TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Immigration in Canada.
Pages (9): « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 »

quote:

Originally posted by mizza318 I for my self I am currently in the process of applying for my permanent residency papers. I am young educated (university & college all from Canada) have no criminal offenses, and lived here for the last 10 years, yet I have to apply under the same circumstances as someone coming from a 3rd world country with no education and knowledge of the country. For me that just does not make a lot of sense. And the wait times are ridiculous as well. About 9-15 months.

9-15? that's if you're very lucky
at least 18 months wait
btw have you seen this? http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resour.../section1.asp#5

quote:

The Plan includes the introduction of the Canadian Experience Class, a new avenue to immigration that will permit, under certain conditions, temporary workers and foreign students with a Canadian credential to apply for permanent residence.

but of course by the time it will be implemented, we'll get our PR card
i'm just in the exactly the same boat (i have a degree from Canadian uni. and working for a Canadian employer now more or less in my field of study)
i've always wondered why people of knowledge & skill within Canada don't have an easier way of getting the PR here..

quote:

Originally posted by El K Dee a friend of mine that attended university here and then got a work visa through the company he worked at for 2 years recently applied and got his permanent residency like a breeze....u really shouldnt have much trouble...

he must have had some special circumstances
both of my roomies with degrees and work experiences waited for 18 months to get the card

Re: Immigration in Canada.

quote:

Originally posted by lopi I recently came across this entry in one of my acquaintance�s journals on Purerave.com. I came to Canada when I was 4, and my parents has nothing but the clothes on their backs. They worked REALLY hard to get to where they are today, so you can imagine how angry I was when I read this. I just wanted to see what some of your reactions/opinions are to it. (And please spare us the "Your first problem is that you're on "purerave.com" smartass comments that we all know you love to make)

To the skinhead that wrote this, go crawl into a hole and die.

immigration is always a dicey topic on this board...

quote:

Originally posted by Ania_xox First of all, the reasons for european colonization of North America in the 17-18th centuries stemmed from economic motives as well as the simple desire to "discover what was out there" (different from the motives of the second colonization period - of Africa - which was an attempt to "civilize" and "spread the good Christian word" among those they deemed as inferior peoples).

And this is relevant to the question of current economic, territorial, or political ownership... how?

quote:

...as to who represents the Queen in this COLONY we call Canada and who theoretically (since you like to be so black-and-white about things - no pun intended) DOES this "answering" for us: 1999-2005 : Adrienne Clarkson --> Chinese background 2005-Present : Michelle Jean --> who, I believe, was actually born in Haiti

First of all, it's Micha�lle Jean, and secondly, you appear to be referring to the Governor General. That is, um... not the Queen.

It's like saying that Rogers is owned by Pakistanis because they're the middle managers and HR flunkies who report to the executives. That really doesn't matter, it's still owned and run by the lily-white Ted Rogers.

quote:

Lastly, do you KNOW or UNDERSTAND anything about the culture, beliefs, or governmental systems of the Aboriginal peoples who lived here prior to the european conquest? You can pick up a copy of Pocahontas.

Oh right, I hear that's a highly informative and completely unbiased source of information on Aboriginal peoples, perhaps even as valuable as the Disney movie. Thanks for the reference babe.

quote:

Sadly, concensus and a respect for nature were replaced by mercantilism and an exploitation of the earth. "A hell of a lot more" was done to this land for sure.

Oh goodie, we have another enviro-socialist here. Yes, the Indian tribes were highly respectful of nature, burning down forests to end up with areas better for hunting game, which they would hunt to near-extinction or actual extinction. It's just too bad that they weren't so respectful of each other, as we all know that the tribes slaughtered far more of each other during the antecedent years than the colonists ever did. The single biggest difference is that the colonists were able to win a strategic victory and retain control of the land, AND open it up to outsiders.

And since this thread really is about immigration, my point still stands: if you believe that the Canada of today is built upon immigration and immigrants, then don't thank the Cree, because they had no intention of letting in any of those immigrants. Not that they'd have wanted to come here if we hadn't had free enterprise, low taxes, and liberal values.

quote:

You possibly just rendered your entire WEAK ASS UNINFORMED argument here a total falsehood.

You say that, and yet you seem to be lacking any sort of counterargument. What you've essentially said is, "I don't particularly like what you just said, therefore, I don't like your argument." That's all well and good, but it doesn't make any of it wrong (or a "falsehood"), and aside from your numerous barely-relevant asides, you haven't produced any facts or coherent logical arguments to either support your point or contradict mine.

Are we done yet?

lol

Digi at his bestest in this thread!

quote:

Originally posted by jon jon immigration is always a dicey topic on this board...

You can say that again JJ

.

quote:

Originally posted by soupastah your parents are the best, I love them. What she failed to include is that both of them came over w/ finished nuclear physics degrees, and NEVER bitch about not having a job in their field or pay equal to their merits. They work hard to make less than they're worth so that they can live w/ the values here and their kids can take advantage of them to the fullest. Mad respect.

Thank You

quote:

Originally posted by soupastah can you satisfy curiosity w/ this guys age?

He's 21 or 22 I think.

quote:

Originally posted by FunkyCrew 9-15? that's if you're very lucky at least 18 months wait btw have you seen this? http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resour.../section1.asp#5 but of course by the time it will be implemented, we'll get our PR card i'm just in the exactly the same boat (i have a degree from Canadian uni. and working for a Canadian employer now more or less in my field of study) i've always wondered why people of knowledge & skill within Canada don't have an easier way of getting the PR here.. he must have had some special circumstances both of my roomies with degrees and work experiences waited for 18 months to get the card

"As well, the Plan includes the introduction of the Canadian Experience Class, a new avenue to immigration that will permit, under certain conditions, temporary workers and foreign students with a Canadian credential to apply for permanent residence. Finally, the Plan will maintain the Government�s commitments to support family reunification and humanitarian objectives"

SHIIIIIIIIIIIIT WHY COULDN'T THEY HAVE THIS WHEN I APPLIED

quote:

Originally posted by mizza318 SHIIIIIIIIIIIIT WHY COULDN'T THEY HAVE THIS WHEN I APPLIED

tell me about it

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut It's like saying that Rogers is owned by Pakistanis because they're the middle managers and HR flunkies who report to the executives. That really doesn't matter, it's still owned and run by the lily-white Ted Rogers.

hah well played.

quote:

Originally posted by AustralianGQ i totally agree, it is retarded, one reason why im glad to say im gonna move out of this country soon. canada is no longer canada, when i walk down the street and see no white ppl, just blacks and indians and asians...am i racist? nope, do i dislike these kind of ppl everywhere i go to the point where i feel very uncomfortable in my own canada...yes!

racialist imo.

quote:

Originally posted by Dr Satan racialist

quote:

Originally posted by AustralianGQ i totally agree, it is retarded, one reason why im glad to say im gonna move out of this country soon. canada is no longer canada, when i walk down the street and see no white ppl, just blacks and indians and asians...am i racist? nope, do i dislike these kind of ppl everywhere i go to the point where i feel very uncomfortable in my own canada...yes!

quote:

Originally posted by jennypie

I love this woman

quote:

Originally posted by El K Dee My dad

I met Liam's dad, and he's da bomb!

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut I'm sorry to burst your bubble, Ania, but actually, white people do own this land. Canada was still a constitutional monarchy last time I checked (so says even your precious Wikipedia) and that means we answer to Queen Elizabeth II of England. That makes us - say it with me now - a white English colony that just recently became a truly independent nation, in 1982. More to the point, the first people to occupy a land physically do not necessarily own it for all eternity. There is no "finders keepers" clause in either Canadian Law or U.N. statutes. I get tired of hearing people beat the long-dead horse of how the white man took the land from the "Natives" (or whatever the politically correct term is these days - Aboriginals?). Yes, we took their land, and now it's ours. Boo hoo. People don't just return shit after fighting a bloody war for it. We fought, we won, and now we own the fucking place. And then, out of the goodness of our pale white chalky caker hearts, we made those same "Natives" full citizens and decided that this was going to be a free and democratic nation with open borders, which is a hell of a lot more than the Ojibwe or Inuktitut ever did. The fact that there even was a war in the 1600s should tell you just how happy they were having immigrants around. We may not be a "white" nation in the sense of having an exclusively white political cabinet, nor should we, but don't pretend that the Canada you know today exists for any other reason than a couple of whities who came here 400 years ago because they didn't think Europe was quite ball-snappingly freezing enough.

you are absolutely right, what irritates me the most is when a just landed immigrant tells a french or english native that they're immigrants like him... where did he get this bullshit?

I am not gonna push this further because people get called racists for much less than this. TOTA = PC nightmare

Ouein, parles mo� donc-�a. Les pur-laines sont toujours come �a derriere les dos des t�tes carr�es et les laines salles.

quote:

Originally posted by Abercrombie Ouein, parles mo� donc-�a. Les pur-laines sont toujours come �a derriere les dos des t�tes carr�es et les laines salles.

si t'as rien � dire ferme ta criss de gueule.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut ...people of the same race (normally defined as skin colour) are superior to those who are different, and that anybody different is beneath them, then that person becomes a racist. ... Racism is not slight discomfort at being surrounded by other races and cultures.

Based on your definition, GQ is definitely a racist. By referring to Canada as "his" he is projecting a sense of superiority. If this kid has trouble meeting white people in Caledon (according to jennypie's image dated Aug/05), he needs more than an education of the principles upon which Canada evolved during each milestone dating back to Confederation in 1867; he needs his eyes examined. A discussion of these principles (which Shelley and Ania hit on) is a lot more relevant than your simple refutation of Ania's argument re: natives.

Also, I don't see the relevance of your comment re: "slight discomfort" when this kid wants to leave the country. That's not "slight discomfort" by any definition that I've heard of

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut I'm sorry to burst your bubble, Ania, but actually, white people do own this land. Canada was still a constitutional monarchy last time I checked (so says even your precious Wikipedia) and that means we answer to Queen Elizabeth II of England. That makes us - say it with me now - a white English colony that just recently became a truly independent nation, in 1982.

Your stance isn't clear here. Are you saying that Canada is truly an indpendent nation, so there is no line of ownership? or are you standing on an extremely weak argument that we actually answer to a Queen, following that she owns Canada?!! LOL!!!

What a load of horse shit. The British monarchy has fuck-all to do with running the UK or any of the Commonwealth nations. They are simply a side freak-show whose isolated wealth should be repatriated as far as I'm concerned. In fact, the tolerance that the Commonwealth political systems show the royal family is indicative of the tolerance we have embedded in all facets of our economic/political/legal/social systems.

Obviously, I am arguing that the concept of ownership of a nation is not as simple as you are making it to be, and that one aspect of determining ownership is the activeness of said "owner" in maintaining the nation.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut More to the point, the first people to occupy a land physically do not necessarily own it for all eternity. There is no "finders keepers" clause in either Canadian Law or U.N. statutes. I get tired of hearing people beat the long-dead horse of how the white man took the land from the "Natives" (or whatever the politically correct term is these days - Aboriginals?). Yes, we took their land, and now it's ours. Boo hoo. People don't just return shit after fighting a bloody war for it. We fought, we won, and now we own the fucking place.

I've never been a proponent of the "who was here first" theory, which is the reason why the Palestinian (and various other ethinic territorial) issues are failing so spectacularly. No one can argue against Canada's global reputation as a nation of tolerance and multicultural peaceful co-existence, which is much more relevant to the immigration issue than an over-simplified discussion of the British monarchy.

I'm seeing the pattern of your posts, Diginut: you spend a lot of time redefining concepts in an attempt to change the premise of the argument to favour your own over-simplified pespective.

A more refined argument (which I can't be bothered to write up right now) would be to acknowledge the weakness of GQ's concept of "ownership" and then to point out how no such concept can exist in the liberal democratic system we have in Canada. The monarchy is irrelevant, but I agree with you that so are the Aboriginals (in isolation).

Digi knows everything dont you know?

quote:

Originally posted by fayraree Your stance isn't clear here. Are you saying that Canada is truly an indpendent nation, so there is no line of ownership? or are you standing on an extremely weak argument that we actually answer to a Queen, following that she owns Canada?!! LOL!!! What a load of horse shit. The British monarchy has fuck-all to do with running the UK or any of the Commonwealth nations.

Actually, the Royal Family does have a function (well, the constitutional monarchy part)

As much as the whole entire process is more of a rubber stamp than anything else, the Queen (and Governor General her representative) exercise a check and balances function. As recently as 1970s IIRC, the GG stepped in to resolve a political deadlock in Australia.

The political consequences of the GG using her political powers is too great to be taken lightly, but it is there.

quote:

They are simply a side freak-show whose wealth should be repatriated as far as I'm concerned.

The Royal Family now pays income tax.
The revenue the Royal Family generates from tourism income far outstrips any money the govt spends on them.

quote:

In fact, the tolerance that the Commonwealth political systems show the royal family is indicative of the tolerance we have embedded in all facets of our economic/political/legal/social systems.

I don't understand.

quote:

I've never been a proponent of the "who was here first" theory, which is the reason why the Palestinian (and various other ethinic territorial) issues are failing so spectacularly. No one can argue against Canada's global reputation as a nation of tolerance and multicultural peaceful co-existence, which is much more relevant to the immigration issue than an over-simplified discussion of the British monarchy.

This is interesting, because as late as the 60s, Canada had one of the most restrictive and racist immigration policy, pretty much barring any non white people as immigrants.

Shows how far Canada has come in terms of multi culturalism.

Then again, I've ranted enough times on this forum about how multiculturalism is killing Canada

quote:

Originally posted by jon jon hah well played.

On the contrary, I think it's a ridiculous comparison because the monarchy vis-a-vis the Governer General has no "real" executive powers in Canada, unlike the senior executives (that would represent the Board of Directors of a company). The middle management is completely the wrong level as a point of comparison.

Personally, I don't think you can even determine the "owner" of a country so the whole exchange was retarded.

Also, FYI Ted Rogers is the founder of Rogers Group; he does not have a majority position nor is he the largest single shareholder, and he is no longer the President/CEO.

quote:

Originally posted by EvilTree I don't understand.

Tolerance of allowing the royal family to keep their assets, vs. other political systems where the monarchies were violently toppled through revolution.

quote:

Originally posted by fayraree Tolerance of allowing the royal family to keep their assets, vs. other political systems where the monarchies were violently toppled through revolution.

And you think that way is the better way?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.