I feel like to sue the Canadian Embassy and Government...

[Steph C]

Children are expensive. The cost of living negates large families unless you are loaded.

Yes, exactly. Most people are waiting until their 30's to have children because it's so expensive. Access to affordable childcare might be a start in helping Canadians. This is what upsets me when people say that Canada needs immigration to sustain the population. There are plenty of Canadians who want to have families and can't afford it. Being reunited with our spouses would help, for the few of us who are waiting.

 

[steerpike]

Arranged marriages are not done for the sole purpose of getting status in Canada, so the comparison is not valid. Also with arranged marriages, the intent is still to live with your arranged spouse the rest of your life. Completely different from paid-marriages just to get a PR status, then for the 2 parties to go their separate ways.

They are done for economic reasons, not for love. In fact, its quite common in many cultures, including Canadian culture, for economics to be a big driving force behind marriage.

But CIC has this romantic, unrealistic view of marriage that its all about "love", that no one should mind if they have to live apart from their spouse for years if they really love each other, and that "true love" is easily proven and displayed in photos and skype chat logs. CIC basically views the world the same way a 14 yo girl does.

There are all sorts of issues with Canadians leeching off welfare. However this is a separate issue. As this is an immigration forum we are focusing on immigration-related issues only.

But it seemed to be your main argument agaisnt relaxing the rules. You didnt mention being disturbed by letting new immigrants vote, or join the army, or run for office, or any of the other benefits of citizenship. You mentioned only the possibility that they will leech off our social services. If that is your primary concern then we can deal with that issue without destroying families. Why do you feel destroying families is the best way to deal with welfare fraud?

 

[Rob_TO]

It is a right. It comes with conditions as do all of our rights.

Its semantics then, and you can call it what you want. If it's a right, then rejecting an application due to suspicion of fraud or marriage-of-convenience means that you haven't satisfied the "conditions" of that right to CIC.

If there were no bad people anywhere in the world and no such thing as crime or fraud, then sure CIC wouldn't even be needed and all you would need to do is show you are married to someone and *bam*... instant PR. Of course that's not the way things work. Bad people make it a necessity for countries to protect itself from the frauds. As in ANY system that involves people making a lawful decision, be it police, juries, judges or whoever... often the guilty frauds make it through free while some innocent people get wrongly convicted. It's no different here.

But for anyone to suggest that simply having a marriage certificate should mean instant PR, is still ridiculous. That would be like saying any criminal would just need to write a declaration they are innocent, and they should be set free. If there is some evidence or notion that an immigration application is fraudulent, sorry to say but some other steps need to be taken before its approved.

 

[Rob_TO]

They are done for economic reasons, not for love. In fact, its quite common in many cultures, including Canadian culture, for economics to be a big driving force behind marriage.

But CIC has this romantic, unrealistic view of marriage that its all about "love", that no one should mind if they have to live apart from their spouse for years if they really love each other, and that "true love" is easily proven and displayed in photos and skype chat logs. CIC basically views the world the same way a 14 yo girl does.

Who cares if they are for economic reasons. All i'm saying is marriages can't be done solely for immigration to Canada purposes.

And considering Canada does allow arranged marriages and the cultural differences around the world involving marriage, it kind of refutes your 2nd point.

But it seemed to be your main argument agaisnt relaxing the rules. You didnt mention being disturbed by letting new immigrants vote, or join the army, or run for office, or any of the other benefits of citizenship. You mentioned only the possibility that they will leech off our social services. If that is your primary concern then we can deal with that issue without destroying families. Why do you feel destroying families is the best way to deal with welfare fraud?

No idea what voting or running for office has to do with anything.
I've never said destroying families is a good thing. I would be more than happy if Canada offered some kind of temporary status to spouses of Canadians, that would allow them to live here and even work, but perhaps not to start using all of our tax-funded social programs like health care or welfare. Personally i don't like the fact that Canada forces people to live apart so long when they deny them simple visitor visas.

 

[Dr Eng X]

It is a right. It comes with conditions as do all of our rights. Driving is a priviledge because there are alternate forms of transportation.

People just want to argue!!!
The bottom line is a huge responsible change should be done. I have posted few suggestions and I'm not a specialist
It is NOT like there is no solution. There are solutions (these among them):

• It is not all about budget cuts. Now they closed some VO's abroad what is the replacement Ottawa ha : ! if so did they hire more to meet these demands
• Enforce tough measures on frauds...but don't penalize us innocents...treating us like guilty till proven otherwise just because of those abused the system...instead save your precious time !!!

• Provide dual intent Visa similar to visitor visa if you can not process applications within time!
• why do we have to suffer from your incompetence?

• Parallel processing, CIC should not keep files for its turn or waiting

• People working in a department should have deep background (therefore the minister should be a PhD holder in immigration and/or an immigrant)... not only by favoritism and who can cut the budget while maintaining their votes from large and powerful communities (China, India, ... and UK -look at their processing times) ...which is a form of racism

• I like techno cabinets

• ....

• ...

 

[Fencesitter]

CIC is a necessary evil, no getting around it. You can't blame CIC if they reject an application. They don't reject someone based on personal opinions. They are presented with a case (application package) and assess it based on the contents. If there are red flags, it is up to the applicant to write convincing arguments explaining the situation. It is also how well you have organized and presented the facts of the case (as I was told be the CBSA officer at the landing interview).

Canadians need immigration, but we also need to have free childcare options for working parents who are already Canadian citizens. I think we pay enough in taxes for the government to offer such programs. Get rid of the programs that aren't working and use that money for growing families.

One thing the government could do is get rid of agencies such as C.A.N.N. They are really quite useless, as all the information they give to newly landed immigrants can be found online.

I can understand an applicant being upset if the application package was complete, covering all areas in great detail with proof to back it up. However, applicants that fail to address red flags, then come on here saying they want to sue the government? No, you need to sue yourself for not being thorough enough.

You'll probably end up winning the appeal, so although you need to wait longer, in the end I am sure you will be successful, especially since you have a professional helping you.

FS

 

[steerpike]

CIC is a necessary evil, no getting around it. You can't blame CIC if they reject an application. They don't reject someone based on personal opinions. They are presented with a case (application package) and assess it based on the contents.

If this was true then the appeals wouldnt win. But they usually do. What VOs think and what judges think are not on the same wavelength. It creates inefficiencies in the system, and that IS the CICs fault.

 

[CanadianJeepGuy]

Its semantics then, and you can call it what you want. If it's a right, then rejecting an application due to suspicion of fraud or marriage-of-convenience means that you haven't satisfied the "conditions" of that right to CIC.

If there were no bad people anywhere in the world and no such thing as crime or fraud, then sure CIC wouldn't even be needed and all you would need to do is show you are married to someone and *bam*... instant PR. Of course that's not the way things work. Bad people make it a necessity for countries to protect itself from the frauds. As in ANY system that involves people making a lawful decision, be it police, juries, judges or whoever... often the guilty frauds make it through free while some innocent people get wrongly convicted. It's no different here.

But for anyone to suggest that simply having a marriage certificate should mean instant PR, is still ridiculous. That would be like saying any criminal would just need to write a declaration they are innocent, and they should be set free. If there is some evidence or notion that an immigration application is fraudulent, sorry to say but some other steps need to be taken before its approved.

Don't think your analogy is apt in this instance.
I think that you are taking the position that every application is fraudulent until proven otherwise. So long as the applicants have provided the supporting documents requested by policy then a PR should be granted. If you have provided all that documentation and you are denied based on a "feeling" from a visa officer then what is the point of all the documentation in the first place?

 

[gsize]

CIC is a necessary evil, no getting around it. You can't blame CIC if they reject an application. They don't reject someone based on personal opinions. They are presented with a case (application package) and assess it based on the contents. If there are red flags, it is up to the applicant to write convincing arguments explaining the situation. It is also how well you have organized and presented the facts of the case (as I was told be the CBSA officer at the landing interview).

Canadians need immigration, but we also need to have free childcare options for working parents who are already Canadian citizens. I think we pay enough in taxes for the government to offer such programs. Get rid of the programs that aren't working and use that money for growing families.

One thing the government could do is get rid of agencies such as C.A.N.N. They are really quite useless, as all the information they give to newly landed immigrants can be found online.

I can understand an applicant being upset if the application package was complete, covering all areas in great detail with proof to back it up. However, applicants that fail to address red flags, then come on here saying they want to sue the government? No, you need to sue yourself for not being thorough enough.

You'll probably end up winning the appeal, so although you need to wait longer, in the end I am sure you will be successful, especially since you have a professional helping you.

FS

with all due respect, my investigations have lead me to a different conclusion. Discrimination is alive and well in SOME Embassies (and there is lots of proof too)

 

[steaky]

If Canada needs a bigger population, why don't they facilitate their citizens to have families. There, problem solved.

Right. Canada should not post any restrictions on foreign born descendent of Canadian citizen to obtain their Canadian citizenships.

 

[CanadianJeepGuy]

People just want to argue!!!
The bottom line is a huge responsible change should be done. I have posted few suggestions and I'm not a specialist
It is NOT like there is no solution. There are solutions (these among them):

• People working in a department should have deep background (therefore the minister should be a PhD holder in immigration and/or an immigrant)... not only by favoritism and who can cut the budget while maintaining their votes from ]
  
  

• 
  
  
  LOL. Canada is a nation of immigrants. Even the aboriginals migrated from elsewhere.

 

[Rob_TO]

Don't think your analogy is apt in this instance.
I think that you are taking the position that every application is fraudulent until proven otherwise. So long as the applicants have provided the supporting documents requested by policy then a PR should be granted. If you have provided all that documentation and you are denied based on a "feeling" from a visa officer then what is the point of all the documentation in the first place?

I'm not saying all applications are fraudulent until proven otherwise, i'm saying all applications need to be approved in the first place to make sure they aren't fraudulent. This is the same for all countries, not just Canada.

The VO makes a final decision based on all the evidence presented. Usually they will cite a specific or several red flags that contribute to the rejection (like big age difference, timing of relationship and sending the application, family and friends support and awareness of relationship etc etc).

Same goes for a court of law. Many times people are wrongly charged with a crime, and they end up going to jail for a crime they didn't commit. With CIC, sometimes people with genuine relationships get rejected. The alternative is to let pretty much anyone who applies get PR status, which opens the door to thousands of fake-marriages every year for any and all to get PR in Canada.

 

[Fencesitter]

with all due respect, my investigations have lead me to a different conclusion. Discrimination is alive and well in SOME Embassies (and there is lots of proof too)

Discrimination is a pretty strong word to use, so I would suggest that you back it up with proof. If by discrimination you mean that applicants are being rejected at higher rates from certain embassies, you'll need more than that to show they are purposely discriminating against certain ethnicities.

FS

 

[CanadianJeepGuy]

To the OP about litigating the government. I wouldn't be opposed to that as a class action suit seeing as they have almost doubled the processing times for family class applications. This could be deemed as imposing an intentional hardship. As applications can be processed in 6 months or less government actions to reduce staff as a cost savings measure cannot be deemed appropriate since the applicants pay for the service and expect the process to be expedient.

 

[CanadianJeepGuy]

I'm not saying all applications are fraudulent until proven otherwise, i'm saying all applications need to be approved in the first place to make sure they aren't fraudulent. This is the same for all countries, not just Canada.

The VO makes a final decision based on all the evidence presented. Usually they will cite a specific or several red flags that contribute to the rejection (like big age difference, timing of relationship and sending the application, family and friends support and awareness of relationship etc etc).

Same goes for a court of law. Many times people are wrongly charged with a crime, and they end up going to jail for a crime they didn't commit. With CIC, sometimes people with genuine relationships get rejected. The alternative is to let pretty much anyone who applies get PR status, which opens the door to thousands of fake-marriages every year for any and all to get PR in Canada.

I understand what you are saying and there are provisions for accountability. Maybe they aren't enough. I would be OK with any PR being conditional for up to 5 years.