FSW WORLDWIDE
- Thread starter js555
- Start date
How does that concern post-AOR people? Why should these changes be applied retroactively? No laws or rules are applied retroactively or no one would feel safe
GUNTER: Liberals to make immigration to Canada much easier
nope not economic immigrants hehe
The Trudeau Liberals are planning to remove nearly all grounds the Immigration department uses to exclude applicants, the Toronto Sun has learned.
It has been the Trudeau government’s goal since 2020 to increase Canada’s intake of immigrants and refugees by nearly one-third to 400,000 annually.
How they plan to achieve this elevated level is outlined in an internal draft document sent to immigration and refugee judges — documents that have been exclusively shared with the Sun.
In an email sent to staff and adjudicators on Sept. 20, Richard Wex, the Liberals’ appointee as chairperson and chief executive officer of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, laid out a massive expansion of the reasons immigrants can be allowed to enter and stay in Canada.
Under the new guidelines, contained in a document marked “Draft” and covered by solicitor-client privilege, civil service officers who do an initial screening of immigration and refugee claims, plus the immigration and refugee judges who hear appeals of the officers’ decisions, are instructed to accept any applicant who has an “intersectional” claim.
Intersectionality is defined as two or more of “race, religion, indigeneity, political beliefs, socioeconomic status, age, sexual orientation, culture, disability, or immigration status,” that “impact an individual’s lived experience of discrimination, marginalization or oppression.”
No longer will claimants need to prove, for instance, that they face torture or death if forced to return to their home countries. Nor will they have to satisfy the UN’s definition of a “refugee.”
Now, if they merely claim they have been discriminated against or persecuted for being poor and old, or Indigenous and holding political views targeted by some developing country’s strongman, in the Liberals come.
One of the principal tasks of the immigration officers and judges is to determine whether a claimant is telling the truth.
The Trudeau Liberals have that covered, too.
Chairperson Wex instructs his staff and judges to remember that trauma — whether physical or emotional — can cause people to recollect information or incidents incorrectly. Therefore, if applicants provide evidence that turns out to be false, it may not be because they’re lying.
Rather they might just be misremembering due to the lingering stress caused by a trauma. Don’t exclude them.
Staff and adjudicators are instructed to give applicants the benefit of the doubt. Unless the officer or judge involved has incontrovertible proof an applicant is lying, the claimant should be admitted. His or her claims of discrimination are to be accepted by default and his or her application approved.
Their falsehoods might just be the side effect of some traumatic experience that is impeding the applicant’s ability to provide evidence that would benefit him or her.
Wex describes a traumatic event as one that elicits “intense feelings of fear, terror, helplessness, hopelessness, and despair” that is perceived “as a threat to the person’s survival.”
Adjudicators must employ “a ‘Do No Harm’ approach” during hearings, to lead with “compassion, cultural humility, and patience in order to avoid retraumatization” of an applicant.
These new rules render examining refugees’ claims pointless.
Adjudicators, essentially, must now say yes to everyone who makes it to Canadian soil and claims (not proves, merely claims) they are a victim of two more of a broad range of abuses — some invisible and mild.
Already, 22 of just over 300 adjudicators already admit 100% of the claimants appearing before them. (The median acceptance rate across the country is about 70%.)
Accepting 100% of claims is an impossibly high rate, unless these 22 judges are deliberately looking to admit anyone and everyone. Most of the 22 are Liberal appointees. Now it would appear they are to be the models for all the other adjudicators.
Claimants, on average, wait two years for their cases to be heard. During that time, their medical, dental, and even internet is paid for by taxpayers. Sometimes, their housing and food, too.
And now there’s almost no chance they will be sent out of Canada because what applicant and his or her immigration lawyer isn’t going to be capable of thinking up some “interconnectedness” of discriminations or “trauma,” or both?
That’s how the Liberals intend to turn 300,000 or so immigrants a year into 400,000 almost overnight.
Just get rid of all the rules and — presto — a boom in newcomers.
How long do you think it will take for word to get out around the world that Canada, which is already one of the countries most open to immigration, is removing all barriers and throwing the doors open wide?
nope not economic immigrants hehe
The Trudeau Liberals are planning to remove nearly all grounds the Immigration department uses to exclude applicants, the Toronto Sun has learned.
It has been the Trudeau government’s goal since 2020 to increase Canada’s intake of immigrants and refugees by nearly one-third to 400,000 annually.
How they plan to achieve this elevated level is outlined in an internal draft document sent to immigration and refugee judges — documents that have been exclusively shared with the Sun.
In an email sent to staff and adjudicators on Sept. 20, Richard Wex, the Liberals’ appointee as chairperson and chief executive officer of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, laid out a massive expansion of the reasons immigrants can be allowed to enter and stay in Canada.
Under the new guidelines, contained in a document marked “Draft” and covered by solicitor-client privilege, civil service officers who do an initial screening of immigration and refugee claims, plus the immigration and refugee judges who hear appeals of the officers’ decisions, are instructed to accept any applicant who has an “intersectional” claim.
Intersectionality is defined as two or more of “race, religion, indigeneity, political beliefs, socioeconomic status, age, sexual orientation, culture, disability, or immigration status,” that “impact an individual’s lived experience of discrimination, marginalization or oppression.”
No longer will claimants need to prove, for instance, that they face torture or death if forced to return to their home countries. Nor will they have to satisfy the UN’s definition of a “refugee.”
Now, if they merely claim they have been discriminated against or persecuted for being poor and old, or Indigenous and holding political views targeted by some developing country’s strongman, in the Liberals come.
One of the principal tasks of the immigration officers and judges is to determine whether a claimant is telling the truth.
The Trudeau Liberals have that covered, too.
Chairperson Wex instructs his staff and judges to remember that trauma — whether physical or emotional — can cause people to recollect information or incidents incorrectly. Therefore, if applicants provide evidence that turns out to be false, it may not be because they’re lying.
Rather they might just be misremembering due to the lingering stress caused by a trauma. Don’t exclude them.
Staff and adjudicators are instructed to give applicants the benefit of the doubt. Unless the officer or judge involved has incontrovertible proof an applicant is lying, the claimant should be admitted. His or her claims of discrimination are to be accepted by default and his or her application approved.
Their falsehoods might just be the side effect of some traumatic experience that is impeding the applicant’s ability to provide evidence that would benefit him or her.
Wex describes a traumatic event as one that elicits “intense feelings of fear, terror, helplessness, hopelessness, and despair” that is perceived “as a threat to the person’s survival.”
Adjudicators must employ “a ‘Do No Harm’ approach” during hearings, to lead with “compassion, cultural humility, and patience in order to avoid retraumatization” of an applicant.
These new rules render examining refugees’ claims pointless.
Adjudicators, essentially, must now say yes to everyone who makes it to Canadian soil and claims (not proves, merely claims) they are a victim of two more of a broad range of abuses — some invisible and mild.
Already, 22 of just over 300 adjudicators already admit 100% of the claimants appearing before them. (The median acceptance rate across the country is about 70%.)
Accepting 100% of claims is an impossibly high rate, unless these 22 judges are deliberately looking to admit anyone and everyone. Most of the 22 are Liberal appointees. Now it would appear they are to be the models for all the other adjudicators.
Claimants, on average, wait two years for their cases to be heard. During that time, their medical, dental, and even internet is paid for by taxpayers. Sometimes, their housing and food, too.
And now there’s almost no chance they will be sent out of Canada because what applicant and his or her immigration lawyer isn’t going to be capable of thinking up some “interconnectedness” of discriminations or “trauma,” or both?
That’s how the Liberals intend to turn 300,000 or so immigrants a year into 400,000 almost overnight.
Just get rid of all the rules and — presto — a boom in newcomers.
How long do you think it will take for word to get out around the world that Canada, which is already one of the countries most open to immigration, is removing all barriers and throwing the doors open wide?
I agree with most of @RSub 's answer on this, it is plain old "How to lie with statistics 101", but with just one difference that the finalized applications are not/need not be from the pool of 45,000 applications at all.
It is not xxx out of 45,000, it is just xxx from 2019 and maybe early 2020.
What they would have done is back calculate from the finalized applications. Say, between 2020 January and 2020 March, there were 1000 finalized FSW applications (pre-COVID), they will back calculate the time to process those applications and they will find 10 months average and 50℅ within 6 months.
Between April to September, if they did not finalize any application, they have no penalty to the above numbers. It is still 10 months and 50℅.
Between October to December, say they finalized 50 applications, and they were from 2019 and early 2020, they'd recalculate the time to process and because of the bigger lag, the above averages would have come down to the reported 12 months and 40℅ within 6 months.
In data science, we remove null values from the model data as long as the the null values are random and small in number.
In IRCTC's case, the null values are all of us, and they are significantly bigger than the chunk of 'processed' applications.
The shameful part is, once you layer in the PPR % to this, it looks so much worse for FSW and Itime (
The questions we want them to answer:
What % of FSW applications between Jan 2020 and Dec 2020 were finalized between Jan 2020 and July 2021? (The answer might not even be 10%)
What % of them were given PPRs? (Not even 2% I'd guess)
The question they answered:
Out of all the applications finalized between Jan 2020 and Dec 2020, what was the processing time, and how many of them were processed under 6 months.
Last edited:
Do you have any idea about medical insurance for international student's spouse and dependent child? I know for students, medicals are covered under the tuition fee. But any idea about their dependent child and their spouse who is on a work permit?
And theoretically how would I convince an officer of the opposite of the truth?
mr.preetsingh
VIP Member
- Oct 26, 2017
- 1,180
- Category........
- FSW
- NOC Code......
- 2171
- App. Filed.......
- 14-04-2018
- Doc's Request.
- NA
- Nomination.....
- NA
- AOR Received.
- 14-04-2018
- IELTS Request
- NA
- File Transfer...
- NA
- Med's Request
- Upfront
- Med's Done....
- 07-04-2018
- Interview........
- NA
- Passport Req..
- 19-06-2018
- VISA ISSUED...
- 25-06-2018
- LANDED..........
- 06-09-2018
If in Ontario, Read this : https://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/public/publications/ohip/temp_foreign.aspx
Alberta : https://www.alberta.ca/ahcip-temporary-residents.aspx
You can find details on your province's website.
The logic is, If the spouse is on open work permit, he/she is eligible if working
Thank you for your response. I will go through the links.
Any idea about dependent child?
mr.preetsingh
VIP Member
- Oct 26, 2017
- 1,180
- Category........
- FSW
- NOC Code......
- 2171
- App. Filed.......
- 14-04-2018
- Doc's Request.
- NA
- Nomination.....
- NA
- AOR Received.
- 14-04-2018
- IELTS Request
- NA
- File Transfer...
- NA
- Med's Request
- Upfront
- Med's Done....
- 07-04-2018
- Interview........
- NA
- Passport Req..
- 19-06-2018
- VISA ISSUED...
- 25-06-2018
- LANDED..........
- 06-09-2018
I'm actually curious to see what will happen after the India flight ban is lifted today.
There was a document saying IRCC stop issuing COPR because some COPR holders travelled to Canada against the travel restrictions. As far as i understand, COPR holders can enter Canada without being vaccinated (correct me if i'm wrong). Hence, confirming these people are Covid-free is the way to "protect Canada from Covid". Now that they lifted the India flight ban while they figure out a way to make sure all travellers from India have valid covid test report.
I didn't think the flight ban with one single country has any impacts on FSW, but what if they are correlated? Majority of Express Entry applicants are Indians according to figures from previous years.
This is just my theory, let's see if IRCC will prove me wrong lol.
There was a document saying IRCC stop issuing COPR because some COPR holders travelled to Canada against the travel restrictions. As far as i understand, COPR holders can enter Canada without being vaccinated (correct me if i'm wrong). Hence, confirming these people are Covid-free is the way to "protect Canada from Covid". Now that they lifted the India flight ban while they figure out a way to make sure all travellers from India have valid covid test report.
I didn't think the flight ban with one single country has any impacts on FSW, but what if they are correlated? Majority of Express Entry applicants are Indians according to figures from previous years.
This is just my theory, let's see if IRCC will prove me wrong lol.