Citizenship handed out too soon, immigrantion not managed well enough

[gsyh]

1. Citizenship: I really think that citizenship had been handed out and kept too easily. Instead of 3 years, it really should require 6-10 years, with 4 years set as an exception for immigrants under the age of 18 who have been raised in our schools. If people were to actually live aboard, the naturalized or the native-born, I think they should

Comments

Re: It's mostly a brainstormng

[jawnbc]

You seem to be generalizing from your own (or your close acquaintainces', or the media's) accounts of migration to Canada. Which is problematic for all sorts of reasons.

PhD's driving taxis blah blah blah. Nuclear scientists bussing tables natter natter natter. Anyone in Canada with a PhD knows they've limited their job prospects by getting that credential (like me). They should also know that the keys to making one's self marketable in academic circles is remarkably transparent: do research and publish it in peer-reviewed journals. O f which there are thousands. In English, French, German, or any other Western language.

We get a lot of PhD from places where there are entrenched caste systems, like South Asia. Most PhDs from there come very very privileged backgrounds...and don't seem to adapt well to a more meritocratic system. If they're coming out of jurisdictions where in their English language univerisities they're not encouraged to do the "do" work of academics in a more intensive, competitive environment, tant pis.

They can also garner a local credential (like a Masters) to both develop contacts and to enhance their previous training.

//You seem to be generalizing from your own (or your close acquaintainces', or the media's) accounts

[gsyh]

Of course, this is mostly a layman's view of what's wrong and what could be done, not a studied-trialed-and-corrected draft, while I do like international stuff I doubt that the serious study of immigration is something I will pursue.

I just haven't see this set of things brought up before.

The matching skills to job thing, if they have a PH.D., it doesn't mean they should only be recommended to where PH.D. jobs are available, all their skills should be considered, and if their hold a physics degree but also knows how to do labour, and labour is more in demand, we let them over for that (perhaps in an area where they can immediately find a job in labour AND keep a look out for a PH.D. job). I just think it's good to make sure that whatever skills they have, they'll have at least one that'll land them a job in the area where they land. The sooner they work, the sooner they’ll have more money to buy stuff they want in addition to need, the sooner they will contribute to our economy. The longer they stay on welfare (what happens when they run out of money before finding a job), the more drain there is on our welfare system, and it can’t be good for self-esteem.

…and a lot of what I wrote in my post, shouldn’t apply to family sponsorship. If they have a family to support them they won’t be without money-food-housing, and the sponsoring family member should be legally obliged to support them until a certain period of time (unless the family goes broke). In the case of marriage, if divorce happens because of abuse, then the sponsored should not only be allowed to stay and granted residency, but entitled to living expenses paid for by the abuser.

/just WHO is to decide what is abuse, and just who is going to collect and how?/

[gsyh]

Um, the court?

If it's a no-fault divorce, the sponsored either goes home, or reapply under skilled worker, or find another family member to sponsor them. As for emotional abuse, prove what can be proved, and the rest is unfortunate, but that will still be better than the system we have right now.

...and did you miss this part:(perhaps in an area where they can immediately find a job in labour AND keep a look out for a PH.D. job)

A job is better than no job, if there is a Ph.D. Job they could get, let them have it, if there is not, let them come over if they have something else they could do for the moment. What else do you want? For them to be over here without a job? No money to live on? If they are not happy about it, they could either stay home until there is a Ph.D. opening over here, or stay home and save up a lot of cash so they could afford to live here jobless until there is an opening.

This post seem to be far from singing the Utopian Ideal...but rather an attempt at stanch practicality, didn't you accuse me of being a neo-con in your first comment (which I’m not, I’m more of a political mutt)?

...and I'm getting the impression that you didn't read the post

[gsyh]

...and most of my comments, or just skimped all of it catching half-bones of things to rage about, since a lot of the things you've accuse me of are direct opposite of what I've said.

Take this for example:
//I am missing BOTH the fiscal responsibility AND the human responsibility here.//

The suggestions here are aimed at responsible immigration, so really, the criticism I've been expecting is trying to advocate a 'controlling nanny state', XD.

Is something else upsetting you? Like, are you currently having problems with our immigration system (not unusual, recently an American nurse now in Toronto have been mislead to believe she'll get a work permit sooner than actuality, etc).

Consider reading Controlling Anger -- Before It Controls You before replying again with strong incoherent language (so you 'censored' the f-word, it still shouldn't have came up). Remembering that you are currently on the interwebs, this is a political forum where ideas are tossed out to be freshed out, not Parliament Hill where things are to be passed, will also help.