FSW WORLDWIDE

[Impatient Dankaroo]

African nationals have a higher tendency to apply for asylum or go out of status in Canada. Indians, although they game the system, do not apply for asylum for whatever reason

So yeah I was wrong about this one. Who’s ready for the massive asylum numbers next year?

https://immigrationnewscanada.ca/indian-asylum-claims-at-canadian-airports/#:~:text=In a significant and unprecedented,the same period last year.

 

[abhiram.kumar]

So yeah I was wrong about this one. Who’s ready for the massive asylum numbers next year?

https://immigrationnewscanada.ca/indian-asylum-claims-at-canadian-airports/#:~:text=In a significant and unprecedented,the same period last year.

This happened because the useless clown, Sean Fraser, directed IRCC to waive off screening and checks for visitor visas in order to reduce visitor visa backlogs. This lead to a lot of Indians, who were never supposed to get visitor visas, being granted TRVs, which they misused to gain entry into Canada and claim asylum. Instead of getting fired for destroying Canada’s immigration system, he got promoted to Housing Minister. Roflmao!

 

[GandiBaat]

Very quiet here lately...

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/canada-will-cut-its-permanent-immigration-levels-by-at-least-20-per-cent-1.7084925

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/trudeau-government-lower-immigration-2025

Barring any last-minute changes, the federal government is planning to decrease permanent resident intake from 485,000 this year to 395,000 in 2025, National Post has learned. The government is planning to further cut intake to 380,000 in 2026 and 365,000 in 2027.

#CanadaFirst #MakeCanadaGeatAgain

Very noteworthy... Even at 395K, it will be closer to 2021 target than 2019 target. 2026,27 numbers are nothing useful right now because these folks will certainly not be in power by then. Who knows what Pollivier's agenda is and what the situation will be. Trudeau came with some very very interesting promises and we know how it went.

I do believe Canada might change its healthcare policy. I was reviewing Australia's policy. I just hope if they go private with private insurance, it is built around Australian model and NOT american model. That being said, I do expect Pollivier to mess it up. They always do.

 

[GandiBaat]

The country that's actually affected by Quebec's country caps is Cameroon, not India.

Quebec actually has a different legal system altogether. It is not based on English common law as Canada. Per nation quota at federal level will face legal challenges due to its conflict with charter.

15 (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

I remember Quebec restricting hijab, turbans etc in public employment. The reason why it worked was because Quebec has a different legal system and invoked notwithstanding clause in Canadian charter. Federal government till date has never invoked that clause ever since 1982. And yes Canada had a lot of spats on immigration in past as well.

For Canadian federal government to implement a per nation quota, they will have to invoke Section 33 of the Canadian Charter ie notwithstanding clause. It will be unprecedented in Canadian legal history and bigger issues will be at risk then and political fallout involved in it. Not to mention it is temporary in nature and will be required to be reinvoked again and again after every 5 years.

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art33.html

Notwithstanding clause in Charter is a rather sensitive topic in Canadian politics. Its very similar to "more equal" in animal farm. I doubt any coming government will stir that pot.

Once a precedent is set, it is a slippery slope from there on with racial and gender discrimination at the other extreme.

 

[abhiram.kumar]

Quebec actually has a different legal system altogether. It is not based on English common law as Canada. Per nation quota at federal level will face legal challenges due to its conflict with charter.



I remember Quebec restricting hijab, turbans etc in public employment. The reason why it worked was because Quebec has a different legal system and invoked notwithstanding clause in Canadian charter. Federal government till date has never invoked that clause ever since 1982. And yes Canada had a lot of spats on immigration in past as well.

For Canadian federal government to implement a per nation quota, they will have to invoke Section 33 of the Canadian Charter ie notwithstanding clause. It will be unprecedented in Canadian legal history and bigger issues will be at risk then and political fallout involved in it. Not to mention it is temporary in nature and will be required to be reinvoked again and again after every 5 years.

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art33.html

Notwithstanding clause in Charter is a rather sensitive topic in Canadian politics. Its very similar to "more equal" in animal farm. I doubt any coming government will stir that pot.

Once a precedent is set, it is a slippery slope from there on with racial and gender discrimination at the other extreme.

A cap on applications based on nationality is not discriminatory at all since it is applied equally for all nationalities and does not ban any nationality from applying. In fact, it’s the opposite. It could be challenged in court but would need a real strong basis to claim discrimination since a cap that applies to all nationalities in the world, by nature, isn’t discriminatory at all. If that were the case, the US Supreme Court would have struck down per country caps that the US places in its immigration system.

 

[GandiBaat]

A cap on applications based on nationality is not discriminatory at all since it is applied equally for all nationalities and does not ban any nationality from applying. In fact, it’s the opposite. It could be challenged in court but would need a real strong basis to claim discrimination since a cap that applies to all nationalities in the world, by nature, isn’t discriminatory at all. If that were the case, the US Supreme Court would have struck down per country caps that the US places in its immigration system.

Well. Quebec tried that logic during Hijab / Turban / Religious expression ban. They also argued that since it applies to all religion, its not really a discrimination. It was not accepted. Ultimately they had to invoke section 33. Thats a temporary measure for 5 years. They can invoke it again.

The same will play out with nationality and race.

https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/november-2022/bill-21-religious-neutrality/

The government of Quebec says that by clothing Bill 21 with Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – the so-called “notwithstanding clause” – Bill 21 is immune from claims rooted in Charter rights such as freedom of religion. Many commentators agree with this position, even if they believe the law to be disturbingly discriminatory.

So yes, that logic does not really works and the government of Quebec had to use section 33.

Infact, most experts agreed that Bill 21 is discriminatory in nature.

Remember, the law says :

Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

The key phrase is "Each Individual". Denying benefit of PR to an individual based on their nationality will run counter to this.

 

[GandiBaat]

If that were the case, the US Supreme Court would have struck down per country caps that the US places in its immigration system.

Different countries different laws. Remember, US had Jim Crow laws till very late in 60s or so? US is not really a good point of reference. Canadian charter introduced in 1982 is much stronger when it comes to rights.

 

[ivicts]

I agree with the general gist. But, there's a reason for lack of diversity. IEC and other mobility visas give people from developed nations a lot more CRS and options to pick Canadian PRs. Many of the people that I hired under mobility visas left and have no intention of staying here permanently.

My biggest worry with your statement above is that even with country caps, we will still import garbage. It will be "diverse garbage". It will give people who are demanding diversity out of hatred a "peace of mind", but won't solve any real issues.

The core issue is in Failure of Canada to attract good immigrants, which won't go away with country caps or diversity. We need a merit based approach instead (a real one, unlike CRS based system).

The only problem a country cap solves is voting block politics.

It's a good way to score political points though.. It seems like most people on Reddit (I know it's not a good source) are openly racist toward a specific country.

 

[abhiram.kumar]

Well. Quebec tried that logic during Hijab / Turban / Religious expression ban. They also argued that since it applies to all religion, its not really a discrimination. It was not accepted. Ultimately they had to invoke section 33. Thats a temporary measure for 5 years. They can invoke it again.

The same will play out with nationality and race.

https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/november-2022/bill-21-religious-neutrality/



So yes, that logic does not really works and the government of Quebec had to use section 33.

Infact, most experts agreed that Bill 21 is discriminatory in nature.

Remember, the law says :



The key phrase is "Each Individual". Denying benefit of PR to an individual based on their nationality will run counter to this.

They are very different things. The ban on religious clothing actually bans public sector from displaying religious symbols while on duty. By placing a ban, it actually infringes on the religious freedoms of individuals in Canada, which is a charter right. Here’s the thing about the charter. It applies to all individuals within Canada. It doesn’t apply to individuals outside Canada. A country cap places a cap on the number of applications received/processed from one country. It does not ban individuals from a specific country from applying so there’s no denying PR to anyone? If caps are discriminatory, then the Canadian government would have been sued for offering IEC visas to only specific nationalities.

 

[GandiBaat]

They are very different things. The ban on religious clothing actually bans public sector from displaying religious symbols while on duty. By placing a ban, it actually infringes on the religious freedoms of individuals in Canada, which is a charter right.

Errrr.... Nope. Charter is clear about equality. "Benefits of Laws" is the term Charter clearly uses in Equality law. So yes, charter applies in discrimination based on national origin.

Imagine this. Replace "National Origin" with "Race". "No Race will make up more than 25% of immigration". Will you still feel it is not violating charter?
OR
Imagine this. Replace "National Origin" with "Gender or Sex". "No Gender will make up more than 50% of immigration.". Will you still feel it is not violating charter?
OR
Imagine this. Replace "National Origin" with "Religion". "No Religion will make up more than 25% of immigration.". Will you still feel it is not violating charter?

The law of equality in charter treats "National Origin", "Gender", "Race" and "Religion" ALL as discrimination criteria, which it bans.

Besides, the point was, if argument that "We are promoting secularism by banning religious symbols in public employment" did not work, "We are promoting diversity by discriminating immigrants and denying them equal benefits of laws" is not going to fly as well.

It applies to all individuals within Canada.

Charter does not says Individuals in Canada or Residents. It says individuals.
Besides, a major share of immigrants are actually in-canada immigrants.

 

[iSaidGoodDay]

It's a good way to score political points though.. It seems like most people on Reddit (I know it's not a good source) are openly racist toward a specific country.

Yeah, see those occasionally. I try my best to avoid these hateful, echo-chambers though. Some complaints are legit, some are total bs. For example, been working in my local community for a safer Diwali and it has been a challenge. Quite a few families that will light up illegal fireworks and won't care. So, we have our RCMP and Fire Chief on alert for the next week.

If both sides are idiotic, no point in wasting our time for either. Best to do our civic duties and stay away from the noise.

 

[abhiram.kumar]

Yeah, see those occasionally. I try my best to avoid these hateful, echo-chambers though. Some complaints are legit, some are total bs. For example, been working in my local community for a safer Diwali and it has been a challenge. Quite a few families that will light up illegal fireworks and won't care. So, we have our RCMP and Fire Chief on alert for the next week.

If both sides are idiotic, no point in wasting our time for either. Best to do our civic duties and stay away from the noise.

Here’s the thing. Country caps aren’t racist. In fact, they’re the opposite and actually promote true diversity. Immigrants who see huge numbers of their own people in the host country, will naturally get into a comfort zone and will never feel the need to integrate into a new society. They will never feel the need to interact with diverse nationalities. You cannot legislate that and nor can you expect them to get out of their comfort zone. By ensuring that the immigrants coming in to the country are equally derived from various nationalities, you’re actually ensuring that they do not get into a comfort zone once they arrive and they’re forced to interact with each other regardless of differences in backgrounds. This is the only way to promote true diversity.

 

[iSaidGoodDay]

Here’s the thing. Country caps aren’t racist. In fact, they’re the opposite and actually promote true diversity. Immigrants who see huge numbers of their own people in the host country, will naturally get into a comfort zone and will never feel the need to integrate into a new society. They will never feel the need to interact with diverse nationalities. You cannot legislate that and nor can you expect them to get out of their comfort zone. By ensuring that the immigrants coming in to the country are equally derived from various nationalities, you’re actually ensuring that they do not get into a comfort zone once they arrive and they’re forced to interact with each other regardless of differences in backgrounds. This is the only way to promote true diversity.

Wasn't talking about country caps in that comment though. Not sure whether the diversity would help solve any issues of housing, quality, etc as the regional ghettos have long established and hard to break. The second gen immigrant kids are even bigger issue, they follow in the footsteps of their immigrant parents and literally take these ghettos to the next level.

 

[DesiPikachu]

Here’s the thing. Country caps aren’t racist. In fact, they’re the opposite and actually promote true diversity. Immigrants who see huge numbers of their own people in the host country, will naturally get into a comfort zone and will never feel the need to integrate into a new society. They will never feel the need to interact with diverse nationalities. You cannot legislate that and nor can you expect them to get out of their comfort zone. By ensuring that the immigrants coming in to the country are equally derived from various nationalities, you’re actually ensuring that they do not get into a comfort zone once they arrive and they’re forced to interact with each other regardless of differences in backgrounds. This is the only way to promote true diversity.

Where were these calls for country caps when migration to Canada was absolutely dominated by the Chinese in the 80s, 90s and early 2000s?

 

[GandiBaat]

It's a good way to score political points though.. It seems like most people on Reddit (I know it's not a good source) are openly racist toward a specific country.

Reddit has a lot of brigading and anonymous users problem. You can never know who the hell those guys expressing hateful views are. Not saying that there are folks who are like that and most likely they have become emboldened lately but reddit is not really a good point of reference.

My wife has worked retail jobs in past and the most racist thing happened was some Iranians asking someone else in her place because she could not speak Persian. Its there but it is much more subtle.