Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
With all due respect, how should they select immigrants?
Not based on qualifications that, once landed, are toilet paper.
Quote:
BTW as someone who immigrated to the US, I know that the US immigration system is no better. My dad is incredibly talented and has contributed more to the country than many Americans. Yet it still took us about 15 years to become citizens. I can only imagine how painful the process must be for many other immigrants.
Also, Canada accepts more immigrants per capita than does the US.
US immigration system is a mess, often difficult to navigate and the path to citizenship is long...definitely should be streamlined however the US does not have an independent skilled immigration program, you get a visa because a company or an organization/university hires then you have the business investor category, family reunion and refugee intake.
It sucks from an immigrant perspective but it make sense from the country point of view...you get a visa because you are really (theoretically, there are some shenanigans going on in the IT sector) needed by someone.
Furthermore, in the US tend to be easier to "bring up to speed" foreign credentials (not from all countries) to American levels.
Last edited by saturno_v; 05-25-2016 at 07:54 PM..
Why would Canada seek "superpower" status, when it continues to evolve as parliamentary democracy's finest success story? Expansion driven by carefully-vetted immigrants, and an economic "safety net" more carefully policed than the "overloaded lifeboat" to the south. Scandinavia without the class-consciousness and elitism.
Hmm. Interesting, considering I see your posts in other threads denouncing "lefties," their evil "socialism," and the kind of safety net most left-leaning governments and their supporters believe in.
I might be mistaken, but didn't you also write that you plan on voting for Trump? Along with other his brilliant ideas, Trump advocates banning Muslims from entry into the US. Do you know that Canada recently welcomed about 25,000 Syrian refugees, most of whom are...Muslim?
Last edited by newdixiegirl; 05-25-2016 at 08:18 PM..
Canada a superpower? There's a laugh and a half. Canada just sits back in the US's defense apparatus' shadow. (and is very smart to do so).
If you read through the pages of this thread, I think the general consensus of the Canadian posters is that they did not regard Canada as a superpower nor did they want that.
Speaking of the U.S defense apparatus, it can be argued that much of the western world is under its defense shadow. Canada is not unique in that regard even if its more integrated with the U.S because of NORAD.
Make no mistake, the role the U.S plays is the role it wants to play. There are pro's but there are also cons to this. Probably, most western nations and their inhabitants would not want to take on the role of superpower.
Speaking of the U.S defense apparatus, it can be argued that much of the western world is under its defense shadow. Canada is not unique in that regard even if its more integrated with the U.S because of NORAD.
I've often said that the only country that poses a threat to us is Russia, only because they can come over the North Pole. And even Russia is not much of a threat, because of NORAD, a joint US-Canada initiative.
We're not threatened by any Europeans, South Americans, Asians, or Africans, because we are so far away. Our geography and weather protects us. Which country today, could mount an offensive against Canada without us having plenty of advance warning of fleets coming across the oceans? And if they did manage to set foot on our land, how would they cope with our winter? Neither Napoleon nor Hitler could cope with the USSR's winter--and I'd suggest that ours is worse. For that matter, how would foreign forces deal with with our Forces, who are trained to fight in all seasons, including winter? How would they deal with our citizenry, who (contrary to what many Americans think) are allowed to own guns, and (at least here in Alberta) would just love to drop an uninvited and unwanted invader?
Americans stating "We protect Canada" may have been correct during the Cold War, but that ended long ago. Americans no longer protect Canada, nor do they need to. And any protection of the North American continent is done together, under NORAD and NATO. It is not done by the US alone.
Last edited by ChevySpoons; 05-26-2016 at 12:22 AM..
Originally Posted by Zoisite Well, yeah, of course it does. Canada and every other country and its dog. What country doesn't want to keep or attract the best and brightest?
Attracting the best and brightest is important but its also good to take the moral high ground and help the most needy as we have done with the Syrian refugees. Sometimes the average person when given a chance can become a productive and long term member of the economy and our society at large. The world is more than just the 'best' - sometimes it can just be your average joe wanting to make a better living for himself and family.
I fully agree with you about that. We weren't discussing refugees though and when I made the above quoted comment it was a response in reference to the best and brightest of immigrants who go through the more ordinary applications and immigration processes. While many average joe applicants do qualify and are accepted to immigrate it's still true that countries that are accepting immigrants are looking for and giving preference to people with above average education and skills and qualifications that are in demand for each respective country. Isn't that part of the reason why Canada has established a point system?
We haven't even discussed the brain-drain situation, or professional head-hunters who look for new graduates who are the best and brightest in their field of study and recruit them with offers too good to turn down to leave their countries and immigrate to other countries.
Hmm. Interesting, considering I see your posts in other threads denouncing "lefties," their evil "socialism," and the kind of safety net most left-leaning governments and their supporters believe in.
I might be mistaken, but didn't you also write that you plan on voting for Trump? Along with other his brilliant ideas, Trump advocates banning Muslims from entry into the US. Do you know that Canada recently welcomed about 25,000 Syrian refugees, most of whom are...Muslim?
Religion is a private matter (and despite the whining by the LGBT crowd), so is sexuality. I'm skeptical of most interference in personal matters (Nanny Clinton and other "New Puritans" -- please take note) but equally skeptical of inflexible, large-scale interference with the workings of an advanced economy. No private enterprise is "too big to fail".
I'm an advocate of capitalism, but I recognize that the anarcho-capitalism promoted by the most doctrinal libertarians is only a theory that has to be adapted to daily life in a fragile, post-industrial economy. And I also have enough experience in life to recognize that there are plenty of slackers out there who know how to exploit the system. So I favor a system of local control to Identify and restrain the abusive minority.
And what I actually said was that I would "hold my nose and vote for Trump". because I believe that the Democratic party has been so completely hijacked by the radical Leftism which traces its roots back to 1968-72 (same time frame as the Libertarian movement, BTW) that it has devolved into a stage four cancer bent upon destroying the Constitutional principles which are being discarded via the absurdity called Political Correctness.
Trump oversimplifies his "platform" into a collection of ideas that won't work; Clinton and Sanders have long ago sunk to the same level. But the latter two have far more power to continue their folly.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 05-26-2016 at 05:56 AM..
If you read through the pages of this thread, I think the general consensus of the Canadian posters is that they did not regard Canada as a superpower nor did they want that.
Speaking of the U.S defense apparatus, it can be argued that much of the western world is under its defense shadow. Canada is not unique in that regard even if its more integrated with the U.S because of NORAD.
Make no mistake, the role the U.S plays is the role it wants to play. There are pro's but there are also cons to this. Probably, most western nations and their inhabitants would not want to take on the role of superpower.
If you read through the pages of this thread, I think the general consensus of the Canadian posters is that they did not regard Canada as a superpower nor did they want that.
Speaking of the U.S defense apparatus, it can be argued that much of the western world is under its defense shadow. Canada is not unique in that regard even if its more integrated with the U.S because of NORAD.
Make no mistake, the role the U.S plays is the role it wants to play. There are pro's but there are also cons to this. Probably, most western nations and their inhabitants would not want to take on the role of superpower.
The petrodollar and reserve currency status, for just two items of consideration, dictate what the U.S. MUST take on as it's role of 'world protector' in order to maintain the status-quo. Either or both of those two could have and probably would have been a memory by now had not the military might of the U.S. assumed an umbrella status.
Canada, among many other nations, has prospered for decades during a period of relative peace and tranquility when one considers all the alternatives that could have been.
Well, yeah, of course it does. Canada and every other country and its dog. What country doesn't want to keep or attract the best and brightest?
I don't necessarily agree that Canada needs the best and brightest. Our immigration system should seek to attract people who are most likely to succeed in Canada, not necessarily the ones who appear to be the "best". The reason is simple: Canada is not exactly a big all-around country that can provide enough opportunity or monetary incentive for the best talent in every field. We should be honest with prospective immigrants - if their highly sought after skills in a certain area doesn't have much room to be fully utilized in Canada, then what's the point of attracting them and disappointing them once they come? It happens too often.
Yes, we should avoid the situation where the highly scored credentials based on the point system become toilet paper in real life because employers consider them useless. Our point system should be based on reality, or some vain and imaginable need of Phds and MSs in quantum physics. If we do have more need for plumbers then give them points than engineers (I think the policy is shifting to this direction?). It is irresponsible for us to advertise the need for the best and brightest when our economy has little use for many of them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
