Mercury

Canadian Publisher Persecuted for Cartoons

137 posts in this topic

Try getting through the red tape of proving you want to migrate to Canada under the business class and the rhetoric falls short - 3 years plus of just waiting, depending on your country of origin.

My first hand experience has been the opposite to what you are reporting. In my case, my family went through Canadian point system and the whole process took 8 months. Canadians welcomed my family with open arms. In US there was no such possibility - no structured process based on merit. Instead, our options were to try to win a green card in a lottery.

You are referring to the skilled worker points system. I was not, and as such your experience is not an opposite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are the biggest TV and radio talk-show hosts in Canada (famous on the scale of Lou Dobbs, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, and their ilk of ingrates) denigrating immigrants all day and every day? If so, let me know.

Thanks.

I would not know since I have only watched one tv show in Canada, and do not listen to radio talk shows. That is why I am curious who you are referring to in your statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Could you provide a reference for, and breakdown of, the categories in which you claim the US "accept[ed] more legal immigrants than any other nation"? By "immigrants" here, I mean permanent immigrants, not visitors or students.

Here is the breakdown of legal immigrants the US accepted, and page 6 of this recent OECD report is the comparison of permanent immigrants to various nations.

By my own experience, the skilled class application for permanent residency in Canada is far easier and more rights-respecting than the American one. The US cap on H-1Bs is under 200,000 annually and the H-1 visa class is America's main avenue for skilled workers, so I wonder who these 38 million are.

38 million in 2006 (total over time). Depending on the office you are submitting your skilled worker application to, the wait time can differ significantly. However, I don't view that application process, 2.5 years (Paris) to 4.5 years (Kampala) as the determining factor in a new country being rights-respecting. It just means they're screening for brains (in the skilled worker application, anyway) to ensure there's hardworking human beings to feed to the welfare/pension systems in place. Look at the income tax cutoff brackets for Canada compared to what we have. We at least still take merit into consideration for better reasons, even if we are not making as great an effort as we should to encourage more educated professionals to stay. It's the belief that we're doing just fine as we are; it's historical complacence from a country that felt so healthy it has been nearly indifferent to what new immigrants may add. The policies based on this complacence are changing far less quickly (and not in the direction) that I'd like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are referring to the skilled worker points system. I was not, and as such your experience is not an opposite.

Business immigrants also go through a point system with an additional requirement of demonstrating certain, required, net worth. They are expected to either make a minimum investment in Canada of C$400,000 or own and manage businesses in Canada.

In every case, the process is set, known in advance, and straight forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are referring to the skilled worker points system. I was not, and as such your experience is not an opposite.

Business immigrants also go through a point system with an additional requirement of demonstrating certain, required, net worth. They are expected to either make a minimum investment in Canada of C$400,000 or own and manage businesses in Canada.

In every case, the process is set, known in advance, and straight forward.

I was charged with assisting with the streamlining the first stage processing of all applications received at CPC Vegreville in Alberta, a rush job that had to be rolled out in time for IRPA, and that was after working on Nairobi. In terms of wait time alone, I shall quote from the CIC press junket, wording that has not changed essentially since I first worked on Nairobi a few years back:

Citizenship and Immigration Canada has made a commitment to finalize 1,000 federal investor cases in 2006. These cases will be processed in the order in which they have been received at visa offices around the world. Applications submitted before July 2004 will be assessed in 2006. Applications received from July 2004 on will not likely be finalized before 2007.

I am not at liberty to speak of the nature of the delays, but I can stress that none of the application processes, including the business/investor class, is straightforward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is the breakdown of legal immigrants the US accepted, and page 6 of this recent OECD report is the comparison of permanent immigrants to various nations.

From page two (for 2006):

Professionals with advanced degrees: 21,000

Skilled workers, professionals, unskilled workers: 89.000 (they lumped both skilled and unskilled together in this section - not sure how many skilled then)

Investors: 750

Canada 2006 - permanent residence granted (data from Citizenship and Immigration Canada website)

Economic immigrants: 138,257 (merit system)

Business class immigration statistics (merit system) (2005 - could not find 2006):

Business: 3,642

Entrepreneurs: 751

Investors: 2,590

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not at liberty to speak of the nature of the delays, but I can stress that none of the application processes, including the business/investor class, is straightforward.

Again not my experience nor is it of anyone I know who went through the process in various classes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thought occurs to me that it's at least somewhat sensible to look at immigration figures as a percentage of a country's existing population. The impact of 1 million new immigrants on a small country with 10 million individuals would likely be larger than 1 million new immigrants to the U.S. with a rough population of 300 million.

According to the CIA world factbook, the July 2007 population of Canada is 33,390,141, or about 1/9 the population of America; so if Canada, in absolute terms, has a delta immigration rate more than 1/9 that of the U.S., it is arguably more permissive than the U.S. towards immigrants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Canada, out of 251,649 approved permanent residence applications in 2006 - 138,257 were that of skilled workers/business type (more than half).

In US, out of 1,266,264 approved applications - 110,000 are those in professional/skilled (with unskilled lumped together).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Could you provide a reference for, and breakdown of, the categories in which you claim the US "accept[ed] more legal immigrants than any other nation"? By "immigrants" here, I mean permanent immigrants, not visitors or students.

Here is the breakdown of legal immigrants the US accepted, and page 6 of this recent OECD report is the comparison of permanent immigrants to various nations.

By my own experience, the skilled class application for permanent residency in Canada is far easier and more rights-respecting than the American one. The US cap on H-1Bs is under 200,000 annually and the H-1 visa class is America's main avenue for skilled workers, so I wonder who these 38 million are.

38 million in 2006 (total over time). Depending on the office you are submitting your skilled worker application to, the wait time can differ significantly. However, I don't view that application process, 2.5 years (Paris) to 4.5 years (Kampala) as the determining factor in a new country being rights-respecting. It just means they're screening for brains (in the skilled worker application, anyway) to ensure there's hardworking human beings to feed to the welfare/pension systems in place. Look at the income tax cutoff brackets for Canada compared to what we have. We at least still take merit into consideration for better reasons, even if we are not making as great an effort as we should to encourage more educated professionals to stay. It's the belief that we're doing just fine as we are; it's historical complacence from a country that felt so healthy it has been nearly indifferent to what new immigrants may add. The policies based on this complacence are changing far less quickly (and not in the direction) that I'd like.

I will take a close look at the information you've provided and return with comments, if any. I had begun writing up my view yesterday, but the gist of my thoughts have been anticipated by Sophia and Phil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, that should have read:

I will take a close look at the information you've provided and return with comments, if any. I had begun writing up my view yesterday, but the gist of my thoughts has been anticipated by Sophia and Phil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It just means they're screening for brains (in the skilled worker application, anyway) to ensure there's hardworking human beings to feed to the welfare/pension systems in place.

Both countries offer various social programs. The difference is that Canadian immigrants, due to this screening, are more likely to contribute to the system they are using.

We at least still take merit into consideration for better reasons, even if we are not making as great an effort as we should to encourage more educated professionals to stay.

I think I have shown that merit is not exactly the criteria in most cases (instead permanent status is mostly granted through amnesties, lotteries, and family sponsorships)

What are those better reasons if not to welcome hardworking, self-reliant, individuals? Also, can you provide a source for your assertion, please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was a great post. That guy rocks - he should be hired for millions as the spoke person for tobacco, oil, snack food, feezy drinks, and gun companies. He just need to repeat the same speech and change a few words.

The United States still does accept more legal immigrants than any other nation, despite its failure to move towards open immigration. My recollection from some contract work I did for USINS in 2007 was that we took about 38 million in 2006.

Are you sure that this number isn't the total number of immigrants in the US as of 2006? Given the fact that the US population reached 200M in 1967 and 300M in 2006, that 38M number doesn't seem right if it's meant to be a yearly increment.

According to the CIA World Factbook, Canada admits more immigrants in relative terms:

Net migration rate:

US: 3.05 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2007 est.)

Canada: 5.79 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2007 est.)

Sources:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th.../ca.html#People

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th.../us.html#People

It's a well established rumor among immigrants that Canada is easier to get into than the US. I don't know if it's true, but I'd tend to believe that it's true.

As a side note, I got my Green Card in December, 9 1/2 years after completing my MBA at Duke U., and slightly over 9 years after starting my career in the US. It's been a long, painful, sometimes kafkaesque process...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It just means they're screening for brains (in the skilled worker application, anyway) to ensure there's hardworking human beings to feed to the welfare/pension systems in place.

If you're going to screen at all, what else to screen by? Whatever its faults, it, at least, demonstrates a recognition of the mind's role in human affairs. The current Canadian system at least gives you that much. Unlike the American skilled worker's permanent residency path, the Canadian Permanent Residency application is not dependent on your being sponsored by an employer, so you're

1. Not bound by the whims of the bureaucrats who may pass laws against your industry, jeopardizing your employer's plans and costing you your job - and your application;

2. Not bound to an unscrupulous employer trying to eke what he can out of you.

We at least still take merit into consideration for better reasons, even if we are not making as great an effort as we should to encourage more educated professionals to stay.

I think I have shown that merit is not exactly the criteria in most cases (instead permanent status is mostly granted through amnesties, lotteries, and family sponsorships)

To further Sophia's point, the majority of cases have nothing to do with merit.

Owing to the Green Card lottery (lady luck replacing Lady Liberty), some immigrants - from certain countries - can become US Permanent Residents from outside the US, but, even those who win the lottery still have to go through a screening process to achieve permanent resident status.

As far as I know, apart from the "approved" lottery winners and perhaps a very few highly-specialized categories, there is no way to become a US Permanent Resident without first entering the country and going through a long process that can take anywhere from 3 to 20 years, depending on either luck, legal procedure, legal loopholes, US economic circumstances, exposure to and comfort with the underworld, personal stamina; or a combination of some or all of these. This appears to be the case regardless of which road or combination of roads you take: skilled-worker visa, temporary work visa (for agricultural jobs), real marriage, fake marriage, non-spousal family sponsorship, etc.

The quoted number of newly-minted US permanent residents does not necessarily reflect the number of individuals who legally (permanently) immigrated in any given year. I do not know - and I don't think the government knows - how many of those granted US Permanent Residency were/are illegal immigrants who got married to US citizens or permanent residents, legal visitors who did the same, legal students who did the same, and/or visa (student, visitor, or worker) overstayers who did the same. Or how many of them were refugees or work visa holders who applied for a Green Card without taking the marriage path.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It just means they're screening for brains (in the skilled worker application, anyway) to ensure there's hardworking human beings to feed to the welfare/pension systems in place.

If you're going to screen at all, what else to screen by? Whatever its faults, it, at least, demonstrates a recognition of the mind's role in human affairs. The current Canadian system at least gives you that much.

Not to speak for her, but I think you misinterpret Cometmaker's point. All of us would probably agree that intelligence and possessing knowledge are great things, and if there *is* going to be screening, what better criteria? However, from the perspective of a socialist bureaucrat, the Atlases are just stronger and more productive cattle to be harnessed; so, while the desire may be the same, they come from polar opposite philosophies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Could you provide a reference for, and breakdown of, the categories in which you claim the US "accept[ed] more legal immigrants than any other nation"? By "immigrants" here, I mean permanent immigrants, not visitors or students.

Here is the breakdown of legal immigrants the US accepted, and page 6 of this recent OECD report is the comparison of permanent immigrants to various nations.

I don't know if you realize it, but neither of the documents you linked to support the 38 million number you claimed. Perhaps you were relying on Phil's link?

The first document states that 1,266,264 people became US Green Card holders in 2006. 803,335 visas were family-sponsored and 159,081 were employment-based. The rest were awarded to refugees, lottery winners, and members of a few other special categories.

The corruption of putting the conservative "family-sponsored" immigrant status ahead of the more objective (but still restrictive) "employer-sponsored" immigrant status cannot be over-emphasized. Many who have (had) to enter into immigration marriages, out of desperation, with a partner they do/did not love or - in some cases - even sleep with - will tell you of the horror. Basically, you are bound by the whims of the US citizen. Some of these citizens realize it and take huge advantage.

Some even end up with unplanned children as a result. I don't think it is appropriate to list here the terrible things that occur in some of these relationships, so I will leave it at that. Let's just say that those crossing the desert or ocean, sometimes losing life or limb in the process, face a fresh battle on arrival.

All because of geographical and historical accident. So much for merit. What keeps them going in the face of opposition? Knowledge of the alternative, and an implicit grasp of the benevolent universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It just means they're screening for brains (in the skilled worker application, anyway) to ensure there's hardworking human beings to feed to the welfare/pension systems in place.

If you're going to screen at all, what else to screen by? Whatever its faults, it, at least, demonstrates a recognition of the mind's role in human affairs. The current Canadian system at least gives you that much.

Not to speak for her, but I think you misinterpret Cometmaker's point. All of us would probably agree that intelligence and possessing knowledge are great things, and if there *is* going to be screening, what better criteria? However, from the perspective of a socialist bureaucrat, the Atlases are just stronger and more productive cattle to be harnessed; so, while the desire may be the same, they come from polar opposite philosophies.

Oh, I got that part of her argument; and that is a valid point. However, the standard is not the survival of the Canadian near-socialist state, but the life of the individual doomed to the alternative: outright socialism, communism, or tribalism in his native country.

Given the migration of so many Atlases, it might even be easier to change the culture to a capitalist one, depending on how open to change the Atlases are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somehow this thread has swerved into a completely different subject...

but, getting back to the main topic:

I love it when Erza Levant says "How ironic that the human rights commission is eroding those rights", and the inquisitor responds with the gem "You're entitled to you're opinions, that's for sure." Erza immediately fires back "I wish that were the fact." Talk about nailing the target.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I love it when Erza Levant says "How ironic that the human rights commission is eroding those rights", and the inquisitor responds with the gem "You're entitled to you're opinions, that's for sure." Erza immediately fires back "I wish that were the fact." Talk about nailing the target.

That "you're" in "entitled to you're opinions" should be "your". Thanks for youR attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, many of us immigrants have little choice, and Canada provides a safe haven in many respects. At least, in that country, there aren't popular talk-show hosts and cable news channels denigrating immigrants on the hour.

It's a plus for Canada that it does (apparently) accept immigrants more readily than America, to America's great shame - though I don't think you'd find your welcome lasting very long if you started to get onto a public radar by discussing Islam or socialized medicine.

Can I find out the basis for each of your statements?

The breakdown of PR types in the U.S. compared to Canada is irrelevant to my response to the above. America accepts far more immigrants than Canada. The fact that one is able to work and study in the United States while waiting for 2 years or 9, gain 1 or more degrees, develop relationships and give birth to children (who are automatically granted American citizenship - same goes for Canada - though there may be an Amendment to the 14th on this point) only add to the fact that one is productive in the United States regardless of whether one arrives legally through sponsorship or gets status through a H1-B. I dismiss the idea that the fact that one migrates to the United States by sponsorship renders that person less productive/possessing lesser productive capacity than a person who acquired legal status by another application class.

Mercury, 38 million is a figure that I recollect being used as a cross-reference between Census releases and USCIS. I haven't dug that up, but I did rely on the links to show that we do accept more immigrants than any other country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, I got that part of her argument; and that is a valid point. However, the standard is not the survival of the Canadian near-socialist state, but the life of the individual doomed to the alternative: outright socialism, communism, or tribalism in his native country.

When the majority of people, productive and not, leave one country to go to another in a legal manner, their concerns include availability of healthcare, "good" air quality, opportunity to advance in a chosen field of work, etc. Many immigrants speak fondly of various aspects of their homeland, and actually prefer it. They would return if it was not for the "infrastructure" that Canada has. Most people merely seek a lesser form of communism, as long as it is practical for them. The standard of comparison you state is 1) not the one most legal migrants are interested in, 2) not the standard Canada provides. Canadian tribalism is alive and well. Note that if Canada is simply an easier nation to achieve legal status in compared to the United States, why do so many Canadian immigrants possess and openly profess hatred for the United States? Why do so many fourth and fifth generation Canadians expect Americans in Canada to accept as facts their purported "reasons" for disliking/hating America?

Given the migration of so many Atlases, it might even be easier to change the culture to a capitalist one, depending on how open to change the Atlases are.

The term Atlases is being used loosely here. The average individual/family who migrated to Canada under the skilled worker program, the productive (that is, he is earning money) middle manager who likes to volunteer coach for a local soccer team (for lifestyle balance) and whose wife runs a successful dayhome and encourages their 4-year old to recycle because the news announcer said so, is not an Atlas. He's the philosophically-clueless guy who is referred to as the "working poor" in Canada.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, many of us immigrants have little choice, and Canada provides a safe haven in many respects. At least, in that country, there aren't popular talk-show hosts and cable news channels denigrating immigrants on the hour.

It's a plus for Canada that it does (apparently) accept immigrants more readily than America, to America's great shame - though I don't think you'd find your welcome lasting very long if you started to get onto a public radar by discussing Islam or socialized medicine.

Can I find out the basis for each of your statements?

The breakdown of PR types in the U.S. compared to Canada is irrelevant to my response to the above. America accepts far more immigrants than Canada. The fact that one is able to work and study in the United States while waiting for 2 years or 9, gain 1 or more degrees, develop relationships and give birth to children (who are automatically granted American citizenship - same goes for Canada - though there may be an Amendment to the 14th on this point) only add to the fact that one is productive in the United States regardless of whether one arrives legally through sponsorship or gets status through a H1-B. I dismiss the idea that the fact that one migrates to the United States by sponsorship renders that person less productive/possessing lesser productive capacity than a person who acquired legal status by another application class.

Not so fast. :huh:

The use of the overly broad term "immigrants" is misleading. It is important to distinguish permanent residents from "immigrants" because permanent residency is the only true indication that one's life is guaranteed, or has attained, normalcy in one's new abode. Without permanent residency, one's life is under constant threat [of force] however seemingly subtle, where future plans can only be drawn up to a certain point. "Mind and force are opposites."

Besides, as I have shown, it is difficult to tell how many of those granted permanent residency in any given year were still - or ever - in legal status upon "adjustment of status." Which brings us to the issue of how "productive" an immigrant's life can be.

There are various categories of pre-Green Card immigrant, but I will limit myself to the category you mention above: the H-1B holder. What is his life like? Is it productive? Can he make the same choices a Green Card holder or US citizen can over the course of 5, 10 years? You say that he can earn degrees, have children and "be productive." The questions raised by this line of thought are: productive in what field? Can he afford to try for a promotion if his visa is bound to a certain earning level or job type? Can he change jobs? Can he change fields from engineering to journalism or philosophy? Can he afford to irritate his supervisor? How many kids can he have? Does he have these kids by choice or does he beget them as potential "anchor babies"? Can he speak freely about US culture, like Ayn Rand did? What if the economy stumbles, as it did after 9/11? What are the laws governing his visa status and how does he avoid breaking them? I could go on, but there are probably others on THE FORUM who can share their experiences in this context.

Yes, numerically, the US grants more permanent residents per annum, but Sophia, Phil, and I have tried to show that relative to population, Canada takes in more permanent residents. Does this make Canada a better country? Of course not. But, for many immigrant seeking freedom from force, it has become a viable option to the some of the early indignities of life in America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, I got that part of her argument; and that is a valid point. However, the standard is not the survival of the Canadian near-socialist state, but the life of the individual doomed to the alternative: outright socialism, communism, or tribalism in his native country.

When the majority of people, productive and not, leave one country to go to another in a legal manner, their concerns include availability of healthcare, "good" air quality, opportunity to advance in a chosen field of work, etc. Many immigrants speak fondly of various aspects of their homeland, and actually prefer it. They would return if it was not for the "infrastructure" that Canada has. Most people merely seek a lesser form of communism, as long as it is practical for them. The standard of comparison you state is 1) not the one most legal migrants are interested in, 2) not the standard Canada provides.

No. In theoretical terms, it is the standard -- life is the standard of value. When we speak of capitalism (in the modern world), we mean all these concrete conditions you have mentioned, but use the concept to denote the essential principles that bring them about. Good life is not *in* the concept 'capitalism' - good life is the concretes. Capitalism, the concept, is in the minds of the men who grasp it. In the same way, these migrants may not know what the essential principles of communism/socialism/tribalism are, but they know that they are no longer at the mercy of armed robbers, bad roads, random riots, traffic snarls, and whimsical government officials.

This point is another discussion, however, so I am ready to let this go in the meantime.

Canadian tribalism is alive and well. Note that if Canada is simply an easier nation to achieve legal status in compared to the United States, why do so many Canadian immigrants possess and openly profess hatred for the United States? Why do so many fourth and fifth generation Canadians expect Americans in Canada to accept as facts their purported "reasons" for disliking/hating America?

When you say "Canadian immigrants," do you mean Canadians who migrated to America, or do you mean non-Canadians who migrated to Canada? In either case, this point may not be relevant, since we have American citizens who "openly profess hatred for the United States." The intellectuals of the civilization in charge (at present, the West) are those who determine the views of the people. Western intellectuals are anti-American.

If you are talking about non-Canadians who move to Canada, one will have to find out what kind of immigrants they are. Are they comfortable in Canada? Were they spurned by the US when they tried to immigrate here? Is it the popular intellectual view that the US is responsible for the problems of their native countries? There are a number of factors to consider.

Given the migration of so many Atlases, it might even be easier to change the culture to a capitalist one, depending on how open to change the Atlases are.

The term Atlases is being used loosely here. The average individual/family who migrated to Canada under the skilled worker program, the productive (that is, he is earning money) middle manager who likes to volunteer coach for a local soccer team (for lifestyle balance) and whose wife runs a successful dayhome and encourages their 4-year old to recycle because the news announcer said so, is not an Atlas. He's the philosophically-clueless guy who is referred to as the "working poor" in Canada.

You're probably right - I don't have enough knowledge to contest this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, that atrociously-edited paragraph should have read:

Yes, numerically, the US grants more permanent residencies per annum, but Sophia, Phil, and I have tried to show that, relative to population, Canada takes in more permanent residents. Does this make Canada a better country? Of course not. But, for many immigrants seeking freedom from force, it has become a viable option to the some of the early indignities of life in America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The use of the overly broad term "immigrants" is misleading. It is important to distinguish permanent residents from "immigrants" because permanent residency is the only true indication that one's life is guaranteed, or has attained, normalcy in one's new abode.[...]

Besides, as I have shown, it is difficult to tell how many of those granted permanent residency in any given year were still - or ever - in legal status upon "adjustment of status."

This is true of Canada as well.

There are various categories of pre-Green Card immigrant, but I will limit myself to the category you mention above: the H-1B holder. What is his life like? Is it productive? Can he make the same choices a Green Card holder or US citizen can over the course of 5, 10 years? You say that he can earn degrees, have children and "be productive." The questions raised by this line of thought are: productive in what field? Can he afford to try for a promotion if his visa is bound to a certain earning level or job type? Can he change jobs? Can he change fields from engineering to journalism or philosophy? Can he afford to irritate his supervisor? How many kids can he have? Does he have these kids by choice or does he beget them as potential "anchor babies"? Can he speak freely about US culture, like Ayn Rand did? What if the economy stumbles, as it did after 9/11? What are the laws governing his visa status and how does he avoid breaking them? I could go on, but there are probably others on THE FORUM who can share their experiences in this context.

Comparing that to the PNP (Provincial Nominee Program) for would-be/pre-Canadian PRs this looks pretty limiting. But remember that the restrictions on an employment Temporary Resident Permit in Canada (if you can get one) are exactly as you have stated for the H-1B. I guess this thread might tangent off into the definition of productive as it has in other threads, but productivity (when defined from an earnings standpoint) is not simply a matter of being able to do what one wishes to "earn one's keep". It's also about being able to keep what one earns - the per capita net income of an American worker (legal worker) compared to the Canadian worker speaks volumes. Our economy may be stumbling, but note that our current Defense budget is something like 4% of our GDP, and that it has been decreasing steadily over the decades as American workers become more and more productive. That sort of DoD-GDP ratio cannot be said of Canadians' productivity.

Yes, numerically, the US grants more permanent residents per annum, but Sophia, Phil, and I have tried to show that relative to population, Canada takes in more permanent residents. Does this make Canada a better country? Of course not. But, for many immigrant seeking freedom from force, it has become a viable option to the some of the early indignities of life in America.

I agree that on a ratio relative to the population basis, Canada does approve more PRs. If productivity is defined in relation to freedom from force, for the immediate realization of certain freedoms (ah, how far our concept of freedom and what defines "socialism" have fallen) compared to Burundi or Lebanon, etc., sure Canada will seem a good place for intelligent and ambitious persons seeking a better life. I would not say that the 10,000+ U.S. PRs/citizens acquiring Canadian PR status in 2006 are seeking freedom from force, though. As someone who has lived just about everywhere, I'm of the opinion that even with all the restrictions I experience in the U.S. (including coming under fire thanks to the Patriot Act) I'd rather suffer the indignities of a decade in America on the H1-B status than spend a lifetime paying enormous debts to a Canadian public at a far greater ratio than I do in America in any given timeframe or immigration status.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites