Sorry, there's a mistake in that! It should read: "I really hope that you do NOT think that I hate Ukrainians"
How/Why is this possible?
- Thread starter Crelliphit
- Start date
Of all the topics you could've been exploring in the forum, you've shown exceptional interest in Ukrainians and not in the positive way. So it would appear that way to any observer.
I did answer the question you asked on "why Ukrainian immigration is supported" - from a political perspective to Canada's refugee efforts - there's a lot of Canadian involvement here. This is happening to a point where partner EU nations actually look up to Canada to support more Ukrainian refugees at the cost of certain other programs too (just reiterating what I see other immigration lawyers share).
>Does the Canadian government have so much tax payer's money that it can afford to do this and, apparently, give them the same start-up benefits/packages as genuine war refugees ?
This one was a little odd. They are war refugees. I don't know why you think they aren't. I've seen a lot of this bs from international students to be honest and it shows nothing but selfishness of "why not me but them?". You further brought in the tax payer's money aspect - tax payers are committing to help Ukraine as there's a clear support to them.
>However, why don't they join the line of other nationalities who wish to immigrate and just wait for their turn?
Every nation commits to something and has evolved their interests, beliefs and affection towards too! I donate to charities for example, but just because I do so, you can't expect me to be involved in all charities equally. It doesn't work. There are causes which I'm a lot more biased towards and so is my expertise and sensitivity - which leads me to support some causes a lot more. That's how the world works and nations work too. This is life 101.
Are there other nations with bigger issues? Probably! But do Canadians feel the same way about them? Probably not! It is more of a representation and awareness problem than anything else(if there's a case). If you feel that there's a nation that deserves more support, do your part and bring awareness to raise the support for it.
I really hope you understand what I'm saying.
Firstly, if you read any of my comments about this situation I state right from the start my position with regard to Ukrainians. If anyone doesn't understand what I have written, that is their problem not mine. As far as I'm concerned my statements reflect my opinions. I have stated that I have numerous Ukrainian friends and have been welcomed into their homes. If you don't understand that statement, that of course, is your prerogative.
Secondly I have quite specifically stated that my question was about NON WAR REFUGEES and why they were given the same welcome package as real war refugees. I didn't realise this was a difficult statement to understand. If you have been living in another country for 15 years, how can you classify yourself as a refugee.
My interest in the situation is one of equality of opportunity. I have been trying to obtain a genuine answer to my question and to date I have not received one. I'm afraid that if I don't get an answer to a question I will keep asking it until I do. It's as simple as that. I AM NOT AGAINST UKRAINIANS AT ALL. is that simple enough?
Then why you kept on mentioning about Ukrainians? But without mention other nationality who can easily immigrate to Canada?
Okay, I'll take a stab. Because I've run into a few cases, Ukrainian citizens who were not living in Ukraine at the start of the war, and whom you - in your framing of the issue, not mine - consider are not deserving of being treated as 'real war refugees.' (I'm saying your framing, not mine - and if you want we can say, for example, some IT specialist living already in Sweden or something and decides to come to Canada. Which yes, hypothetically, could use the existing program to come to Canada and work, no questions asked.)
So before anyone gets excited (because I don't want to argue about the specifics) this is assuming that there is some 'undeserving Ukrainian' profile / individuals by some definition of the program (in the minds of some of the public, anyway, and this may not be the same as the actual goals stated by the government). It's politics so perceptions do matter, at least in part.
Here's the real answer: for any government program or initiative of this type, there is a balance that needs to be struck between the desire to have it broad enough to capture most deserving cases (individuals, families) versus the desire/need to not make it "too" (excessively) broad (giving benefits to those who 'don't deserve it') versus the administrative feasibility of designing/implementing exclusion methods versus the actual negative costs of providing those benefits to 'those not deserving.' Keep in mind that any attempt to define 'undeserving' will also capture some subset of cases that (on closer inspection) might be considered deserving, and it can be VERY costly and burdensome to have appeal mechanisms or other ways to make exceptions to those exclusions.
Or in more simple terms: it is NOT 'free' or easy (or possibly even feasible) to exclude the undeserving while also letting in the desired number/type of cases we might define as 'deserving.' It's a truism that any type of "give some this benefit / don't let others have it" can get complicated quickly, and the way you exclude / enforce the differences can (often) overwhelm the cost of just being more open. Note also: whatever decision you make will - in retrospect afterwards - be criticized as either too strict or too loose. (In politics actually it will almost certainly be criticized from both sides)
The key is that for the most part, they're NOT looking at individual cases, but overall costs (pluses and minuses) on a population basis, and the cost of adminstering programs to be more selective.
So government made a decision and made it relatively open. You can dislike that if you like - it's a free country. People can also dislike your focus on this issue at the expense of others - remember, it's a free country. (Or the corollary to free speech is : express your opinions, and others get to make decisions about what they think of you when you do it.)
Some points I'd make that almost certainly entered into the deliberations of government behind closed doors:
-Canada has a pretty tight labour market right now and there is - arguably - a relatively high match between the types of skills Ukrainian entrants under the program have and gaps. (arguable but from what I've seen not wrong)
-There actually are good community support groups and the liek to help people integrate and find work, etc.
-There certainly are some who have come to Canada from eg Western Europe - but when you scratch the surface, those in Western Europe were not necessarily established with their families, their status was not always stable enough for children, etc., etc. (Some of those 'undeserving' may turn out to be deserving with more information)
-remember, from government perspective, a Ukrainian who comes from Europe (despite possibly being 'undeserving' by your definition) who comes and gets a job is not a 'negative.' The only negative is perception of queue-jumping, which is a cost the government has decided it can bear in this situation. There's also a pretty good likelihood that those who come from Europe and already had jobs there etc are BETTER candidates for the job market (more likelihood of English/French/other languages, etc).
-I've heard complaints about the government $$$ support and funding, and I'm sure there's been some who have received on a fraudulent or semi-fraudulent basis (came, stayed for a bit, got the funds, and left). It happens. Again, the costs of preventing such can be quite high - often prohibitive - for government. For Canada, one of many protections is it's not a quick process to get that funding, it's not all that much (in reality), and there are up-front costs (airline tickets, housing while getting it, etc) that mitigate. [Leaving aside that there are a fair number of these visa recipients who have decided not to take any money at all from government - from the contacts I have, that actually seems to be majority, but only my sample of acquaintances and stories.]
-Even allowing for that: simple government calc is going to be - after taxes received, including from the UA participants in the program and from money they spend in Canada - what's the net fiscal cost? And I'd love to craft a freedom of information request, but I'd bet they did a simple estimate that net cost to Canadian treasury will be zero or significantly positive. That estimate could be wrong, but repeat - they are looking at OVERALL costs, not each individual case.
-0They know of course some will stay, and to the extent they're good / qualifying candidates for PR programs, that's ok (net benefit actually). Those who don't fit in or want to stay mostly will leave eventually.
Last edited: