CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 51388
PostPosted: Sun May 29, 2011 6:11 pm
 


andyt wrote:
Brenda wrote:
The list of skilled workers AND the limits and caps:

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/ ... p#eligible

Andy, bite me.

If your eduction or skills are not in 1 of those 29 profession, your application will be returned. May I add that for each and every one of those professions, your qualifications mean squad, and you have to go back to school?


Quote:
Only 17% of immigrants admitted each year are fully assessed on the basis of their employment and language skills.


And if the qualifications mean nothing, what's the point of the whole exercise? If they have to go back to school here, why don't we just give those spaces to Canadians? Do we really need more MD immigrants driving cabs? Don't we have Canadians who could do that? Do we really want immigrants suing the federal government because they feel they were misled about the opportunities here for them. That's not fair to them, and not fair to the lesser qualified Canadians whose jobs they will be taking to survive.

Those jobs are vacant, you smart ass. Go to school and send your kids to school so they can fill them. So no, apparently you do not have Canadians who can/will do that.

EVERY skilled worker or entrepeneureal immigrant has to take a language test if they need the points, unless they can provide proof of their language skills, as in a report card provided by a French or English educational institute, or French or English speaking country. (you can earn up to 14 points for language skills, out of 100, and one need 65 (or 67, I forgot). So no, you do not NEED to prove them)
I am sure that no immigration officer is checking the employment history (it is impossible, and nobody will give the immigration officer permission to call their boss and risk losing their jobs), unless the potential immigrant provided their books, as entrepeneurs should. So 17% is not surprising.


Offline
Forum Addict
Forum Addict
 Calgary Flames
Profile
Posts: 956
PostPosted: Sun May 29, 2011 6:16 pm
 


Image

Diagnosing a Troll:

Source

Quote:
* Repetition of a question or statement is either a troll - or a pedant; either way, treatment as a troll is effective.
* Missing The Point - Trolls rarely answer a direct question - they cannot, if asked to justify their twaddle - so they develop a fine line in missing the point.


See above -- repitition of same points using identified questionable source while failing to respond to criticisms from multiple members!

See Lemmy/EyeBrock interactions with andyt for further detail.

Image

Quote:
Who is at risk?
Any newsgroup, bulletin board, forum or chatroom can attract trolls, but they don't have the brains to attack nuclear physicists, and they are drawn to the quick response where sex, religion and race are found; so politics is easy prey.

One troll famously tried to infiltrate a mensa group; the results read like 100 trolls and one regular, it didn't have a chance - but it was stupid enough to persist until removed.


Note, immigration policies typically directed at those who are low-income, people from third world countries, and the political ramifications/involvement thereof. Source largely based in newspaper articles and the words of a scant few politicians over that of contrary experts.

Quote:
Socially Inept
Trolls have no self respect and low self esteem, and cannot cope with normal human interaction; start with a bit of flattery, and they may be stuck for a response. Even if they recover, they will not able to react appropriately, which should convince everyone of their trollism.

Trolls focus on their target, not the issue; additonally, most trolls can only pick on one person at a time. This leaves them wide open to paralysis when you talk about them, but not to them.


re: Current strategy. Apparently successful.

Final edit just after Brenda's following post.


Last edited by Khar on Sun May 29, 2011 6:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 51388
PostPosted: Sun May 29, 2011 6:16 pm
 


Let me explain the skilled worker system once again. They check if you have 65 points and if you have experience or education in one of the 29 professions (believe me, this was WAY different when we applied in 2004). If you don't, you get your application returned with a stamp "DENIED" on it. If you do, they check further, how you got your points (proof of that provided by the applicant, in English, notarized). 42 pages, in my case. Just sayin.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 51388
PostPosted: Sun May 29, 2011 6:27 pm
 


Quote:
Final edit just after Brenda's following post.
Which was not directed at you tho :lol:


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
Profile
Posts: 2962
PostPosted: Sun May 29, 2011 8:39 pm
 


Brenda wrote:
Let me explain the skilled worker system once again. They check if you have 65 points and if you have experience or education in one of the 29 professions (believe me, this was WAY different when we applied in 2004). If you don't, you get your application returned with a stamp "DENIED" on it. If you do, they check further, how you got your points (proof of that provided by the applicant, in English, notarized). 42 pages, in my case. Just sayin.


I think if they got 29 skilled areas of shortages that are noticable enought for clerk in Ottawa to confirm they got shortages and should be increase schooling in those areas.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 51388
PostPosted: Sun May 29, 2011 8:58 pm
 


Bruce_the_vii wrote:
Brenda wrote:
Let me explain the skilled worker system once again. They check if you have 65 points and if you have experience or education in one of the 29 professions (believe me, this was WAY different when we applied in 2004). If you don't, you get your application returned with a stamp "DENIED" on it. If you do, they check further, how you got your points (proof of that provided by the applicant, in English, notarized). 42 pages, in my case. Just sayin.


I think if they got 29 skilled areas of shortages that are noticable enought for clerk in Ottawa to confirm they got shortages and should be increase schooling in those areas.

Nurses, doctors, contractors etc etc. I posted a link on the top of this page.
These are the shortages that Ottawa recognizes. Doesn't mean they are necessarily accurate. Ottawa (and thus all Embassies all over the world) can not anticipate to a quick changing work-force shortage.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
Profile
Posts: 2962
PostPosted: Sun May 29, 2011 10:43 pm
 


Khar wrote:
For a man who claims to have the knowledge to state that the official information on immigration is sketchy and crude, you should be able to explain this to us, Bruce! :? It is one of the simplest economic theories.

I've seen you used the term Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) in the past, certainly you can describe divergent cost price indexes and differing costs! Why do some things cost more in the Canada than the US?

Surely the man who can state that five books on immigration don't address the problem can address this question and provide us insights! After all, immigration is heavily related to these topics in this thread!


The point about the UK is why it's productivity not standard. PPP is a measure of relavtive standard of living and is based on GDP per capita compared to a basket of goods. It can be skewed by contries that work longer hours, have more people working and higher taxes -as well a productiviity.

Immigrants from the UK will tell you the place is exensive, while people that have gone to the states say you dollar goes further.


Offline
Forum Addict
Forum Addict
 Calgary Flames
Profile
Posts: 956
PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2011 12:02 am
 


If you meant to say that as your point, than you should have said it. I didn't ask for you to explain PPP, I simply said you used it in the past. PPP does not explain price differences, it describes them.

For the record, it is not based on GDP per capita, and you are not comparing GDP per capita to a basket of goods in any way to find out what the PPP is. PPP is a comparison of price levels between two countries, with differing methods of finding it for absolute or relative PPP. You can then adjust GDP for this to get a somewhat more accurate bearing on the relative productivity of an economy. I basically described this in my own post, yet you chose to redefine it (incorrectly).

Indeed, sandorski was able to explain one of the reasons simply by looking at why Target is more successful than Zellers. It took him one minute and... ten words? Fifteen? It is not hard to think through logically why things are more expensive in one place than in another. Could it be due to... tariffs? Barriers to trade like transport? Different input costs? Existence of non-tradeable goods/services? Imperfect market knowledge? Customs fees? Extensive (or lacking thereof) product differentiation? Quality differences? How quickly goods perish? Specialization in other goods? A differing demand schedule for the good? Mass production reducing marginal cost per unit of a good? Varying levels of income?

It has nothing to do with... "standard" productivity. Indeed, I find it kind of odd that you chose to use the word "standard." What do you mean by "standard," and how does it not get changed from the above list of impacts? If so, how does that even relate to this topic, or your ideal that immigrants are bad for the country?


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
Profile
Posts: 2962
PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2011 3:53 am
 


I use standard productivity because costs basically resent depend on productivity. In addition the Western EU countruies, Canada and Australia have similiar ppp - suggesting their plant and equipment if up to date. Personnaly, I'm all about productivity so I wonder about these things.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15779
PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2011 7:15 am
 


The real problem with immigration as it stands is the lack of communication skills of a large majority of supposedly 'educated' immigrants.

Source countries like the UK and US now account for about 2% of current immigration.


Since the 1990's Canada has all but closed the door on the UK and Eire and opened it up to so called non-traditional sources. Cheers PET! You won!


These immigrants come from countries with vastly different cultures and values and usually have difficulty in understanding and/or communicating in the work-place.

Never a good thing.

A simple language requirement for entry would vastly improve the lot of new immigrants. I know Brenda being a Cloggy has good English but she has chosen to live in the middle of nowhere. If she was in the GTA her employment prospects would improve exponentially.

Many immigrants bandy Third-World and frankly third-rate educational qualifications. They can’t speak or write English at an acceptable level and that really is the most significant impediment to their development and acceptance in the workplace.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 51388
PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2011 7:18 am
 


And I didn't even have to take the test, because I was the spouse of the applicant... Maybe that is something that should change too, that everyone over 15 or 16 should just take a language test, and make it a bit cheaper. Euro 170 per test on top of what you already pay is not nothing.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4234
PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2011 7:36 am
 


I think thats one thing Oz has got it right on the money. Everyone needs to get a decent result in IELTS even the spouse, if the spouse can't you have to pay a lot of money instead. Call it a fine.Plus its not same across the board, different occupations have different language requirements. Plus if you get better results you score higher in the qualification points system.

Also one of the biggest things they have gotten right is, skills assesment. Every applicant has to send his or her qualifications to a relevant Australian authority to have them checked out and approved only then does the immigration dept even consider the application.

Techinally you could qualify with shitty English but for most of these Australian organisations a certain level of English is a MUST and there is no way around it. So if the relevany body does not approve your qualifications there is no way the immigration dept will process you.

Plus you don't land with zero qualification as in Canada, you arrive fully qualified with regocnised experience. Also having looked through some jobs openeings at all levels almost none of them state Australian experience required, only ask for the correct visa.

Unlike Canada where most ask about Canadian experience.

That is the sort of reform Canadian immigration requires not just slashing numbers or crying about why can't Canadians fill these positions.

Such laws will automatically slash the numbers of approved applications all on its own.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2681
PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2011 7:37 am
 


Sigh...i feel like I wasted time reading this back and forth, it lead nowhere, no real breakthrough in the argument apart from a few enlightening posts by Khar (more common sense posts actually)

Anyways, maybe this thread can be saved, here's an interesting article on migration:




http://www.economist.com/node/18741382


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33600
PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2011 8:54 am
 


You see, once people have vented at me, and tried to paint me as being against all immigration, they actually make some good suggestions on how immigration could be improved. Even Brock's post fundamentally agrees with some of what I've been saying. The main myth to overcome is that immigration is inherently good for Canada ans we should just take anybody and everybody. No we shouldn't. We should tailor it to our needs of the moment, and we should make sure that we do everything we can to train Canadians for the jobs we need before turning to immigration. It's cheaper to import doctors say, but it's a much better idea to expand the medical school places (that were cut in an effort to reduce doctor numbers and thus reduce medicare costs) and train Canadians to be doctors than import people who then have trouble actually practicing because their credentials aren't recognized. Thats not fair to Canadians who miss out on being a doctor, and it's not fair to the immigrant who also misses out on being a doctor.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4234
PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2011 9:06 am
 


andyt wrote:
The main myth to overcome is that immigration is inherently good for Canada ans we should just take anybody and everybody.


No bud the main myth is that you believe that Canada takes in anybody and everybody, which is not the case.

Rest of your argument is actually not even related directly to immigration. Bettering education etc etc. If that happens and I hope it does. Its going to take sometime that there are enough skilled canadians to fill up such postions, what do you think people should do until that happens.

Another question is of the same old one of a vast and huge country and small population.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 105 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.