Security Screening Lawyers Talk in youtube
- Thread starter montrealworker20
- Start date
I sat and watched the whole thing. Not sure why you're posting so much about it in multiple threads, in particular ones that you've started yourself. it seems like posting once in your own thread - and then perhaps in a couple of the major threads as a helpful pointer - would have sufficed.
Overall, I think it was good, full of useful and helpful advice by folks who specialize in what they do and are clearly very experienced with that topic.
Overall, I think it was good, full of useful and helpful advice by folks who specialize in what they do and are clearly very experienced with that topic.
I intend to discuss some of what can be learned from the linked video/podcast, but that will be in a subsequent post. I want to address some background and context first.
Note, for example, the podcast is at best tangentially about (not that much at all really) security screening for citizenship applicants. It is focused on a discussion about security screening for Foreign Nationals applying for either permanent residency or temporary residency status, not really that much about security screening for Canadians (PRs) applying for citizenship.
It is nonetheless a very informative and in many respects illuminating podcast . . . albeit rather weedy and thus probably beyond the scope of general interest.
Being reluctant to click near-naked links, especially if they are splattered about as this was, I appreciated the commentary suggesting the podcast/video linked by the OP is worth a look, in effect inviting me to take a look . . .
. . . and indeed this one is worth a good look for those genuinely interested in real information about security screening and related lengthy delays for those whose immigration applications trigger comprehensive security screening. (This is not about the general waiting-for-security clearance explanation for slow processing, an all too common call centre excuse for slow processing, that so many citizenship applicants rail about.)
I say "genuinely" because this forum is rife with scores and scores of stuck-in-security tales of woe wallowing in scathing criticisms bereft of real information and largely not even really about applications stuck in security screening, many and probably most complaining their applications are not being processed as quickly as . . . well, therein looms the difference . . . slow processing is a different issue. And conflating the problems arising from comprehensive security screening with grievances about slow processing (even allowing some of which are definitely valid) obscures, distracts, and confuses.
Leading to . . . There is good reason for the complaints about social media, including complaints about this forum (without naming it) and similar forums, that these lawyers (Mark Holthe and Will Tao, who I will refer to as the "podcast") repeatedly make, and similar criticisms made just today by other lawyers cited in a CBC article about illegitimate consultancies. Not that I agree with all their criticisms, some of which are guilty of the same transgressions they complain about, especially the misinformation inherent in painting with overly broad strokes (noting, for one example in the article about consultants, while social media like this forum provides ways for illegitimate consultants to broadcast or market their so-called services, blaming forums and other social media for being a major part of that problem is unfounded).
But the podcast does address some areas in which social media generally, and forums like this more particularly, are particularly chargeable for confusion and misinformation: mandamus and this particular subject, applicants tangled in lengthy comprehensive security screening, as well as the all too common practice of posts by those claiming to say what works because it worked for them (the latter is often erroneous and is something that I frequently caution about).
Consider this topic for example. As much as I appreciate this podcast being brought to my attention, it is essentially off-topic, largely irrelevant for citizenship application processing. And the podcast is weedy, oriented far more toward providing information and commentary useful for other immigration professionals (lawyers and legitimate consultants), or at least those who are interested in such subjects so they can be better informed in sharing information about the immigration process (such as a significant number of participants in this forum, me too).
The latter may not be intended. I suspect the podcast would prefer not advancing what many of us do here. This is one those aspects in which I disagree with the podcast. I understand their perspective, their criticism that forums like this are prone to broadcasting misinformation. But that does not mean they should discourage use of sites like this. It is one thing to encourage critical reading and critical thinking, exercising a high degree of caution and more than a little skepticism (which they do and in which I wholeheartedly concur). In contrast, however, there are actually many here who make a concerted effort to be informed and to share useful information. And I believe this is indeed useful for many.
For example: this forum (and a couple other more active forums at the time) alerted me to very significant issues that almost certainly made a big difference for me, one in regard to my application for PR for which I then paid a lawyer to review my situation, and which helped me make a choice that probably avoided complications and a much longer processing time. Then later, in regards to an aspect of qualifying for citizenship which when made aware of the issue in this and other forums, I then researched it on my own, and this almost certainly resulted in faster processing and may have even avoided a negative outcome.
The thing is, in both instances the information provided by CIC (long before the name change to IRCC) was not only vague but tended to steer or at least suggest procedures which were not the better approach. Note, for example, at the time inland sponsorship applications were taking around a year longer than outland applications, and potentially significantly longer than that, but there was no hint in CIC information, at the time, that an outland application could be made by someone currently staying in Canada. I learned otherwise here and very much appreciated that information.
And CIC information distinguishing the prospects for a citizenship application based on residency compared to one based on physical presence, at that time, was woefully inadequate to the point of being misleading. Meanwhile the forums were then steeped in tales of woe told by citizenship applicants who applied based on residency rather than waiting to apply based on physical presence, so well before I was wrestling with when to apply I became familiar with the difference. At the time CIC information merely cautioned that a Citizenship Judge would have to decide if the residency requirement was met, no hint that would necessarily mean a CJ hearing, and would take a lot, lot longer, rather than a CJ merely rubber-stamping CIC's recommendation (at the time all grants of citizenship had to be approved by a CJ). And no hint that a CJ could deny approval solely based on being short of 1095 days physical presence, that a CJ could decide residency for three years was not enough.
Leading to one of the key benefits of the forums: practical information that can provide important context that CIC/IRCC information, including information received from call centre agents, fails to adequately explain.
And, in particular, the waiting-for-security-clearance explanation/excuse for slow processing looms center stage in this. For citizenship applicants, even if the file is waiting still for security screening to be completed, for most that is not what is holding processing up. And even if going to the next step in the process is waiting on completion of security screening, usually that is not about the file being stuck-in-security, not about the applicant being subject to comprehensive security screening, but more likely just some level of non-routine processing (what might be called routine non-routine processing) such as some additional inquiries to verify physical presence, which will cause slower processing but not the lengthy bogged down in comprehensive security screening the podcast lawyers were addressing.
So, now that I have criticized the podcast and other lawyers for criticizing what many of us do here, time to highlight some of the information and insights they offered . . . but in another post. To be continued . . .
Note, for example, the podcast is at best tangentially about (not that much at all really) security screening for citizenship applicants. It is focused on a discussion about security screening for Foreign Nationals applying for either permanent residency or temporary residency status, not really that much about security screening for Canadians (PRs) applying for citizenship.
It is nonetheless a very informative and in many respects illuminating podcast . . . albeit rather weedy and thus probably beyond the scope of general interest.
Being reluctant to click near-naked links, especially if they are splattered about as this was, I appreciated the commentary suggesting the podcast/video linked by the OP is worth a look, in effect inviting me to take a look . . .
. . . and indeed this one is worth a good look for those genuinely interested in real information about security screening and related lengthy delays for those whose immigration applications trigger comprehensive security screening. (This is not about the general waiting-for-security clearance explanation for slow processing, an all too common call centre excuse for slow processing, that so many citizenship applicants rail about.)
I say "genuinely" because this forum is rife with scores and scores of stuck-in-security tales of woe wallowing in scathing criticisms bereft of real information and largely not even really about applications stuck in security screening, many and probably most complaining their applications are not being processed as quickly as . . . well, therein looms the difference . . . slow processing is a different issue. And conflating the problems arising from comprehensive security screening with grievances about slow processing (even allowing some of which are definitely valid) obscures, distracts, and confuses.
Leading to . . . There is good reason for the complaints about social media, including complaints about this forum (without naming it) and similar forums, that these lawyers (Mark Holthe and Will Tao, who I will refer to as the "podcast") repeatedly make, and similar criticisms made just today by other lawyers cited in a CBC article about illegitimate consultancies. Not that I agree with all their criticisms, some of which are guilty of the same transgressions they complain about, especially the misinformation inherent in painting with overly broad strokes (noting, for one example in the article about consultants, while social media like this forum provides ways for illegitimate consultants to broadcast or market their so-called services, blaming forums and other social media for being a major part of that problem is unfounded).
But the podcast does address some areas in which social media generally, and forums like this more particularly, are particularly chargeable for confusion and misinformation: mandamus and this particular subject, applicants tangled in lengthy comprehensive security screening, as well as the all too common practice of posts by those claiming to say what works because it worked for them (the latter is often erroneous and is something that I frequently caution about).
Consider this topic for example. As much as I appreciate this podcast being brought to my attention, it is essentially off-topic, largely irrelevant for citizenship application processing. And the podcast is weedy, oriented far more toward providing information and commentary useful for other immigration professionals (lawyers and legitimate consultants), or at least those who are interested in such subjects so they can be better informed in sharing information about the immigration process (such as a significant number of participants in this forum, me too).
The latter may not be intended. I suspect the podcast would prefer not advancing what many of us do here. This is one those aspects in which I disagree with the podcast. I understand their perspective, their criticism that forums like this are prone to broadcasting misinformation. But that does not mean they should discourage use of sites like this. It is one thing to encourage critical reading and critical thinking, exercising a high degree of caution and more than a little skepticism (which they do and in which I wholeheartedly concur). In contrast, however, there are actually many here who make a concerted effort to be informed and to share useful information. And I believe this is indeed useful for many.
For example: this forum (and a couple other more active forums at the time) alerted me to very significant issues that almost certainly made a big difference for me, one in regard to my application for PR for which I then paid a lawyer to review my situation, and which helped me make a choice that probably avoided complications and a much longer processing time. Then later, in regards to an aspect of qualifying for citizenship which when made aware of the issue in this and other forums, I then researched it on my own, and this almost certainly resulted in faster processing and may have even avoided a negative outcome.
The thing is, in both instances the information provided by CIC (long before the name change to IRCC) was not only vague but tended to steer or at least suggest procedures which were not the better approach. Note, for example, at the time inland sponsorship applications were taking around a year longer than outland applications, and potentially significantly longer than that, but there was no hint in CIC information, at the time, that an outland application could be made by someone currently staying in Canada. I learned otherwise here and very much appreciated that information.
And CIC information distinguishing the prospects for a citizenship application based on residency compared to one based on physical presence, at that time, was woefully inadequate to the point of being misleading. Meanwhile the forums were then steeped in tales of woe told by citizenship applicants who applied based on residency rather than waiting to apply based on physical presence, so well before I was wrestling with when to apply I became familiar with the difference. At the time CIC information merely cautioned that a Citizenship Judge would have to decide if the residency requirement was met, no hint that would necessarily mean a CJ hearing, and would take a lot, lot longer, rather than a CJ merely rubber-stamping CIC's recommendation (at the time all grants of citizenship had to be approved by a CJ). And no hint that a CJ could deny approval solely based on being short of 1095 days physical presence, that a CJ could decide residency for three years was not enough.
Leading to one of the key benefits of the forums: practical information that can provide important context that CIC/IRCC information, including information received from call centre agents, fails to adequately explain.
And, in particular, the waiting-for-security-clearance explanation/excuse for slow processing looms center stage in this. For citizenship applicants, even if the file is waiting still for security screening to be completed, for most that is not what is holding processing up. And even if going to the next step in the process is waiting on completion of security screening, usually that is not about the file being stuck-in-security, not about the applicant being subject to comprehensive security screening, but more likely just some level of non-routine processing (what might be called routine non-routine processing) such as some additional inquiries to verify physical presence, which will cause slower processing but not the lengthy bogged down in comprehensive security screening the podcast lawyers were addressing.
So, now that I have criticized the podcast and other lawyers for criticizing what many of us do here, time to highlight some of the information and insights they offered . . . but in another post. To be continued . . .
Last edited: