Probationary period for Family Class may be as soon as 2011!

[Stumpedmom]

Ty Angelbrat for your response. If the case is going to be that they can work/study and receive the same benefits as a PR without the PR status, that is a great idea to flush out the people who are not in genuine relationships.

There has to be a way to make this whole process much easier for the ones who are going about the immigration process legally and jumping through all the hoops set out so they can be a family and be with their loved ones.

I just get really frustrated with seeing all the news and hearing all the stories about the boatloads of people coming into the country illegally and being allowed to stay on our tax dollars when there are people like us here that are going about things legally and have to wait and pay loads of money out just to be with loved ones.

I know that the probationary period wont help in those situations, but it will weed the people out that are trying the easiest route possible to gain entry into our wonderful country and get all the benefits.

These are just my thoughts and opinions....sorry to babble on...

 

[patiently_waiting]

Stumpedmom - with you all the way on this one! Canada has to enforce refusal to the people arriving on boats paying thousands of dollars to gain entry into our country the same way Australia does to hopefully encourage people to go about this the right way. I feel so much compassion towards them as they're going about this in hopes for a better life however the people making money off of these poor people need to be stopped - immigration should not be a private business, to which people make money by jamming boat loads of people into unfair conditions get rich. Refugees need to be integrated into society with the assistance of government programs so that their journey can be successful and they do not fall prey to crooked sweatshop prostitution rings which invariably does happen at times.

Angelbrat - the article you posted didn't mention if this will effect applications in progress. Did your friend allude to if this would include them?

 

[Oil Sand Guy]

Stumpedmom - with you all the way on this one! Canada has to enforce refusal to the people arriving on boats paying thousands of dollars to gain entry into our country the same way Australia does to hopefully encourage people to go about this the right way. I feel so much compassion towards them as they're going about this in hopes for a better life however the people making money off of these poor people need to be stopped - immigration should not be a private business, to which people make money by jamming boat loads of people into unfair conditions get rich. Refugees need to be integrated into society with the assistance of government programs so that their journey can be successful and they do not fall prey to crooked sweatshop prostitution rings which invariably does happen at times.

Angelbrat - the article you posted didn't mention if this will effect applications in progress. Did your friend allude to if this would include them?

I agree. But the crack down should first target the "Corruption from within". Click here:

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/article/908437--immigration-worker-accused-of-seeking-bribes?bn=1

and here:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/12/13/immigration-jobs-british-columbia-consultant.html

 

[rjessome]

I hate to say this but I seriously doubt a probationary period is going to make it any easier in the application stage. The Minister has also discussed making the application assessment more rigorous. There was even talk of a "Marriage Fraud Squad" being created back in 2008 that would be sent to countries with high incidence of this type of fraud to root out the phoney marriages. But there has been nothing else printed about this since so perhaps it never happened.

I don't support a probationary period although my husband (the immigrant) does. He's sees it as very black and white until I point out the grey areas. Here are my reasons:

1. This will create a new class of people in Canada that may be forced to live in abusive relationships out of fear of deportation.
2. It is in no way "easy" to go back to your home country for an uneducated, young woman in an arranged marriage, who doesn't speak the language, has no money and is pressured by her family and community to stay put. CIC received 67000 spousal sponsorship applications in 2009. I would guarantee you that at least 10,000 of those were arranged marriages. Who's going to pay for them to go back home if they have no money? Canada?
3. What about marriages that fail because of marriage breakdown? We have a 50% divorce rate in Canada. Thousands of marriages fail within the first two years. Is that fair to deport someone when the marriage was genuine and ended for valid reasons?
4. What about if there is a Canadian child born within that first 2 years? Do you think Immigration should be able to separate a parent from their child? How do you think custody will be decided? What if the foreign parent is the better one? Canada can't make a citizen (the child) leave. What then?
5. This will bring the nastiness of bitter family law issues into the already overwhelmed Immigration system. There will be "he said/she said" cases and H&C applications will explode! Before you disagree, read up on how Humanitarian and Compassionate applications are assessed and HOW LONG they take to be decided. This will create even longer wait times, again clogging up the system.
6. There will be fake allegations of abuse which will also clog up our overwhelmed criminal courts.
7. Don't fool yourself that this would deter all fraudsters. Google marriage fraud in the US. Read about the number of complaints of the spouses who's partners walked out the door the day they received their Green Card.
8. People will go "underground" and live illegally, as thousands already do. The Minister has said that legally it is difficult to get the fraudsters out once they are here under the current system. If a probationary period is introduced, it will be physically difficult as well.
9. This will cost several MILLIONS of taxpayer dollars to implement and enforce. I believe that if they want to crack down on marriage fraud and are willing to spend that kind of money, they should enforce the laws we already have that say marriage fraud is illegal and change the appeal process for PRs who have been found to have entered into a marriage of convenience for the purpose of gaining immigration status. Either give no right of appeal or reduce the number of appeals allowed.

There will be many more problems with this that I haven't thought of in the last 15 minutes.

To OilSandGuy, STOP making comments about Lainie. You don't know her, I do. How dare you judge her like you know her from watching a 1 hour documentary!!! That is NOT civilized, it is cruel. She is a real person who has been through a traumatic time. She knew that man for 4 years before she married him, had malaria 3 times while in his country visiting him and kept going back because she loved him so much. She financially supported him and his family. He stayed with her for THREE WEEKS after landing in Canada! You know NOTHING about her and I am sick of you spewing your opinon about another PERSON. Say what you like about the laws and policies but she doesn't deserve your judgement when you have only a few minutes of video tape in which to know her! I know for a fact that she would NOT do that to you. Your comments would be hurtful if she ever read them which I hope she never does.

 

[Oil Sand Guy]

To OilSandGuy, STOP making comments about Lainie. You don't know her, I do. How dare you judge her like you know her from watching a 1 hour documentary!!! That is NOT civilized, it is cruel. She is a real person who has been through a traumatic time. She knew that man for 4 years before she married him, had malaria 3 times while in his country visiting him and kept going back because she loved him so much. She financially supported him and his family. He stayed with her for THREE WEEKS after landing in Canada! You know NOTHING about her and I am sick of you spewing your opinon about another PERSON. Say what you like about the laws and policies but she doesn't deserve your judgement when you have only a few minutes of video tape in which to know her! I know for a fact that she would NOT do that to you. Your comments would be hurtful if she ever read them which I hope she never does.

Well, she (and all of you) had agreed to appear in a documentary TV program. Then you should have had expected comments and reactions. She said what she said about the man but we have not heard his side of the story. How unfair!!! She had consented for appearing in that funny manner..and we are entitled to make comments on what we watch.
This was my opinion and I stand for it.

 

[rjessome]

1) the lady in the documentary, said proudly that she had travelled, she had experiences and that she was EDUCATED. She went to the man, as the man could not come to Canada. She married him in a few days of meetings. Any person who can look at both the groom and bride, in that particular case, would say in the spot "they do not fit together". In my deep feelings and analysis, I consider the man was her victim and prey. If he continued to be her slave, and if he continued to provide for her needs, then she would be happier and would never go and hold the door on her shoulder.

Did you even watch the documentary? Or do you have a selective memory? "She married him within a few days of meetings." Huh???? She knew him for 4 years before they got married! "If he continued to be her slave..." What?? Where did you get that from? She was working, cooking, cleaning and sending money to his family. He stayed for 3 weeks. You might want to watch it again for more "deep feelings and analysis".

Bottom line is that the IAD member said they found he had misrepresented himself and was inadmissible to Canada. The case at the IAD actually had nothing to do with marriage fraud. Whether you believe Lainie was controlling or not, her husband still lied to her and to CIC about having a child that he didn't declare. So what's unfair?

Yes, comments and reactions are expected but you might note that no one else is making derogatory remarks about a person's character. People are talking about the laws and principals which is healthy. But it goes DOWN to a whole new level when you attack someone like that.

I know Lainie didn't come across as very sympathetic, not even to me and I know her through the making of the documentary. It's sad really because she is a very nice person but comes across as very hardened and bitter. She is a little I guess. I'd like to think that even if people didn't "like" her, they would at least feel some compassion for her ordeal. Or be grateful that it didn't happen to them.

So you stand by your opinion and I will stand by mine that it is just wrong to attack a person you don't even know.

 

[Oil Sand Guy]

Did you even watch the documentary? Or do you have a selective memory? "She married him within a few days of meetings." Huh???? She knew him for 4 years before they got married! "If he continued to be her slave..." What?? Where did you get that from? She was working, cooking, cleaning and sending money to his family. He stayed for 3 weeks. You might want to watch it again for more "deep feelings and analysis".

Bottom line is that the IAD member said they found he had misrepresented himself and was inadmissible to Canada. The case at the IAD actually had nothing to do with marriage fraud. Whether you believe Lainie was controlling or not, her husband still lied to her and to CIC about having a child that he didn't declare. So what's unfair?

Yes, comments and reactions are expected but you might note that no one else is making derogatory remarks about a person's character. People are talking about the laws and principals which is healthy. But it goes DOWN to a whole new level when you attack someone like that.

I know Lainie didn't come across as very sympathetic, not even to me and I know her through the making of the documentary. It's sad really because she is a very nice person but comes across as very hardened and bitter. She is a little I guess. I'd like to think that even if people didn't "like" her, they would at least feel some compassion for her ordeal. Or be grateful that it didn't happen to them.

So you stand by your opinion and I will stand by mine that it is just wrong to attack a person you don't even know.

My opinion/position remains.

I did watch it carefully...and I have had my opinion about all the participants. Time will tell...time will heal

 

[Fernandita]

I saw on the news about the probatory time and I just want to know if its also in the inland applications...?

 

[toby]

In Canada Immigration Magazine, the Minister said:
“And certainly there were requests for more vigorous enforcement action on the part of the Canadian Border Services Agency. The problem with that, however, is that once people are landed as permanent residents in Canada, it becomes increasingly difficult to successfully prosecute someone for immigration fraud … So I think the expectation that we can just throw out of the country anyone who turns out to be a bogus spouse is unrealistic. We have to focus on prevention and that’s where we are looking at with our new policy.”

Oh my …. The Minister accepts for no stated reason the premise that once s/he has landed, the permanent resident (PR) is in Canada for ever, and therefore he discounts the possibility of deportation for fraud. Why? Why not turn the equation around and say “yes, PRs convicted of fraud will be deported.” No system of “prevention” can be perfect, so why not allow Canada the option of correcting inevitable errors in judgment by a Visa Officer?

I know that resources are limited, but deporting even a few fraudsters is better than passive acceptance

This, combined with (say) a two-year probationary permanent visa would remove some of the impossible burden on the shoulders of Visa Officers, who now are required to guess the true intentions of applicants based solely on mere documents, and the occasional interview. Not having to strive for infallible judgments would have the effect of speeding up Visa Officers’ decision-making process, a benefit to all legitimate applicants.

Yes, there are potential abuses to the probationary system. For example, the spectre of deportation puts power in the hands of the sponsor, which could place the permanent resident (on probation) in a precarious position. But a simple process of arbitration (as in small claims court, which is an efficient procedure) could give reprieve to the permanent resident.

How, in what circumstances, and who pays to deport poor defenceless PRs? These are valid concerns, but if one assumes that deportation is a non-starter, then intelligent minds won’t come up with reasonable solutions.

I am reminded of a situation in Ottawa in the mid-nineties, when the two major school boards categorically denied that they could coallesce the two school-bus systems, even though buses from each Board often travelled the same street, each bus half empty. The new Premier at the time, Mike Harris, gave the Boards a deadline to find a solution (which – again – the Boards had denied existed), or he would impose his own solution. Lo and behold, the Boards found a way after all – showing that if you keep an option open, and apply pressure, intelligent minds will find a way to implement it. If you make it easy to eliminate the option, if you simply list objections and problems, the status quo will prevail.

Rjessome: you put up intelligent rebuttals, showing the problems of probationary visas and the option of deporting PRs. These rebuttals are necessary part of intelligent discussion. But if all you do is throw a wrench into the works, we are left with the present system, which no one (I hope) considers satisfactory. I’d love to see you put your prodigious intelligence to work finding solutions, and not just problems.


For the others, at the end of the article, the magazine invites our comments, and will forward them to the Minister. Here is the chance to make intelligent suggestions for improvement, and to have your opinions heard. A caution: I expect that simply saying “reduce processing times” will not get much sympathy, unless one explains clearly how to do this without reducing the level of security and allowing more fraudsters into the country.

Oil and Sands:
I have too little patience to sort through the “he said, she said” of your quarrel with other posters. Just be aware that I (an impartial reader with no axe to grind) found your comments negative, and if this wasn’t your intent, then perhaps you should review your posts before hitting the send button. I know I frequently have to do so; tone is so easily misconstrued in emails.

 

[ditta]

Rjessome, thank you for speaking up for Lainie. I felt ashamed that she was brought up in such context. She and you prove great courage to give your name, face and an insight to your private life for the documentary. All I saw was a person who was deeply hurt by someone whom she trusted and believed in. I am really sad that people draw such a negative picture from her.

I apologize if my previous comments left anyone feel offended or thinking I wish immigrants or potential immigrants to go back where they are from and leave Canada alone, if things do not work out with their partners. I simply meant, that what I would probably do in such situation, if I just arrived to Canada and find myself abused.

As a potential immigrant I still see the potential in the probationary period. However thinking about it over and over and your comment, rjessome made me realize it is not that black and white or picture perfect. I agree that the enforcment of the current law could be sufficient enough without changing the whole system.

 

[angelbrat]

New visa paperwork I believe, she wasn't that clear on details. Will update everyone as I know more.

 

[Oil Sand Guy]

End of day: Immigration Business = Canada
Immigrants and Immigration business are the LUNG for Canada to breathe in/out. Of course you can not breathe fresh air all the time. There must be "polluted" air from time to time. This is the expected cost of the booming business. Can anyone stop breathing for only 10 min? I doubt it.

 

[aerogurl87]

Regarding the cost of deportation, couldn't CIC add a security deposit of sorts onto the visa application. It would cover the cost of a plane ticket to the applicant's native country and if at the end of the probationary period the applicant was granted PR status they would receive the security deposit back. If they weren't or were found to be involved in immigration fraud, the funds would go towards their ticket back home. Initially it would make the process more costly, but if there was no fraud to speak of, it wouldn't matter as the applicant would receive their money back anyway down the road. Plus it wouldn't put the burden of deporting people on Canadian taxpayers.

 

[rjessome]

Rjessome: you put up intelligent rebuttals, showing the problems of probationary visas and the option of deporting PRs. These rebuttals are necessary part of intelligent discussion. But if all you do is throw a wrench into the works, we are left with the present system, which no one (I hope) considers satisfactory. I'd love to see you put your prodigious intelligence to work finding solutions, and not just problems.

Good point. So let's say conditional visas are a done deal and it's going to happen. Keep in mind that the Minister and his crew have been studying the models of the US, UK and Australia so I think we can anticipate that Canada's new policy would incorporate many similar policies, hopefully taking the best from each country.

The first thing to explain is that under the new system, spouses/partners would be granted a conditional temporary resident visa based on the marriage to a Canadian citizen or permanent resident. So no more immediate PR visas. Here is something I really like that allows an exception to this rule. All of these countries allow immediate PR (in whatever form it's called in that country, i.e. Green Card) to be granted much faster and without conditions if the couple has been married for a certain period of time. For the US it is 2 years, UK is 4 years, and Australia is 5 years or 2 years if you have children. These couples are granted visas much more quickly and don't have to go through the hassles of proving the genuineness of the relationship. Under the current system, it seems really stupid to me that a couple married for several years needs to go through the same process as a couple who is just recently married. But when I say much more quickly, that is in comparison to what the average wait times are for these countries, NOT Canada. For the UK and Australia, it looks like it takes about 3 months and the US, 6 to 9 months. But this is good and I hope Canada includes it in their new policy.

The 2nd thing that I like is what I found with Australia. If a person was sponsored as a spouse to enter that country, there is a 5 year barr for that person to sponsor a new spouse unless the original sponsor died or the new relationship involves dependent children. I only spent an hour reading these rules for 3 different countries so I don't know if there are similar sponsorship barrs in the US and UK. One of the common complaints we see here in Canada in the case of marriage fraud is that the fraudster turns around and immediately sponsors a new spouse. This kind of barr would put an end to this.

The 3rd thing that I liked was that in the US, there is a mechanism to apply for the conditions of the temporary visa to be waived if there sponsored spouse was abused, and therefore allowing them to become PRs without staying with the abusive sponsor. However, these are difficult waivers to get but at least there is a process.

There wasn't much else that I really liked except fiance visas but that is NOT going to happen. Canada has been there and done that and they won't be doing it again. I wish they would but.....

I would encourage those supporters of conditional visas to do some research as well to see if there is more about the systems of the UK, Australia and the US that could be positively implemented in Canada. Or some unique "Canadian" ideas that could be added. In your reading, you will also discover some pretty negative things that we would like Canada to stay very far away from. For example, the US gives significant priviledge to citizens vs. permanent residents. Wait times for sponsoring spouses to the US if you are a PR can be up to 4 or 5 years vs. 6 to 9 months for citizens. Some might be for that but I'm not. Too each their own.

You will also note that the financial requirements of the sponsor are significantly MORE than what they are to sponsor a spouse/partner in Canada. But at least the UK and Australia allow co-signers (something like that) such as the sponsor's parents, etc.

I found one thing that I liked in the case of sponsoring spouses to Germany. The sponsored person is required to take a German language course before being accepted as a spouse. The reason I like that is if a person has an understanding of English and/or French in Canada, they will be better able to understand the laws and what protections are available to them, making them better able to protect themselves as well as enter the mainstream of Canadian society without feeling lost and alone.

Toby, I just want to say that you know what I do for a living and these changes would make me crazy busy with business so you would think I would support them. But I don't because of all the reasons I stated before. But I appreciate your challenge to make me look for solutions and positives.

 

[Oil Sand Guy]

Every idea..every solution has its pros and cons...negative..positive..plus ...minus
We can conclude:
1) Canada should be our target as a great country. Canada should be our priority. Canada should be a model for multiculturalism and tolerance
2) We should keep and respect the rights of the SPONSOR...but also keep and respect & the dignity of the sponsorED
3) no one is above the law. The law of HUMANITY is above all laws
4) In all regulations and laws (new or old), there would be bad apples. This is a human nature.
5) We should get rid of the old mentality of "those people (sponsorED) should be sent back"
6) Just one example: Africa is poor..and we all know how and why. So what do you expect? people from Africa are as good and as bad as anyone else (BTW I am not black or biased..and would be proud if I were one). Marriage can fail with an African guy like anyone else. Evry marriage trouble should be discussed with dignity and respect. I amy be the only one here or may be I came from a different planet, because I felt a big insult ever from a documentary program broadcasted in Canada when a participant said "oh, I sent him money...I had been sending money to his family back home". It means: "I was feeding his poor African family there". That is not Canada I can be proud of. The participants forgot that they all came from MULTIPLE/FAILURE RELATIONSHIP in the past. Some of those relationships were abusive too. I am sorry that the statement (of sending money to his family) is what triggered all the reactions.