Unfortunately you also came in the middle of a pandemic so hiring was frozen at many countries. Not guarantee that you would have found better opportunities but the Canadian job market has been far from normal. Many banks were in a hiring freeze for the majority of the pandemic.
Would Not Meet RO - got Job in Ireland
- Thread starter SSDN4673
- Start date
PNP is based on skills needed in a province. FSWP is purely a points based system which leads to too many professionals in the wrong fields like dentists and pharmacists. There are supposed to be changes to the system to try to allow skills that are in need to be prioritized for immigration. Job markets are ever evolving and there are a very long list of potential career/jobs so this is not as easy as you may think. Many immigrants seek degrees to try and match desired skills but on arrival want to work in another field so only accepting skills that are in need doesn’t mean that necessary get people wanting to work in that field.I agree with everything you said.
Regarding TN visa applicants rejected I would like to note the following: TN is non-immigrant visa. Obviously it's different from H1b visa (it's much easier to get), but overall, it's just a non-immigrant visa. US doesn't have to employ foreign nationals, just as Canada doesn't have to employ American or other foreign citizens. And no one in the US told Canadians that we have a tremendous need to TN visa holders (up to 400,000 per year), so everyone should rush to get it, nor US tells TN visa holder to stay in the US forever, or they will lose the visa and would have to submit a mountain of paperwork to qualify for it again (with big IF attached to qualifying in future). And I can't imagine newly approved TN visa holder being consistently sent to secondary inspection, where he is grilled about his residence status in the US
Therefore, I believe, situation is very different with skilled PRs in Canada vs. non-immigrant visa holders in the US. Canadian skilled PRs were qualified for permanent residence by Canadian government (with the rights and privileges almost mirroring those of Can. citizens) , and their qualification was based on Canada's alleged need to employ them due to scarcity of such skilled workers in Canadian labor market (which is hugely misleading, if you consider the extreme length people get to land any job, which often turns out to be a survival job). And once PR is landed in Canada he is obligated to stay there permanently (not leave the country for more than 3 years in any five-year period and keep close ties/assets/investments, or else), regardless of their prospects to get a meaningful and fairly compensated job (not mere survival job).
Switzerland is one of the hardest country to immigrate to, it is a very small country and is extremely expensive. Most countries can’t have immigration policies like Switzerland. They still struggle to find people (mostly temporary workers) to do lower skilled jobs, to do skilled jobs like nursing because of the high cost of living and most won’t be able to secure Swiss citizenship, elder and child care. Due to laws, tax status, historical industries, the fact that they are not part of the EU, they attract quite a few very well paying industries and there are whole industries that cater to companies having a mailbox and secretary in Switzerland. Have some family and friends who are Swiss or married to someone Swiss. Even with a good income they had to build a home far out from the city for it to be somewhat affordable. They send children’s clothing from Canada since it is so much more affordable. They go to Germany or France every month or two because prices are more reasonable. Ireland has only become a huge hub because of their low corporate tax rates (which are scheduled to change), they speak English and are part of the EU. After Brexit many companies have preferred to go to the European mainland. The Irish housing market is also unaffordable to many people living in Ireland. Lots of taxes in Europe as well. Shortage of healthcare. You find problems in every country. In terms of Australia their average salaries are comparable to Canada, similar challenges in healthcare, the lack of workers has not pushed up wages dramatically. Many are unwilling to work in certain industry. Like many countries housing costs are not in line with salaries. There are faults in the Canadian immigration system but there are similarly large obstacles in most other countries. In the US you may get paid more but you may be waiting 2 decades for a green card if you get one. You may never have certainty and many children miss out on qualifying for their green card through their parents. Was just watching a senate panel for foreign trained doctors who have done residencies in the US. Doctor had spent 16 years on J1 visa working in an underserved area (one of the requirements). They had difficulty renewing their visa the last time and had to take time off until they got their visas. They wanted to leave but felt dedicated to their patients after so many years. They had difficulty finding coverage while they waited for visa renewal. They are finally on the path to a green card but it has been 16+ years. Many states only accept 30 IMG on J1s who have done their residencies in the US. One IMG didn’t get selected after working in the US for many years in an underserved area where most US med school graduates refuse to work. They immigrated to Canada where they will get PR right away. There are no perfect systems. There are problems in every system and country but some systems work best for your situation. Same as home countries.
Last edited:
To make it short: Canada imports 400,000 immigrants a year, under a false pretext that they are needed. All the while, its' labor market is oversaturated and can't provide all these new immigrants with any kind of jobs, especially in their field. The rational solution would be to cut the immigration and work on betterment of economy. What Canadian government does instead? It brings more immigrants, while those landed are struggling to get a survival job. Not a good policy.
Last edited:
Unemployment levels would be much higher than they are if 400k immigrants per year are struggling to find survival jobs.
Why do you think all 400k immigrants per year are struggling to find survival jobs?
I don't think , nor said, that all 400k immigrants per year are struggling to find survival jobs. It's obvious though that many newly landed PRs (I don't have exact count, but hear it all the time, not just from articles and scholarly publications but also from individuals on public forums) mightily struggle to get a job after landing. To make things worse - they are forced to work survival jobs while having professional degrees and years of experience in their field before coming to Canada. Question then arises: if there is true need for these skilled immigrants and the scarcity of skilled workers, how come employers don't compete for them, but they compete with each other and end up doing survival jobs? Canada says there is higher demand for skilled workers than the number of the skilled workers available in Canada. However, the opposite is evident. What we observe on the ground (and I tesed the grounds personally, so I don't just rely on articles/publications/hearsay/anecdotal evidence) is scarcity of jobs instead (or, outright discriminations and refusal of hiring of a candidate "without Canadian experience"). So, why bring 400,000 new immigrants per year, when you already have surplus of skilled PRs struggling to get any job? The right thing to do would be, IMHO, to cut the number of immigrants down, to such number where they would truly be demanded and employed by Canadian economy. Doing so would benefit both immigrants and Canadian society at large. Would you disagree?
Last edited:
The unemployment rate is pretty low indicating there are employees needed. Whether a new immigrant is able to find a job in their desired field and often in their desired field in the location they want is very individual. That is the case for Canadians as well. If a new immigrant isn’t satisfied with the job opportunities then they can relocate. In all countries not every graduate finds a job in their field. With the Internet people have the ability to connect with current workers to ask about demand for their skills in Canada, can apply throughout Canada although many are not willing to relocate, etc. I tell people daily not to secure an apartment until they’ve found a job in their field and to apply in every region of Canada. For example many types of engineers will get a job more easily in the Yukon versus the GTA including Canadians. The feedback I get constantly is that people want to secure a 1 year lease as soon as possible so they don’t waste money on a short term rental. Securing a rental often limits where you can work even within a city. Most are unwilling to consider more than a few cities some are determined to live in the GTA no matter what.
None of these comments are obviously true - in the sense that they're just separate hypotheses about how things work that are not at all self-evident.
You could test your proposition that having fewer immigrants had the simplistic fixed-number-of-vacancies available to skilled immigrants 'model' that you suggest (which is known as the lump of labour fallacy but let's just call it the lump of labour model).
Only about five years ago the annual immigration numbers were about 250k per year. There's a chart here going back to 1860: https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-levels-plans.html
The numbers started ramping up fairly consistently beginning about 1990 (at annual rates of 100k-150k).
Now obviously following on from your claim that it's simply too high a level of immigration and just needs to be cut down to match demand for labour / jobs, then the situation for skilled immigrants should have change for the worse, and noticeably so, during this period. (Probably some corrections for the business cycle, and certainly covid, etc). If it were just an outright mismatch, you'd expect the unemployment rate amongst immigrants to steadily grow.
I don't see any evidence that's true, that there's been any significant deterioration that could be clearly linked to changing immigration levels.
There are plenty of different models for how jobs and labour for immigrants (skilled and other) is formed and occurs. Probably no single model would capture every aspect. But one very simple and obvious one is: it simply takes new immigrants some period of time to 'match' to the right job and there's no significant shortage of demand for labour (due to search, skills mismatch, time to adjust and apply to jobs out of their immediate field or subfield, and sometimes - yes - to get local experience and culturally acclimate, sometimes take time to accept pay lower than their original expectations, or to decide to start their own business). Some would get jobs that are 'less' or different than they were expecting - if you want to call them survival jobs, sure - less than they wanted anyway.
And of course, some won't like Canada or the jobs they're offered or the weather or whatever and will leave. Many may also choose to go to the place with the highest pay, and that's just not likely to be Canada. That's not obviously something specific to higher levels of immigration either.
And what you'd expect to see if that set of hypotheses were correct (call it 'friction' for simplicity) - unemployment amongst new immigrants would drop steadily in the first five years after landing, and the wage gap would shrink over time too. That sounds a lot closer to plausible. Something that could be looked at against data.
If a former doctor, engineer, MBA holder or IT specialist is employed pulling a rickshaw for a minimum wage in Canada then technically he is employed like everyone else, but practically is in tragic situation, where his skills and experience are not required. I didn't say there is high unemployment rate in Canada. I said she doesn't need hundreds of thousands of skilled workers she imports, her labor market is already oversaturated.
If you want to talk about unemployment rate per se (and not the skilled PRs and how they actually fare in existing labor market after landing), then say "I would like to change subject & discuss something else". Otherwise, you turn this into straw man argument, which is a logical fallacy.
Besides, if you ever decide to start a thread or a debate about unemployment rate (and if I choose to participate), let it be known that unemployment rate per se is not a good measure of how healthy labor market is. We had a period of time which seemed like a great economic crisis in the US during Obama years and following the 2007 crash of real estate market, but even during the worst economic times our unemployment rate rose only by couple of percentage points or went down very close to what it was before. All the while labor participation rate was significantly lower (that's why some economists were saying that real unemployment rate was around 22%, and not mere 6%-8%). The reason for this is that for statistical purposes the DOL stops counting someone as unemployed if they fall off the job market and stop searching for a job for certain period of time. In the eyes of DOL they don't exist. But the truth is those are the people who lost any hope of getting a job in a labor market that has no need for their labor, so they just stop looking for a job. It's not because they don't want to work, but because they lost any hope of finding a work. So, while official unemployment rate is a whole different subject to discuss, let's not forget that official unemployment rate could indeed present a misleading picture of reality, where millions fall off the labor market and stop looking for a job with unemployment rate remaining low.
P.S. I always note the lack of integrity in people who are defending certain position only because they have an agenda or are driven by desire to spread a propaganda. Truth to them is simply irrelevant, having their propaganda prevail at any costs is paramount. I must add that I loose interest in discussion where the opposing side is playing a "dirty cop" and is unwilling to maintain an honest conversation, because it's practically pointless.
Let's not compare apples to oranges. Newly landed PRs face additional , treacherous challenges which set them apart from other Canadians. One of those challenges is what Canadian employers call a "lack of Canadian experience". It's an insidious thing, a catch 22: in order to get Canadian experience, you need to get a job. But in order to get a job, you need Canadian experience. Don't tell me this problem doesn't exist in Canada.
And, unlike the US, you are expected to have a "leg in" and insider connection or a "word" in your favor, from someone who knows someone at the company you want to work for in order for you to be seriously considered for almost any vacancy. This is what people in India or Pakistan call "fixing a job" for you (with a wink-wink), but in Canada you call it "networking". And you need it even for survival jobs. In Canada I would never be considered , be hired or even interviewed for jobs that I was interviewed, considered or hired for in the US, if I used the same tactics that I used in the US (which is, go to Indeed and submit a resume with cover letter in expectation that complete strangers who had no idea who I was would call me for an interview).
I don't know why you keep bringing this thing about relocation. To be sure, there used to be (I don't know if it's still the case) jobs for tough men up North, jobs like working in oil rigs, operating a crane at -55 C and so on, which paid handsomely. But if you are a former IT specialist weighing 150 lbs and used to tropical climate and physical labor, it's highly unlikely that you will be a good fit for such jobs. Aside from such instances, I can't imagine a situation where someone (let's say IT engineer) refuses to move to a remote location, while knowing that there is a good paying job in their field they can get there. That just doesn't sound plausible. You are suggesting that someone who traveled 10000-15000 miles across the globe is unwilling to go 50 kilometers outside of the major city, or to a nearby province , while knowing full well that great opportunity awaits them there. If you have some good source of information to substantiate your claim, please do share (so far I have shared dozens of articles, videos, links to publications to back up my claims, but can't recall my opponents doing the same).
I don't know what exactly people are telling you, but I know one of the additional problems job applicant in Canada faces is this: if you are not already living in (or near) the city where you apply for a job, your chances of being contacted by potential employer plummet to near absolute zero.
So, I don't know what role cost of short term lease v long term lease plays in selecting and settling in one place for good, but I do know that it's nearly impossible to get any job at all if you are in Ontario and want to get a job in British Columbia. You would first have to move to BC and make yourself available and settled in the place before you had any chance to be considered for a position and called to an interview. I heard that multiple times from Canadians.
Last edited:
IndianBos
Hero Member
- Oct 8, 2014
- 142
- Category........
- FSW
- Visa Office......
- CPC-O
- NOC Code......
- 2174
- App. Filed.......
- 19-Jun-2014
- Nomination.....
- 16-Oct-2014
- File Transfer...
- 11-Dec-2014
- Med's Request
- 24-Apr-2015 (Delayed for adding a child)
- Med's Done....
- 9-May-2015 (Updated 29-May-2015)
- Interview........
- N/A
- Passport Req..
- 17-Jun-2015 (mailed 29-June-2015)
- VISA ISSUED...
- 11-Jul-2015
- LANDED..........
- 7-Sep-2015
I am not sure what are you trying to prove. Canada has some challenges, like every other country in the world. I will let you pick one country of your choice, and we can easily bring up 50 issues. Example, green card backlog in the US, people tied to thir employers because of H1B and L1, UK suddenly changing immigration policy and asking people to leave.
I have lived in the US (10 years) and Canada (4 years) and can easily say the govt here is better, and is working hard to make it easier to immigrants to succeed. It is not perfect, a work in progress and always will be.
Are you trying to prove that people shouldn't relocate to seek a better life? Or Canada is the worst country to relocate. All those videos and articles you mention are already available on internet to people to research, and still, 400k immigrants accept the PR and land in Canada to seek a better life. And it is working out fine at a Marco level for Canada as well as those immigrants like me
So again, what is your point?
Last edited:
If you still don't udnerstand what is my point, please do yourself and me a favor: just ignore my posts and pass by.
IndianBos
Hero Member
- Oct 8, 2014
- 142
- Category........
- FSW
- Visa Office......
- CPC-O
- NOC Code......
- 2174
- App. Filed.......
- 19-Jun-2014
- Nomination.....
- 16-Oct-2014
- File Transfer...
- 11-Dec-2014
- Med's Request
- 24-Apr-2015 (Delayed for adding a child)
- Med's Done....
- 9-May-2015 (Updated 29-May-2015)
- Interview........
- N/A
- Passport Req..
- 17-Jun-2015 (mailed 29-June-2015)
- VISA ISSUED...
- 11-Jul-2015
- LANDED..........
- 7-Sep-2015
Great way to deflect, kudos. As you said earlier, if I feel something is not right, I will not pass by. I stand up to it.
So, again, if you can, please explain in 1-2 sentences what your point is.