[bootlegga]

EyeBrock wrote:

Boots,
I'm always reluctant, (having traveled to 60 or so countries) to see an MBA or PhD from a developing country in the same light as those from say Canada or the US.

I'm sure they teach to the best of their abilities but countries that can't or won't except radical ideas such as equality and democracy can hardly be expected to embrace other seemingly radical thoughts in science, management, human resources etc.

I'm not trying to be controversial here, just realistic. Can a country that oppresses free thought and has 3 hours of electricity a day, few roads and rampant corruption really knock out top-class MBA's?

I wasn't referring to third world PhDs/MBAs, but those who use student visas to get a graduate degree (like those Commander Sock spoke about). My wife got her MBA a few years ago at the University of Alberta, and more than half of her class were international students. Some stayed, and others went back home, but each and every degree awarded to an international student (whether or not they stay and become a citizen) is valuable IMHO.

I agree that third world degrees are questionable in many cases, as do most professional boards, which is why immigrants with degrees like this wind up driving taxi or working at 7/11 until they can get certified. That I totally agree with.

[BartSimpson]

CommanderSock wrote:

My post above is riddled with errors

Quoted for truth.

[BartSimpson]

EyeBrock wrote:

Mmm, you might have missed the bit in history of General Haldimand taking the Loyalist Americans from the newly independant US to Nova Scotia, PEI, New Brunswick and Upper Canada. Those American refugees built Canada.

"Loyalist Americans" were never Americans at all, but loyal British subjects. In all fairness, it then cannot be said that Americans had any involvement in building or contributing to Canada.

[DerbyX]

BartSimpson wrote:

EyeBrock wrote:

Mmm, you might have missed the bit in history of General Haldimand taking the Loyalist Americans from the newly independant US to Nova Scotia, PEI, New Brunswick and Upper Canada. Those American refugees built Canada.

"Loyalist Americans" were never Americans at all, but loyal British subjects. In all fairness, it then cannot be said that Americans had any involvement in building or contributing to Canada.

That's not quite true. You could arguably say that the war of 1812 helped contribute to our development as a country in our own right. You might say that they indirectly helped us.

Thanks.

[EyeBrock]

BartSimpson wrote:

EyeBrock wrote:

Mmm, you might have missed the bit in history of General Haldimand taking the Loyalist Americans from the newly independant US to Nova Scotia, PEI, New Brunswick and Upper Canada. Those American refugees built Canada.

"Loyalist Americans" were never Americans at all, but loyal British subjects. In all fairness, it then cannot be said that Americans had any involvement in building or contributing to Canada.

A lot of the UEL's had been in the American Colonies for several generations. They were far different from the English of the era and they had much more in common with the Revolutionaries than the did with the English they fought for.

I recently read a book that described them as 'Loyal Americans', and really that's what they were.
Americans who backed the wrong side in the war and became persona-no-gratia in their own country. For their loyalty they were given land grants in the bush land of Upper Canada.

It's my view that these Loyalist's also brought with them some of the core values from the American Revolution. They believed in democracy and the rule of law and the loyalty to the crown they were prepared to give was a far different beast than was expected in Mother England.

There are very distinctive veins in Upper Canada and those early provinces (besides Quebec) that have more in common with New England than Olde England.

[BeaverFever]

EyeBrock wrote:

Boots,

I'm always reluctant, (having traveled to 60 or so countries) to see an MBA or PhD from a developing country in the same light as those from say Canada or the US.

I'm sure they teach to the best of their abilities but countries that can't or won't except radical ideas such as equality and democracy can hardly be expected to embrace other seemingly radical thoughts in science, management, human resources etc.

I'm not trying to be controversial here, just realistic. Can a country that oppresses free thought and has 3 hours of electricity a day, few roads and rampant corruption really knock out top-class MBA's?

True, but in most 3rd world countries, the university stduents are not the teeming massses of 'slumdogs' who have elecrticity 3 hours a day. In most cases, the university students are from the countries wealthy elite and are the sons/daughters of government officials, businessmen, etc. Generally these ppl tend to be very westernized. I think this may raise questions of academic integrity in some cases, but some places have it and others dont. Canadian and US hospitals are full of immigrant doctors doing their residency who got their undergrad or even their medical degree in places like Iran and Egypt, for example (to be fair, these arent really 3rd world countries though). Basically some countries and some schools in the developing world are trusted and some arent, regardless of that country's political ideology or level of general prosperity.

This also raises a relevant question when were talking about dregs from the 3rd world because the average immigrant to canada arrives with a higher level of education than the average Canadian citizen has.

I also question the real relevance of the idea of political parties carried to govt on some kind of immigrant vote. Immigrants typically dont vote in as high numbers as average Canadians due to the fact that many are either not yet eligible or have not yet developed a trust or belief in democratic systems. I think the truth is that the 'immigrant vote' is just one of many votes out there and by no means the largest form of vote. Politicians chase votes from every group: unions, middle class soccer moms, environmentalists, and immigrants is just yet another. Besides, I get the feeling that some Conservatives have finally caught on to the fact that many immigrants are socially conservative and as such the party may be making inroads in certain ridings on anti gay/anti 'obsencity' platforms.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

EyeBrock wrote:

It's my view that these Loyalist's also brought with them some of the core values from the American Revolution. They believed in democracy and the rule of law and the loyalty to the crown they were prepared to give was a far different beast than was expected in Mother England.

This may surprise you but, the Six Nations already had an early form of democracy that was used as a model for the future American government. And in ONE case in paricular was heads and shoulders AHEAD of American democracy. For eg, it was the women of the various tribes that 'elected" their tribal representatives. It took how long for women to get the vote in the Western World???

[DerbyX]

BeaverFever wrote:

This also raises a relevant question when were talking about dregs from the 3rd world because the average immigrant to canada arrives with a higher level of education than the average Canadian citizen has.

I think you hit the nail on the head right there. The public often has that perception. Somewhere we have a thread detailing what it entails to immigrate here and asking people if they would qualify based on that very criteria.

Of course their is a legitimate question concerning refugees and the fact that immigrants who are well qualified can sponsor many members of their family that aren't.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

DerbyX wrote:

Of course their is a legitimate question concerning refugees and the fact that immigrants who are well qualified can sponsor many members of their family that aren't.

This is a SERIOUS problem as many sponsors quit sponsoring shortly after their family/friends arrive.
The government claims that they don't have the manpower to chase these people down, yet W5 took 5 people, put them on the phone to start calling the deadbeats and had made contact with several of them on the first day.

[DerbyX]

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

DerbyX wrote:

Of course their is a legitimate question concerning refugees and the fact that immigrants who are well qualified can sponsor many members of their family that aren't.

This is a SERIOUS problem as many sponsors quit sponsoring shortly after their family/friends arrive.
The government claims that they don't have the manpower to chase these people down, yet W5 took 5 people, put them on the phone to start calling the deadbeats and had made contact with several of them on the first day.

Yep. The government has the manpower but not the will because they fear be labeled racist.

The time limit on sponsoring should be increased to something like 5 years and citizenship for the sponsored be contingent upon a set length of time of good productive behaviour.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

DerbyX wrote:

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

DerbyX wrote:

Of course their is a legitimate question concerning refugees and the fact that immigrants who are well qualified can sponsor many members of their family that aren't.

This is a SERIOUS problem as many sponsors quit sponsoring shortly after their family/friends arrive.
The government claims that they don't have the manpower to chase these people down, yet W5 took 5 people, put them on the phone to start calling the deadbeats and had made contact with several of them on the first day.

Yep. The government has the manpower but not the will because they fear be labeled racist.

The time limit on sponsoring should be increased to something like 5 years and citizenship for the sponsored be contingent upon a set length of time of good productive behaviour.

I agree enitrely with your post. I think that the sponsorship period should be as long as an immigrant has to wait til they can apply for citizenship. I'm not sure what the time frame here is, BUT, I also feel that after you've put in the waiting time and still don't apply for citizenship, then off you go back to where you came from. If becoming a citizen isn't good enough for someone, then either is our country.

[DerbyX]

Now if we can just unionize all the immigrants.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

DerbyX wrote:

Now if we can just unionize all the immigrants.

Don't make me shoot you

[DerbyX]

Only if you promise to use a registered gun made using unionized labour and promise you are doing it for food purposes.

(ducks for cover)

[BeaverFever]

Quote:

Yep. The government has the manpower but not the will because they fear be labeled racist.

I dont think that has anything to do with it, the govt deports people every day and guess what...most of those people belong to different races and cultures...go figure!

The truth is that govt agencies have limited resources and as a result, they are more interested in maintaining the perception of effectiveness with what they have than actually being effective in fulfilling their mandate, which is beyond their resources. Same goes for police, welfare, almost anything in the public sector.