'll be called for an in-person interview. Pay $500 for airfare and another $200 or so for hotel and taxi/rental car. $6,900 out of pocket. If you're rejected at this point, you lose it all.

Canada has visa offices in the US in Buffalo, Seattle, Detroit, New York City, Los Angeles and Washington, DC. There used to be more -- I recall Atlanta, Chicago and Houston. But budget-cutting federal governments cut back a few years ago.

Yup, those offices are maintained and staffed at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer -- Canadians' taxes pay to offer services to USAmericans wishing to immigrate to Canada. My taxes pay for the consuls and first secretaries and visa officers and support staff, and rent and heat and light and water and security and paperclips, in the places where USAmericans go to apply to immigrate here. And anybody who thinks that the Cdn$1525 each that successful applicants pay covers those costs is, well, nuts.

Anyhow, I guess "you" would pay US$500 for airfare if you lived in, oh, Anchorage.

Step 4: Assuming you survive the interview and get approved without further hassle (often the government will call back and demand 5-year-old tax records and similar stuff), you get a visa! Sorta. You have to pay a right-of-landing fee and additional processing fees (which are sometimes assessed before the interview) of about $3,000.

I'm still stymied by this one. The right of landing fee is Cdn$975 (let's not forget: just over US$800). What are these "additional processing fees"? Bribes, maybe?

Maybe I really am so far out of the loop that I don't know what to ask google for on this point. But I just can't find a damned thing.

And Brian has yet to offer any authority for this assertion.

Assuming you're settling where industry is -- a city like Calgary, Vancouver, Toronto, or Montreal -- you'll need $10,000 for yourself -- debt unencumbered -- on entry. You'll need to prove this. Total cash outlay so far -- cash you needed to successfully complete the process: $19,900.

Oopsie!!

That $10,000 in settlement funds ... it's still in your pocket! You haven't laid it out on anything. It is NOT a "cash outlay". It's YOURS, and nobody's taking it from you.

Ladies and gentlemen: apples and oranges.

It's pretty easy to see why you need $25,000 -- free and in the clear -- in order to execute this process.

Guess I'm still just going to be needing to borrow your specs in order to see it all as "clear" as you do.

And still wondering ... what solutions you're proposing to what you regard as problems.

No criminal checks? No medical exams? Knock out the Cdn$1525 (~US$1275) for the actual fees charged? Like I said, no argument from me ... although I think a lower fee for the application (none for the visa) might be not unreasonable to limit frivolous applications that my taxes have to pay to process. That -- say, knock off Cdn$1000 -- would be just a drop in your bucket though, even if we knocked off those apparently imaginary "additional processing fees". (I remain open to evidence of their existence, and what they are.)

WHAT DOES BRIAN WANT? Why won't you tell us?

[Brian_Expat]

102. lol I give up

Find a lawyer who isn't going to rip you off. "You" are a progressive, and obviously have the kind of contacts you need to find such a lawyer.

Well, judging from the experience of the dozen or so friends I had who applied (seven rejected), the average cost was about $5,000 flat rate. You're welcome to post lower lawyer fees, but you haven't in the past.

By the way, while the "police clearance" is the responsibility of the applicant, the "background check" is done by Canadian authorities, like the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. That's included in the application fee, you see.

You still have to pay for the police records.

That $10,000 in settlement funds ... it's still in your pocket! You haven't laid it out on anything. It is NOT a "cash outlay". It's YOURS, and nobody's taking it from you.

You still have to have it. You need about $25,000, unencumbered, to do the process and have a substantial risk of losing the entire investment.

I'm still stymied by this one. The right of landing fee is Cdn$975 (let's not forget: just over US$800). What are these "additional processing fees"? Bribes, maybe?

You also have to pay a number of processing fees, and the ROLF is per person.

Canada has visa offices in the US in Buffalo, Seattle, Detroit, New York City, Los Angeles and Washington, DC.

The Canadian government, according to its form, only provides visa interviews in New York and LA, as well as Buffalo. A $500 round-trip, including accommodation, is not at all out of the question -- especially if there are multiple interviews because of the question of "suitability."

ess I'm still just going to be needing to borrow your specs in order to see it all as "clear" as you do.

You're obfuscating. You haven't provided any way to do it cheaper than I've laid out in detail, just making vague accusations that you can "get lawyers cheaper."

If you could lay out a strategy for an average American person to migrate -- successfully -- for much less than about $20K, I'm all ears. You really haven't done so. You're busy defending the system you made a few bucks off of.

those offices are maintained and staffed at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer -- Canadians' taxes pay to offer services to USAmericans wishing to immigrate to Canada

The cost of the offices is primarily a diplomatic expense, and the infrastructure used to process visas is ridiculously expensive considering the time and energy it requires.

You've got about 2,500 people coming in, paying about $2,000 to $3,000 per year. That's about $6.25 million in revenue per year. Assuming a salary plus benefits of $62,500 per person, that gives one 100 employees or about 25 applicants per employee per year. And it takes TWO YEARS to process them?

Don't be silly. This is a grab for money, just like the US green card lotto.

Incidentally, a lot of the tax money Canadians earn comes from selling things like cars to those Americans, but I suppose you expect this partnership to be pretty much one-way.

I'm not going to argue this point with you any longer. I've illustrated the costs and anybody who has a cursory interest in the process can research for himself. I just wanted to call attention to the massive costs and cash requirements and major losses that are potentially there, including not getting enough "suitability points." The individual can assess for himself whether the process is worth it, and I don't think a pallet of excuses for the poor state of the system is too good a sale, sorry.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Brian_Expat]

108. Oh please

It's too bad that there might actually people who are afraid to apply to live in Canada because of the crap you've written....

I WANT people to think twice, before being sold a bill of goods that's not what it seems.

If you're so concerned about people moving and getting a chance in Canada, why not do what I'm doing and advocate for changes in the system rather than defend a broken, corrupt, lying, arbitrary system laced with payola and double standards? That would do a lot more to help marginalized people who wish to move to Canada than encouraging them to apply and lose thousands of dollars if they get rejected.

[iverglas]

111. interesting

why not do what I'm doing and advocate for changes in the system ...

Advocating for change by posting on a USAmerican internet forum from the UK, that sounds very effective. How's it working for you?

Gee, back when these were issues that occupied my mind (I readily admit to not being publicly active in that way any more), I advocated for change by doing things like joining and supporting relevant organizations, meeting with the Ministers, challenging the system internally and in the courts, speaking to the media ...

... rather than defend a broken, corrupt, lying, arbitrary system laced with payola and double standards?

Aha. And now are we getting to what those unsubstantiated allegations of "additional processing fees" were all about? And maybe I didn't already know this?

So ... were those friends of yours extorted? I certainly wouldn't say it never happens. The mother of an Iranian refugee client of mine was able to obtain her visa by paying off someone at a Canadian visa office in Europe many years ago (a locally-hired, non-Canadian employee), but that's my only personal experience with / personal knowledge of the problem. (I mean, I once took a box of bakery products to a visa officer in the US from a grateful client, and took him and his colleague out to lunch, but I don't think that really counts. Over lunch, when I said I'd almost been caught speeding a few times on the way there after having discovered I'd left all my ID in a pocket in Canada, but I'd breathed a sigh of relief once I got into their jurisdiction because then I knew who to call, the First Secretary snarled "yeah -- the auto club". Lunch doesn't buy much, I guess.)

I certainly know this has gone on, and that it has gone on at Cdn visa offices in the US.

So ... did those friends of yours report the situation to anyone? Shall I assume that they didn't? And might I ask why not?

[Brian_Expat]

113. You're being assumptive. . .

. . . of the fact that the ONLY thing I am doing is "complaining on an internet forum from the UK."

This entire discussion has been made intensely personal -- insulting my friends who got screwed over, insulting me, doing everything but discussing the issues I'm bringing up, which should be considered.

I posted this thread because I wanted American gays to know the real story about the Canadian visa system -- that all those movie stars and professionals earning six figures who get in easily aren't having the same experience that an average person can have. Your defence of that system has done little to disabuse me of that notion.

[SnowBack]

115. Saying your friends don't have education doesn't mean...

we're insulting them... It's a fact when it comes to immigrating to another country...

And we've given you fact after fact, and you refuse to discuss things, instead you go on and on about some supposed "horrors" happening to people who try to go to Canada...

You seem to think we're defending the Canadian visa system... Actually, all we're doing is trying to bring facts to counteract your incorrect assertions...

But you just keep on telling the "real story"...

[Brian_Expat]

119. They're well educated. . .

. . . just not by phoney standards.

Now if they were Romanian strippers with special connections to Liberal MPs, they'd all be set. But unfortunately, they're just hard-working people who don't know how to navigate a corrupt system that extracted several thousand dollars from them in exchange for. . . nothing.

[iverglas]

104. burble

You're welcome to post lower lawyer fees, but you haven't in the past.

Gee, I'll bet that you just didn't see the part of my paragraph that you so cleverly cut out. The part about a reputable lawyer not accepting a retainer for an application that, in his/her professional opinion, did not have a good chance of success. I'll bet you actually thought that I was making a point about the amount of the fee, and not the wisdom of paying it out to a lawyer who was not up front about the chances of success.

Not.

Well, judging from the experience of the dozen or so friends I had who applied (seven rejected) ...

Oh look! It must have been magic! Five or so were accepted! How come we haven't heard about them before? Were they filthy rich, or just scathingly brilliant?

You also have to pay a number of processing fees, ...

There ya go again. When are you going to let us in on the secret source of the information that seems to be accessible to you and you alone?

... and the ROLF is per person.

Uh, yes. That was the basis on which you did your calculations, I believe. Your point?

You need about $25,000, unencumbered, to do the process and have a substantial risk of losing the entire investment.

When are you going to explain how you're going to "lose" that $10,000 in settlement funds, that is in your pocket the whole time?

Maybe, once being issued your visa and crossing the border, you make an unscheduled stop at the Windsor casino?

No, that can't be it ... because you'd have got your visa at that point, and really, you couldn't blame Canada for your foolishness *after* we let you in.

So you pay your $550, and you pay your lawyer, and you make that trip to the visa office for interview, and you pay for your police clearance and meds, and for some unknown and unexplained reason you are nonetheless rejected ... and the $10,000 you've assembled to bring with you just goes up in smoke?

You haven't provided any way to do it cheaper than I've laid out in detail, just making vague accusations that you can "get lawyers cheaper."

Until you explain where that $10,000 went, I win.

And my dear little chum, if you're going to go putting quotation marks around things like "get lawyers cheaper" and call them "vague accusations" made by me, you'd better be prepared to put some more money where your mouth is.

I have said precisely nothing that remotely resembles that "quotation", and you need to be retracting your own accusation.

I haven't made a large point of the amount of legal fees that such a procedure would take. I have made that point that no one should be paying such fees without a reasonable basis for believing that his/her application will be accepted. And that therefore your persistent blather about wasted money is accurate only in the case of people who skip that step.

If you could lay out a strategy for an average American person to migrate -- successfully -- for much less than about $20K, I'm all ears. You really haven't done so. You're busy defending the system you made a few bucks off of.

I'm not in practice, and so I don't give advice. (That's a bit of advice I'd recommend for, oh, most anyone.)

But your own advice, as I don't mind pointing out again, and again whenever it's necessary, is based on the FALSE STATEMENT that the "settlement funds" required of an applicant are a "cash outlay", and will be "lost" if the application is unsuccessful.

Your statement that no one can "migrate -- successfully -- for much less than about $20K" is FALSE, since the $10,000 you are including in that figure is not PAID "FOR" anything.

An applicant who got all the way to the point of visa issuance and then was rejected would, BY YOUR CALCULATIONS, have spent -- in US$:

$450 for the application
$5,000 on legal fees
$250 for medical exam
$500 (your top figure) for police clearance
$700 travelling expenses

That's $6,900. Of which US$450 went to the Canadian government.

An applicant who was then issued a visa would have spent

US$6,900
US$...810 for the visa

US$7,710

And would need to be bringing a little over US$8,000 in settlement funds WHICH S/HE KEEPS.

Funny how you have been giving the figures that are actually governed by Canadian law and policy in Canadian dollars when talking to a USAmerican audience, doncha think?

That comes to under US$16,000 -- US$8,000 of which IS STILL IN THE APPLICANT'S POCKET AND ISN'T GOING ANYWHERE ELSE. Unless we throw in a few of those funny "additional processing fees" of yours:

"You've got about 2,500 people coming in, paying about $2,000 to $3,000 per year."

Sez you, the person who has steadfastly refused to prove his bizarre allegation.

I saw 5,894 USAmericans in 2001. And I think some of them were dependant children ($150, not $550, for the application fee, and way under $950 for the right of landing fee). But let's say they were all adult applicants. That's

5,894 x Cdn$1525 = Cdn $8,988,350. Say Cdn $9M. Now, that's not counting the failed applicants' $550s, of course.

Hmm.

I looked here, just off the top of a google results list:
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/research/audit/seattle/02summary-e.html
and the first thing I found was that this information of yours:

The Canadian government, according to its form, only provides visa interviews in New York and LA, as well as Buffalo.

just ain't quite correct:

Seattle was selected in part because it is a satellite of the Buffalo Regional Program Centre. Buffalo sends immigration cases that warrant an interview to a satellite office. Seattle is one of four such offices, and it processes approximately 1,300 applications per year.

Perhaps you mistook a statement of the location of program centres for a statement of where interviews are conducted. Not an unreasonable error if no further investigation was done. (Hadn't I already given you this link with the real info in it? http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/can-am/menu-en.asp?mid=12&cat=180 )

Anyhow. Not much info at that link. I press on.

Here's the dirt from the 1999 Auditor General's report. You've probably heard of the Auditor General -- the current one broke the sponsorship scandal wide open. Auditors General aren't exactly govt apologists. Unfortunately it's a bit old; the AG spotlights certain programs each year, and in 1990 it was the immigration program.

http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.nsf/html/9013ce.html

13.12 Total costs of the foreign delivery system were estimated by DEA at $137 million. Program delivery required 52 staff at headquarters and 857 staff at missions' visa sections, of which 215 were Canada-based program officers, 108 locally engaged program officers, and 534 local support staff. DEA estimates that, of its immigration resources located at full service missions, processing of immigrant visas required about 53 percent, visitor visas 31 percent, and non-processing activities such as enforcement and control, program management, and others required the remaining 16 percent.

3.13 Other organizations are involved. In processing visa applications, DEA interacts mainly with three organizations. It implements policies and procedures set out by EIC and deals with the Department of National Health and Welfare (HWC) and CSIS for the health and security screening of visa applicants at missions abroad. Memoranda of Understanding between DEA and each of these organizations outline their various responsibilities.

I mean, you did remember me mentioning the cost of CSIS's background checks, for example, eh? And you know that the medical reports submitted are not examined by the visa office, but by Health Canada's immigration health service? In some cases, it is done on site, in others at HQ:

13.83 In 1989, there were 16 Canadian medical officers and eight doctors on contract employed by DEA at missions abroad. They assessed the results of 280,000 medical examinations and declared 1,000 applicants inadmissible.

Doctors aren't cheap.

Treasury Board is generally a good source when it comes to govt money stuff. That's where the purse strings are held.

So here ya go: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/est-pre/20032004/CI-CI/CI-CIr34_e.asp

Forecast revenue for 2002-2003, in Cdn$:

Immigration cost-recovery <application> fees -- $241,100,000
Immigration rights <visa> fees -- $125,000,000

Forecast spending for 2002-2003, in Cdn$ -- $354,700,000

Now, when it comes to breaking that down, TBS leaves me at a loss. It breaks it down by "business line", and then gives us a "Crosswalk of Strategic Outcomes and Business Lines". None of the categories seem to be "processing applications abroad". Feel free to peruse.

But let's just critique your own effort.

That's about $6.25 million in revenue per year. Assuming a salary plus benefits of $62,500 per person, that gives one 100 employees or about 25 applicants per employee per year.

Uh huh. And no paperclips or photocopiers or telephones, or employees who answer the telephone or guard the consulate, or clean it, and process zero applicants. No rent or utilities. Oh, and those were just the successful applicants you were counting in that 25/year, right? And you're pretending that visa offices don't receive multiples of that number in inquiries about immigration, and also don't receive non-permanent resident applications, for instance?

Why would anyone guess how many employees there are at Cdn visa offices in the US when the info can be found with such ease on the net? (And why would I do it for you?)

Incidentally, a lot of the tax money Canadians earn comes from selling things like cars to those Americans, but I suppose you expect this partnership to be pretty much one-way.

Have you considered renouncing your Cdn citizenship? It's fairly easily done. I can't imagine why you'd want to keep trumpeting your membership in a group composed of such parasitic worms as us.

How many USAmericans' arms have you severely twisted today to force them to buy all that stuff? Hope you're doing your patriotic duty.

The individual can assess for himself whether the process is worth it, and I don't think a pallet of excuses for the poor state of the system is too good a sale, sorry.

You betcha, and the individual could have done that quite well for himself or herself without any of the noise you have made at all. And I don't think that representing objections to the falseness of great gobs of your noise as "a pallet of excuses" (whatever the hell that might be) qualifies as civil discourse.

I'm not going to argue this point with you any longer.

I haven't actually been arguing anything with you. I've been seeking substantiation for certain of your wild allegations and incivil accusations, and got none. But y'all feel free to come back when you've got some to offer.

[Alisa]

106. Hi, I am new to DU and I want this post seen and replied to (please)

I have read most of the previous posts (there really is a lot there after all) and will more carefully review them later.

I have been seriously considering moving to Canada and becoming a citizen - certainly I will need to work.

I just tested myself and received a 67:
1 Education 25 20
2 Language Ability 24 16
3 Work Experience 21 21
4 Age 10 10
5 Arranged Employment 10 0
6 Adaptability 10 0
Total Score 100 67

If I did it correctly.

I purchased a home in Nova Scotia about 3 years ago and have been renting it out with the plan to move there in the future. I am a software engineer and I understand that Nova Scotia has a program that might give me an edge in getting in. I don't have an employer and don't expect I'd find one very easily since my home is in Annapolis Royal - a pretty small town for main-frame programming - which is where I have experience. I have assumed I'd need to find other work but if I can't come in as a skilled worker then I won't have the points needed. I have a job offer in Real Estate! My Realtor, who owns his business, said he'd hire me in a minute, we liked each other a great deal. Too bad he wasn't a single lesbian...

One idea might be to have him hire me with the idea that I would do work in my field for him - it is possible I could help him out in some way but I'm sure he wouldn't need my services full time creating software for him. I'm sure I'd be a fine Realtor and could make a living that way as well (shall we say - on the side).

I also purchased land fairly close to Yarmouth - a bigger city - I'm pretty sure they would have some work there for me. But I would have to rent until I built something on it. Not the biggest problem. I would prefer to live in Annapolis Royal at least to start.

I own, outright, both properties and maybe that would have some sway with those that would decide my fate...

I have been considering hooking up with some Canadian lesbians who might be willing to marry me, I can't even believe that! I have two son's, 11 and 14, and I am getting pretty serious about moving soon in order to keep them out of military service. The is DU and I think we can agree that a draft is very likely going to occur here. I passionately don't want them fighting for oil or any other imperialist aims.

So, any advise (Brian please don't tell me to not try because it will be a waste,) from anyone?

If it comes to marriage - I am a wonderful person - my Realtor can tell you that!

Thanks - help!

[iverglas]

107. advice!

Get professional advice!

Nobody here is qualified to give the kind of advice you're after -- not even me, and I practised in this field for many years. (I give the same advice to people with emotional/psychological or medical difficulties, or any other kind of complex personal questions, looking for help on the net: see someone in real life who knows what questions to ask and can then have all the facts that are needed in order to advise, and is qualified to give advice.)

I can provide you with suggestions. If you are serious to the point that you do want to consult someone knowledgeable (and yup, pay for the service), PM me (I don't know whether you have enough posts yet for this purpose, but you likely will soon).

Referring to your working "on the side" comment, I assume you mean it in the sense that it would be outside the field you're qualified for, or I guess outside the "arranged employment" on which you base your application. Remember that how you make your living once you become a permanent resident -- and where you live, and with whom, and so on -- is none of anybody else's business, and once you're landed there are no constraints on employment, location, etc. But in order to succeed in the application, you'd likely need to have a reasonable plan.

You could talk to an immigration lawyer about a plan that included contract work, and the fact that you would have some of that work lined up already. Speaking purely as an amateur off the top of my head, I would imagine that arranged employment as a realtor (for which you would have to qualify first, remember, and this involves passing exams and so on, so it would not be a firm job offer unless you had already done this) would not be of trememdous assistance, given that you have no experience in the field and so no track record to indicate that you would be successful.

I can't even be of assistance on the marriage front, I'm afraid. I'm gay & lesbian-friendly, but straight (although I'll bet my old CIC buddies wouldn't be at all surprised if the weird and wonderful iverglas showed up and announced she'd switched ...), and partnered up ... and the CIC is much more attuned to marriages of convenience than they were during the previous major US imperialist adventure 30 years ago. ;)

[Alisa]

109. Thanks for the reply!

I feel a little hamstrung by my limited posts! I am not yet able to PM you nor am I able to start a discussion (yet). I considered attaching my query to all the GLBT current discussions hoping that someone would take pity. But you did, so thank you too for not leaving me to my more aggressive tactics!

I am crushed that you are straight! I found you very attractive, so I offer you now my hand in marriage and will let fate decide. (Another one of those too bad...)

Yes, I would like any tips you can offer - including those that cost $. I appreciate what you had to say right of the bat and it is helpful.

I really like Canada and have met the best people in my travels in Nova Scotia, if I leave this country I want to go there. My biggest problem, apart from practical ones, is leaving my good friends from here. My family lives in New York so my living in NS would actually be closer (as the bird flies), I live in Minnesota now.

[iverglas]

110. ... and for the offer ;)

It's not just the being straight, though; it's the marriage thang. Goes against my rebel grain. Of course, Canada accepts common-law / de facto spousal relationships for immigration purposes, but for them you need to have cohabited.

(What allowing same-sex marriage in Canada has done, in that respect, is put same-sex couples on the same footing as opposite-sex couples. Previously, same-sex couples had to meet the common-law cohabitation requirement. Of course, since there aren't many places in the world where same-sex couples can actually get married, their situation can still be problematic if they, or the non-Canadian partner of a sponsor, can't get here to get married. I smell a constitutional challenge. Now, a Canadian spouse could sponsor a same-sex partner as a fiancé(e) -- doesn't that just sound sweet? -- to get married here, although there are slightly tougher financial requirements for that.)

You must be close to being able to PM. I'll watch my box, because I really do have an excellent suggestion for you -- someone I don't know personally, but know of. I don't mean to imply that your chances are good, of course, just that I can direct you to where you can get a good answer. À bientôt!

[Alisa]

112. I LOVE REBEL'S!

Don't say anything more about your nature - I can hardly stand it! Can we start by living together? Your place or mine?

Back to business, I will do my part and post away till the time I can send you my very first PM.

Then I will really be fresh. Please forgive me.