Parent Sponsorship - Pros and Cons

[janpreet]

I agree with you that children and disabled and those who don't work do put a strain on the health care too. But they are now here in Canada. We just don't want to add more strain to the existing problem by adding more parents/grandparents that never contributed their whole lives.

BTW: the disabled can work as well. Try telling them that they can't work. Good luck with that.

Not all disables can work but your post does make me feel sad. Not everything is about profit and loss in the society.
There are other factors like care, love, emotions, respect and of course money to achieve a flourishing society.

 

[screech339]

Not all disables can work but your post does make me feel sad. Not everything is about profit and loss in the society.
There are other factors like care, love, emotions, respect and of course money to achieve a flourishing society.

The supervisa will still be able to take in factors like care, love, emotions, respects and money to still achieve a flourishing society.

 

[janpreet]

The supervisa will still be able to take in factors like care, love, emotions, respects and money to still achieve a flourishing society.

Supervisa is not an viable option for everyone.

 

[screech339]

Supervisa is not an viable option for everyone.

How so? Could you provide some examples?

 

[janpreet]

How so? Could you provide some examples?

In my specific case, Supervisa is basically a visitor visa which requires you to get medical insurance for at least one year.
My parents do not require visa to enter Canada. Hence it doesn't make sense to apply for a Visa
They already have medical insurance in their home country, so there is no reason for them to apply for another medical insurance.
If they require medical assistant, they can always drive back home and get treatment.
My brother is a MD here and actively work on their health anyways.
Their main purpose is not to tap on free Canadian medical assistance or just to visit us but to permanently live with us.

Moreover, I believe parents and grandparents do contribute to the economy as majority provide child care which allows parents to enter workforce and some also do work. With new tougher PGP guidelines, those who would overburden the health system are unlikely to meet the new standard admissibility requirements anyways.

 

[screech339]

In my specific case, Supervisa is basically a visitor visa which requires you to get medical insurance for at least one year.
My parents do not require visa to enter Canada. Hence it doesn't make sense to apply for a Visa
They already have medical insurance in their home country, so there is no reason for them to apply for another medical insurance.
If they require medical assistant, they can always drive back home and get treatment.
My brother is a MD here and actively work on their health anyways.
Their main purpose is not to tap on free Canadian medical assistance or just to visit us but to permanently live with us.

Moreover, I believe parents and grandparents do contribute to the economy as majority provide child care which allows parents to enter workforce and some also do work. With new tougher PGP guidelines, those who would overburden the health system are unlikely to meet the new standard admissibility requirements anyways.

I was asking for other examples other than yours. But since you mentioned yours. Your parents can stay 6 months at a time. So that is not an issue. If you want your parents to stay longer than 6 months, that where supervisa come into play.

I don't see how supervisa doesn't apply to your parents. It still seem applicable to me. Since your parents can only come in 6 months at a time coming from a visa exempt country, I don't see the problem. Just fly back and forth every 6 months.

 

[janpreet]

I was asking for other examples other than yours. But since you mentioned yours. Your parents can stay 6 months at a time. So that is not an issue. If you want your parents to stay longer than 6 months, that where supervisa come into play.

I don't see how supervisa doesn't apply to your parents. It still seem applicable to me. Since your parents can only come in 6 months at a time coming from a visa exempt country, I don't see the problem. Just fly back and forth every 6 months.

Supervisa is a visitor Visa and not a permanent residency.
I am sure you understand the difference between the two and I need not to mention restrictions like not able to work, get drivers license, build credit history here, memberships etc on Supervisa.

 

[screech339]

You mentioned your parents will have health insurance at home. Does that means they must maintain residency requirement in home country to keep their insurance? It sounds like your parents must return 6 months in order to keep their health insurance.

If your parents want to stay longer than 6 months in Canada, it would void their health insurance at home country since they are out of country too long. So your parents would require medical insurance in Canada to compensate that.

It is no difference from Canada health care. If you leave Canada longer than 6 months, you lose health coverage and you have to reapply to get it back.

 

[screech339]

Supervisa is a visitor Visa and not a permanent residency.
I am sure you understand the difference between the two and I need not to mention restrictions like not able to work, get drivers license, build credit history here, memberships etc on Supervisa.

The argument here is about how it affects health care, not about getting a driver licence, no credit history, etc. That is part of moving here and becoming PR.

You are deflecting from the issue on how health care is affected by sponsored PRs.

I will drop the subject if you admit that by bringing in sponsored parents/grandparents they are contributing to the drain on Canada health care on top of the already troubled financially strained Canada Health Care.

 

[janpreet]

The argument here is about how it affects health care, not about getting a driver licence, no credit history, etc. That is part of moving here and becoming PR.

You are deflecting from the issue on how health care is affected by sponsored PRs.

I will drop the subject if you admit that by bringing in sponsored parents/grandparents they are contributing to the drain on Canada health care on top of the already troubled financially strained Canada Health Care.

You asked me how supervisa is not for everyone and I gave you valid examples. If I am deflecting from the issue than it is only because of you. You started it. It's funny how conveniently you are blaming me.

With new standard requirements of PGP, people who were likely to put strain on Canadian Health are already not eligible to apply. Therefore I would reject your notation that new PGP applicants would put strain specially when majority will be contributing back to our economy.

 

[screech339]

I was always thinking how health care is affected when discussing the con side of the argument of PR sponsored.

So I was trying to see how your parents can affect health care when they come in on PR and everyone else, including my wife since she is not working either. I wasn't blaming you at all. You brought up restrictions such as driver's licence, requirements for PR. I am trying to see how you say your parents won't be a drain on our health care since they have theirs at home.

You mentioned the new requirements. The old requirements of PGP are still the same in medical issues They will be rejected if they show that they affect medical care in Canada. So your argument that the new PGP will make it harder due to medical is moot. The proof of no medical burden is the same under the new and old PGP.

The argument about how parents / grandparents PR can affect the health care still stands.

 

[janpreet]

I was always thinking how health care is affected when discussing the con side of the argument of PR sponsored.

So I was trying to see how your parents can affect health care when they come in on PR and everyone else, including my wife since she is not working either. I wasn't blaming you at all. You brought up restrictions such as driver's licence, requirements for PR. I am trying to see how you say your parents won't be a drain on our health care since they have theirs at home.

You mentioned the new requirements. The old requirements of PGP are still the same in medical issues They will be rejected if they show that they affect medical care in Canada. So your argument that the new PGP will make it harder due to medical is moot. The proof of no medical burden is the same under the new and old PGP.

The argument about how parents / grandparents PR can affect the health care still stands.

There will always be pro and cons for any type of immigration whether it is spousal or parent's sponsorship.

It is a fact that not all sponsored spouses will enter workforce and it is also true that not all parents will be burden to our economy.

Why would you just concentrate on one con? A rational person will weigh both pros n cons and then decide.

 

[eseyem_07]

Hi Everyone!
My wife and I would like to sponsor her both parents, right now our Family size is 5 (me, my wife, baby + parents) and this is our case:
I came here in Edmonton June 2010, then got work July 2010. CIC wants 3 preceding tax years on their latest form, that is 2010, 2011 & 2012. I will be her co-signee to meet the MNI, but since I have only half of 2010 taxed we only got less of the LICO (around $47K that time we're just 2). Our Tax years for 2011 to 2013 meet and exceeds the LICO for the Family size of 5, but we still don't have the NOA for 2013 to submit it this January 2014 (to make with 5000 cap). We have asked our employers for ROA stating what we've earned for 2013 period.
I know technically we are qualified but since we don't have the NOA for 2013 makes me confused to proceed on submitting our application because of the 2010 issue. Should I proceed? or wait for 2013 NOA and submit it by 2015?
Please advise me. Thanks & regards to all.

 

[screech339]

Hi Everyone!
My wife and I would like to sponsor her both parents, right now our Family size is 5 (me, my wife, baby + parents) and this is our case:
I came here in Edmonton June 2010, then got work July 2010. CIC wants 3 preceding tax years on their latest form, that is 2010, 2011 & 2012. I will be her co-signee to meet the MNI, but since I have only half of 2010 taxed we only got less of the LICO (around $47K that time we're just 2). Our Tax years for 2011 to 2013 meet and exceeds the LICO for the Family size of 5, but we still don't have the NOA for 2013 to submit it this January 2014 (to make with 5000 cap). We have asked our employers for ROA stating what we've earned for 2013 period.
I know technically we are qualified but since we don't have the NOA for 2013 makes me confused to proceed on submitting our application because of the 2010 issue. Should I proceed? or wait for 2013 NOA and submit it by 2015?
Please advise me. Thanks & regards to all.

I believe you may have to wait until 2015 to apply since you did not meet 2010 LICO requirement. You cannot use 2013 NOA as 2013 LICO are not released for 2014 PGP.

That being said, there is a thread that deals with PGP under new requirements. Sponsorship of parents and grandparents for Canadian Permanent Residence. You may want to refer your question there.

Screech339

 

[eseyem_07]

I believe you may have to wait until 2015 to apply since you did not meet 2010 LICO requirement. You cannot use 2013 NOA as 2013 LICO are not released for 2014 PGP.

That being said, there is a thread that deals with PGP under new requirements. Sponsorship of parents and grandparents for Canadian Permanent Residence. You may want to refer your question there.

Screech339

Thanks Screech339!