The intent of this thread is not to question the motives of immigrants, and yet, that is what is happening here.
That is all too true. I am, after all, an immigrant. If I tried to quote all the times you have questioned my motives, aiming false accusations at me in that regard, just in this topic, that alone would exceed the character count allowed in a post. Yeah, it would be nice if you desist.
You are not alone. I do not keep track of how many pro-noise weak-on-substance posts have similarly questioned my motives without justification, but there are plenty. Along with plenty of name-calling and ad hominem, in addition to the gratuitous disparaging of Canadians generally. And that's apart from the drumbeat of abuse aimed at Canadian civil servants here.
But, in any event, this is not about me. No one need defend my role in this forum. It was a mistake for me to do so in response to
@MrChazz, who likewise questioned my motives and character. Since
@MrChazz had initially addressed some substantive elements, including Canadian case law, I (mistakenly it appears) perceived an interest in dealing with how things actually work, how the law and rules and procedures are in practice actually interpreted and applied. I thought, for example, that the efforts I have made in regards to a number of more complex and thorny matters affecting PRs, in regards to the Residency Obligation as well as becoming citizens, would be sufficient assurance to show my participation here is to help, to make positive contributions, and illustrate that, yes, I invest a considerable effort in doing the homework and trying to get things right.
For emphasis: These issues, and this one (about pushing IRCC to properly do its job) in particular,
are NOT about me. My personal shortcomings are NOT relevant. My flaws are no more relevant than yours. Perhaps an accounting of my faults would be a far longer list populated by more egregious defects than yours, but that discussion would be way off-topic, a distraction.
Usually, with some exceptions, a slip here or there, I make a concerted effort to focus on information not opinion, although sometimes that can be information about "opinions." That is not about my own opinions (I try to clearly delineate what is my opinion when I do offer it). Figuring out how things work will often deal with mapping how opinions can influence how things work. This tends to loom large in regards to this topic. As I have oft noted, plenty of HOW-IT-SHOULD-BE opinion has populated this topic, usually to the detriment of the agenda to discuss and formulate effective messaging, strategies, and tactics, toward influencing lawmakers to put pressure on bureaucrats to do what is needed to get processing citizenship applications on track.
Which leads to your more recent insults and accusations. Unnecessary. Unwarranted. When you posed a query, despite your history of attacking my motives, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and made a sincere effort to respond appropriately.
You asked "
What is more productive? The people tweeting (a 1 line effort) at IRCC or people writing 1000 word essays criticizing people tweeting at IRCC in a random forum?"
I sincerely answered "
It is not the form, it is the substance that mostly matters. Form matters, some. Mostly it is the content, the messaging." And I gave two specific examples of counter-productive messaging. For those who are engaged in this topic because they are sincerely interested in seeing improvements in application processing, the distinction is indeed an important one. Effective advocacy is almost as much about avoiding the landmines, not alienating those who could help let alone the decision-makers, and especially not triggering or inciting elevated opposition.
I did not elaborate how "
form matters, some," but there is strong evidence that one-liner tweets, for example, actually tend to have little if any persuasive influence (with isolated exceptions, such those by one now-banned source in that not-particularly-admirable neighbouring country to our south); while they can generate a lot of noise, that noise tends to be in an echo-chamber.
You chose to focus on one of my examples of counter-productive arguments, but not substantively other than your response appears to at least tacitly concur in the point I make: not a good idea to be arguing that citizenship application processing needs to be given a priority based on the need for a Canadian passport to travel abroad. (You say "
No one is telling IRCC to speed up processing so that they can go abroad.") To be clear, however, this is not just about arguments made to IRCC, or even just about arguments to lawmakers who can put pressure on IRCC, but also about the public face of the cause (including here in this forum) and the effort to motivate people to support this cause.
I am not denigrating you, and never have, just because you are among those who have explicitly said your hurry, the reason you do not want a long wait,
is because you "want the flexibility in life to be able to leave Canada for a few years . . . " The reasons you expressed are entirely understandable. And to think otherwise, to think I have, or that I have disparaged anyone else because they have made similar remarks here (most though, perhaps, not so emphatically as Dana.D), severely misunderstands the nature and the substance of my observations, which to a significant extent are cautionary. Cautionary on multiple levels. Cautionary based on how things really work.
What people think of me, shrug. I have to look in the mirror occasionally. Nothing there to brag about. Far from it. "
Sad" someone might say, all too apropos. But irrelevant here.
What people think of the content I post here, in a sincere effort to help, to promote what is fair and just, that should stand on its own. I reference sources. I explain the reasoning (in more detail than some like, but it is very easy to scroll past it all; it is readily apparent that objections to my "too long" posts are either personal attacks or veiled objection to the content). I try to focus on what matters, how-it-works, and I hope some can put such information and analysis to good use.
For now, for this post, the take-away I'd like to emphasize is that the messaging matters. In the full 360°. That means messaging here, in communicating with forum readers, as well as in missives sent to MPs, the media, and whoever else one can identify as potentially helping to make a difference. And for this issue in particular, pushing for IRCC to more aggressively process citizenship applications, what is desperately needed is a more positive message . . . unfortunately, much of what is repeated here, again and again, is about making noise, and more than a little of that is negative noise. That's not effective messaging.
To go back to a message some, including me, have advanced, the importance of the path to citizenship in Canada's immigration policy, and its respective importance to not just the Canadian economy but to the Canada this nation strives to be, is worth promoting. Not a lot of bang in this message. Sure. But a fair and just process requires a reasonably timely process. I certainly hope some MPs and other lawmakers and community leaders, and decision-makers in our bureaucracies, believe this is important stuff and when reminded (our job), sooner rather than later, will pursue measures to make this system work, fairly, timely, with justice.
