marcus66502 said:
I don't think anybody should base their decision on where to spend tuition money based on citizenship rules. Those rules will change as fast as the weather, and when that happens they'll have nobody to blame but themselves. I don't know if what you're saying is true but if it is, if anyone chose to study in Canada because of it's citizenship laws, I'd say they made a dumb decision (happens).
It's not a matter of my opinion. This is a fact, non-immigrants don't get a say on the new law; hell not even current PR's do (nobody does really, except the conservatives in Parliament). Hence the gist of my post: if you're not already a PR, you should first be concerned with getting permanent residence, not citizenship.
When I was applying for permanent residence, I was in the Immigration part of this forum, not the Citizenship part.
And not to be overly critical, but I doubt you were around two hundred years ago. What you say will carry a lot of more weight if you stick to things you've seen first hand.
Refugee applicants also don't have a say, and yet some people think they should have a voice (as evidenced by the fact that $300-an-hour lawyers do pro-bono work to help refugees and some other categories). Just because the law excludes certain people, does not mean it is right.
FYI, a lot of people who were trying to choose, say between the US and Canada when applying to be an international student, chose in fact Canada, because the education is of comparable good quality, but it also gives them an opportunity (a slippery one as we can see) to become a citizen. As on-hold once said, don't play naivete, we all know that PR status and citizenship are a bait that, when swallowed by international students, makes them more willing to part with tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars. Even in Canada, this is huge money. In a third-world country, where an annual income might be $5000-10000, these are unbelievable amounts of money. It is obvious why Canada in that sense might make more sense to these guys. Would you choose foreign education only, or foreign education + PR/citizenship?
Not even a hundred years ago, people were excluded from voting because they did not have property (or they were female; or of color). Again, facts on the ground do not always mean that this is where we want to go as a species, or that this is right.
And this is the first time somebody has told me that when I know a historical fact, and I want to illustrate a point by using it, I should refrain from it because I was not born at that time. We all study history from a very early age because it is very applicable to life today (maybe you should tell the curriculum planners of the world that they were all wrong, because they were not born then
). "Don't talk about history unless you've seen it first hand!" So when you give people advice - try to make sense
. You would probably tell Harper today not to lecture in Normandy on WWII, he hasn't seen it first hand
. But I see your point - it would be easier to manipulate people into thinking this is a good bill if Canada's past weren't brought up
. So if you could make us not mention the past, that would make somebody's job easier I suppose.
All I am saying - your opinion might discourage some pour soul from speaking up. So please keep such opinions to yourself - everyone is welcome to share their opinions here I believe.