Did anyone watch the documentary on Marriage Fraud last night on CBC news?

[toby]

Hi

Conditional visa would probably be a no go. If CBSA doesn't have the resources to investigate "fraud" marriages, they sure won't have the resource to ensure that the persons admitted on conditional visa are still together. I also don't like the idea of a sponsor holding a "hammer" over the PI's head, if s/he doesn't conform to his/her wishes they are going to be sent home. With 65K family class immigrants a year, lets assume that about 60% are spouses, so that is 37K people attending a CIC to prove that they are still in the relationship every year. Can you image the backlog? CIC Can't cope with the Entrepreneurs interviews to check that they have met their conditions. And there are only about 1K per year.

If there is no way to fix the current system without expanding the immigration bureaucracy, then why not consider a number of fast-track options? Diverting applicants to one of these fast-tracks would reduce the number of applications being processed through the “normal” system – which would make things go faster for “normal” applications.

Canadian tends to reject fast-track systems because they favour the privileged who can qualify, but if the overall result is beneficial for everyone, e.g. faster processing times for “normal” applications, why not consider a few?

A) Lie detector tests.

Maybe they are not sufficiently reliable to be used in a court of law, but they are reliable enough to be used in police work, so perhaps they are just as reliable (or no more unreliable) than the judgment of a Visa Officer trying to determine an applicant’s true motives from mere documents. The applicant would travel to the Visa Office, and if he/she passed the test, his/her application would be fast-tracked. If he/she does not pass the test, he/she could go through the normal process in protest, but the VO would be entitled to take the failure into account. This will tend to convince fraudulent applicants to avoid the test.

It has been objected that it is not practical for some applicants to travel to where the test would be administered. But any applicant may be called to a Visa Office for an interview, so why not allow some to elect to take that trip for the test? Same thing, no?

B) Probationary visas.
True, CIC doesn’t have the resources to check that couples are legitimately together after the period is up, and CIC won’t add them. But CIC might find that the fast-tracks free up enough resources to reallocate them to check-ups of probationary visas.

Also, the check-ups don’t have to be – uh -- bureaucratic. Why could CIC not publish a list of proofs, and let the probationary PRs submit their application to remove probation?” The proof need be only a sworn affidavit from a few specified “professional witnesses” (e.g. a combination of employer, minister, doctor – anyone in a position to testify, hopefully impartially, that the couple is together. I know, this is not immune to fraud, but the current process is not immune either.

C) Hammer power
Yes, the sponsor could use the power of deportation to abuse the probationary PR, but appointing a single arbiter (the same as occurs in small claims courts) to hear such cases would allow truly-abused PRs to exit the sponsor’s home.

How to implement this protection without imposing another bureaucratic burden needs to be thought out carefully, of course. But simply voicing objections without trying to solve them leads us back to the current flawed process.

C) Bond
Applicant and sponsor could post a bond, to be returned at the end of the probationary period if the couple can show the proofs outlined in (B), or f the PR has voluntarily exited Canada. If not, the bond is forfeited, and CIC might use its present powers to deport the PR..

The objection that only the relatively rich would be able to use this fast track is countered if the overall result is to speed up the processing of “normal” or “non –fast-track” applications.

There are no doubt problems in implementing these three ideas, but rather than throwing a spannner in the works – which leaves us with nothing but the current system – let’s try to solve the problems.

And there are other ways to speed up the process. Let’s put our thinking caps on, or rather, let’s keep them on. This is good.

 

[toby]

So a Canadian criminal is a better person than any immigrant? I think you'll be more at home on a Klan website

ANd here is where the tone starts to get personal, and offensive. Leave off, people, or get back to a dispassionate discussion of the point, please.

 

[Oil Sand Guy]

As horrible as the person that you mentioned was, he was still a Canadian, and as far as I know every country looks after their own people's interests first. That's the way countries work. I don't know much about deportation laws but I guess a Canadian would have to do something extremely big against their country to get to that point. A Canadian criminal, in the worst scenario, is still a Canadian.

Sorry if anyone doesn't like my post. I stopped caring about karma a long time ago.

Excuse me Mr BonBon:

Are you saying: that the my wife's ex has had the right to lie, to mislead and to bring a woman with her innocent child to Canada....later to throw them in MINUS 30 into the street? Just because he is canadian like you, he is allowed to do this and then because the family broke then the Government of Canada has duty to throw the lady and her daughter out of Canada? What kind of genius are you?
If you really meant to say this then my position remains: You and him should be shipped back to old Europe or we throw both of you to the polar bears.

You know what!!! have you watched the marriage fraud documentary? I guess, now, why those women were desparate and were looking for husbands and lovers from abroad. This is because those women were fed up from those like you and him

 

[bonbon9]

Excuse me Mr BonBon:

Are you saying: that the my wife's ex has had the right to lie, to mislead and to bring a woman with her innocent child to Canada....later to throw them in MINUS 30 into the street? Just because he is canadian like you, he is allowed to do this and then because the family broke then the Government of Canada has duty to throw the lady and her daughter out of Canada? What kind of genius are you?
If you really meant to say this then my position remains: You and him should be shipped back to old Europe or we throw both of you to the polar bears.

You know what!!! have you watched the marriage fraud documentary? I guess, now, why those women were desparate and were looking for husbands and lovers from abroad. This is because those women were fed up from those like you and him

Hi.

First of all, I would suggest reading my post again. I never stated any personal opinion in this topic.
Second, I do feel sympathy for what your wife went through. However, in my post I was mentioning what the governments of the world think and act like. And as we all know, a national in their own country will always have more right than the immigrants, and be defended more by their government.
Thirdly, it is hilarious how you think I'm a Canadian man, when I'm a Mexican lady married to a wonderful naturalized Canadian. But it's ok, if it made you feel better to think that you're better than men in this country, go ahead, keep the thought. Good luck with life.

 

[aerogurl87]

Excuse me Mr BonBon:

Are you saying: that the my wife's ex has had the right to lie, to mislead and to bring a woman with her innocent child to Canada....later to throw them in MINUS 30 into the street? Just because he is canadian like you, he is allowed to do this and then because the family broke then the Government of Canada has duty to throw the lady and her daughter out of Canada? What kind of genius are you?
If you really meant to say this then my position remains: You and him should be shipped back to old Europe or we throw both of you to the polar bears.

You know what!!! have you watched the marriage fraud documentary? I guess, now, why those women were desparate and were looking for husbands and lovers from abroad. This is because those women were fed up from those like you and him

I'm pretty sure Bonbon meant that according to the law citizens will always come first to a country rather than immigrants. Even if they are in the wrong, immigrants don't vote and therefore the people with the power to vote get the most say so and perks. Unfortunately, this can lead to injustices such as what happened to your wife and child. But in the end the government is always going to look out for it's citizens before anyone else.

 

[JimM]

Whatever, troll.

Awww the bigot called me troll, I'm so hurt

 

[rjessome]

So much for healthy debate!

Anyway, toby, you mentioned on another thread that I discounted lie detector tests. No, I didn`t, it was the scientific community and the Supreme Court. Thinking of it from a legal perspective, IRPA and IRPR are laws and if you KNOW that your plan to implement the laws is going to lead to legal challenges that you will lose because the Supreme Court has already said that the test results cannot be used as evidence, why set yourself up for them? It's a no win for the government that would have lawyers lined up for judicial reviews and put egg on the face of the government because it would be a laughable move (in the legal community) in the first place. It's the same as Res Judicata for the government, "already decided".

I applaud that you really have your thinking cap on trying to come up with ideas, realizing that I'm NOT contributing to that. You are right in that ideas create solutions. Keep thinking! This is a difficult issue that probably doesn't have a perfect or 100% accurate solution but we should keep trying. I'm still for enforcement of the current laws and perhaps removing some (not all) of the rights of appeal for those found to have fraudulently obtained PR. And as far as faster processing is concerned, I am 100% for that as well. If the government is planning changes that will cost money, I'd like to see them add manpower both the CIC and CBSA. I truly don't think our current laws are bad if they are enforced.