"Obviously, you have given at least some thought to immigrating to Canada or you wouldn't be reading this mini course. While you probably have your own reasons for considering such a move, here are a few others to think about:
As of July 26, 2005, no occupations were classified as restricted by Canada's Citizenship and Immigration department. Restricted occupations are ones that would not count towards your Pass-Mark score, regardless of the years of experience you have with that job. Some common jobs may be restricted if the need for workers to fill them is met.
As of February 18, 2005, the current Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Joe Volpe, announced changes made to immigration procedures for the spouses and common law partners of permanent residents. Now if you are approved as a permanent resident, your spouse or common law partner of either gender can live and work with you in Canada while their immigration application is being considered.
Previously, significant others had to wait for approval before moving to Canada.
Becoming a permanent resident now means you will have less time to wait before applying for Canadian citizenship. To become a citizen, you have to have lived in the country for at least three of the four years prior to your application for citizenship.
Plus, you can become a citizen of Canada without having to give up your citizenship in your country of origin. Remember that these issues are also subject to change.
About the Author
Alex Berez is a specialist in Canadian Immigration. He helps thousands of people all over the world to achieve their dream of moving to Canada. http://www.StepByStepImmigrationCanada.com
Written by: Alex Berez"
Monday, August 28, 2006
Saturday, August 26, 2006
Business Immigration: Good Idea Or Bad?
Business Immigration: Good Idea Or Bad?: "Canada's Business Immigration Plan is a plan started by the Canadian Government to attract experienced people with money in order to boost the Canadian economy.
Prospective immigrants must have a net worth of at least $800,000 and must make an investment of $400,000 in the Canadian economy.
There are 3 classes of Business Immigrants, each with separate eligibilty requirements.
Investors The Immigrant Investor Program (IIP) wants to find experienced business persons and their capital to Canada. The Immigrant Investors must demonstrate business experience and a legally obtained minimum net worth of CAN $800,000, and must make an investment of $400,000 in the Canadian economy. Entrepreneurs The Entrepreneur Program is searching for experienced business persons who will own and actively manage businesses in Canada that contribute to the economy and create jobs. Entrepreneurs must demonstrate business experience and a minimum legally obtained net worth of CAN $300,000, and are subject to conditions upon arrival in Canada.
Self-employed persons The Self-Employed Persons Program seeks to attract applicants who have the intention and ability to become self-employed in Canada. Self-employed persons are required to have either (a) relevant experience that will enable them to make a significant contribution to the cultural or athletic life of Canada, or (b) experience in farm management and the intention and ability to purchase and manage a farm in Canada.
The province of Quebec operates its own immigrant investor program. All investors in the Quebec program must both be destined to live in Quebec and selected by Quebec. Between 1986 to 2000 most Business Immigrants were from Hong Kong,"
Prospective immigrants must have a net worth of at least $800,000 and must make an investment of $400,000 in the Canadian economy.
There are 3 classes of Business Immigrants, each with separate eligibilty requirements.
Investors The Immigrant Investor Program (IIP) wants to find experienced business persons and their capital to Canada. The Immigrant Investors must demonstrate business experience and a legally obtained minimum net worth of CAN $800,000, and must make an investment of $400,000 in the Canadian economy. Entrepreneurs The Entrepreneur Program is searching for experienced business persons who will own and actively manage businesses in Canada that contribute to the economy and create jobs. Entrepreneurs must demonstrate business experience and a minimum legally obtained net worth of CAN $300,000, and are subject to conditions upon arrival in Canada.
Self-employed persons The Self-Employed Persons Program seeks to attract applicants who have the intention and ability to become self-employed in Canada. Self-employed persons are required to have either (a) relevant experience that will enable them to make a significant contribution to the cultural or athletic life of Canada, or (b) experience in farm management and the intention and ability to purchase and manage a farm in Canada.
The province of Quebec operates its own immigrant investor program. All investors in the Quebec program must both be destined to live in Quebec and selected by Quebec. Between 1986 to 2000 most Business Immigrants were from Hong Kong,"
Friday, August 25, 2006
Bush and Kerry Differ on Immigration Policies
Up until the final debate at Arizona State University, the issue of immigration had not been much discussed. Both presidential candidates know very well that illegal immigration is a hot button topic in our country, and each man is now trying to use it to his political advantage. Since the eighties the Democratic Party has, in general, supported immigrants and has been for fair and just immigration laws. However, there are those members of the party who claim that the presence of millions of undocumented immigrants undermines the bargaining power of the US born labor force. On the other side, the Republican Party traditionally has been against immigrants, but is increasingly reaching out to the Latino population. Advocates of free markets within the party have flat out called for the opening of the borders.
BUSH ON IMMIGRATION.
- Because of his policies, the Mexican border is now more secure.
- Proposed temporary guest-worker program, for up to 6 years (originally announced in Jan 2004) but is against amnesty for illegal workers.
- Claims that our southern border is more secure now than before 911, partly due to his efforts, which include:
- More than a thousand additional border control agents since he took office.
- Un-manned vehicles patrolling the US-Mexico border.
- More than a thousand additional border control agents since he took office.
KERRY ON IMMIGRATION.
- Our southern border is now more of a security risk.
- Would put illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship.
- Proposes a comprehensive immigration reform bill with four major components:
- Undocumented workers who have lived and worked in the U.S. for 5 years, pay taxes, and who are successfully screened for security purposes will be given a path to citizenship.
- Eliminate the administrative backlog and delay, which have left many families divided.
- Create a secure channel for a limited number of temporary workers to come into the United States.
- Kerry would restore legal immigrants' eligibility for health care, welfare and other government programs. (The 1996 welfare reform law made most legal immigrants, including those already in the United States for a number of years, ineligible for welfare, health care and other essential programs.)
- Undocumented workers who have lived and worked in the U.S. for 5 years, pay taxes, and who are successfully screened for security purposes will be given a path to citizenship.
Unfortunately, the reality is that little of significance will be done about immigration under either a Bush or Kerry administration. Immigration is an issue which is brought up when it is time to court voters; namely Latinos. Kerry, like Bush is also close to corporations and businesses that wish to continue their supply of cheap, exploitable labor. He speaks of a path to citizenship for hardworking undocumented immigrants, but how hard will he push for these proposals in Congress? Bush proposed a temporary worker program in Jan. of 2004 (with no plan for becoming green card holders), but nothing at all has come of it. These gestures are mostly political pandering. Democrats tend to be more immigrant friendly, but remember it was Reagan who gave undocumented workers amnesty in this country. Republicans are better, though, at fanning the flames of immigrant hate. Immigration is an issue which needs to be addressed seriously, not simply with one-liners at election time. Kerry promises more, but promises can be empty. For Bush, immigrants are to be courted for elections and also used as fodder. When the economy is not doing well, it is easy to blame illegal immigrants.
Victor Motak
For more information visit: U.S. Immigration Guide - http://www.visa2003.com/ - providing information on paths to legalized status in the United States.
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Advising on the most up-to-date advice with reference to immigration laws.When you are trying to find better-quality information about immigration laws, you'll find it easier said than done extricating superior advice from ill-advised immigration laws suggestions and advice so it is important to know ways of judging the information you are offered.
Here's a few pieces of advicewhich we believe you should use when you're seeking information about immigration laws. Understand that the guidance we offer you is only pertinent to web based information about immigration laws.We do not give you any guidance or advice for researching in 'real world' situations.
An excellent piece of advice to follow when you are presented with information and suggestions on a immigration laws web is to research who is behind the website. This may show you who owns the site immigration laws authority The quickest way to work out who owns the immigration laws website is to look on the 'contact' page or 'about this site' information.
All decent sites providing information on immigration laws, will nearly always have a 'contact', or an 'about', page which will list the site owner's details. The details should tell you some advice about the owner's necessary expertise. This permits you to make an informed assessment about the webmaster's depth of experience, to provide advice to you regarding immigration laws.
About the author:
Tom Brown is the webmaster at data-info-broadcast.info
Here's a few pieces of advicewhich we believe you should use when you're seeking information about immigration laws. Understand that the guidance we offer you is only pertinent to web based information about immigration laws.We do not give you any guidance or advice for researching in 'real world' situations.
An excellent piece of advice to follow when you are presented with information and suggestions on a immigration laws web is to research who is behind the website. This may show you who owns the site immigration laws authority The quickest way to work out who owns the immigration laws website is to look on the 'contact' page or 'about this site' information.
All decent sites providing information on immigration laws, will nearly always have a 'contact', or an 'about', page which will list the site owner's details. The details should tell you some advice about the owner's necessary expertise. This permits you to make an informed assessment about the webmaster's depth of experience, to provide advice to you regarding immigration laws.
About the author:
Tom Brown is the webmaster at data-info-broadcast.info
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Banishing Immigration Newspeak
For nearly thirty years, Michigan's Lake Superior State
University has released an annual List of Banished Words, a brief
inventory of the year's most annoyingly popular expressions, with
the recommendation they be "banished from the Queen's English for
mis-use, over-use and general uselessness."
This year, the tiresome "metrosexual" and the insufferable "bling
bling" were deservedly condemned, as were several war-inspired
entrants such as "embedded journalist" and "smoking gun." I was
disappointed that none of my three choices for this annual
dishonor made the cut, however. My nominees for banishment were:
"Guest worker program," "Matching willing workers with willing
employers," and the worst offender, "Work Americans won't do," as
in "our economy needs illegal immigrants because they do work
Americans won't do."
Combined, these three Orwellian phrases are calculated to convey
the impression that there are certain occupations so inherently
dangerous or otherwise disagreeable that we lazy, self-indulgent,
American crybabies must rely on hardy immigrant stock to roll up
their sleeves and get the job done for us. Tell that to a
Pennsylvania coal miner!
Although it's true that less glamorous jobs are frequently filled
by illegal aliens, the jobs themselves are not intrinsically
unacceptable. Rather, the ready supply of illegal labor has
resulted in many perfectly satisfactory jobs becoming
unacceptable. In short, illegal aliens will work under unsanitary
and unsafe conditions for minimum wage or even less, thereby
lowering standards, and as long as employers can fill jobs by
exploiting illegals, there will simply be no incentive to improve
wages or working conditions.
A recent piece by Nancy L. Othón and Mike Clary in the South
Florida Sun-Sentinel illustrates this principle in action with
the story of Gregorio Ruiz Aviles and Lauro Marquez Hernandez,
two young Mexican illegal alien construction workers crushed to
death in the collapse of a three-story building on which they
were working. Five other men were injured in the accident. The
Florida company which employed them was fined $2.4 million for
having no workers' compensation insurance, but according to Othón
and Clary, "five months after the deaths of Ruiz and Marquez, few
public officials, employers, workers and immigrant advocates
express much hope that change would come soon in an industry
where undocumented workers willingly take any job they can get."
Worse still, employers who play by the rules are easily underbid
by their unscrupulous rivals, and the downward pressure on wages
and safety intensifies. And this phenomenon is certain to worsen
-- not lessen -- under any program which would legalize the
process. Why? Because a "documented" worker is easier to deport,
and will therefore be more likely to do "work Americans won't do"
to avoid unemployment and ineligibility. A guest worker program
will therefore simply institutionalize the current gray market
for employees who will tolerate the intolerable.
It's a tenuous doctrine, that American workers are so expensive
that even American companies can't afford them, and the plan to
extricate ourselves from this invented predicament by pinning our
hopes on the newly legendary Mexican work ethic is flimsier
still. And yet, there is some evidence that muddleheaded
Americans are being persuaded by the hypnotic repetition of
immigration Newspeak issuing from the White House, the Congress,
and the major news media. A February 2004 Gallup Poll found that
46% of Americans support President Bush's plan to legalize
Mexican nationals currently living here illegally, "as long as
they hold jobs that no U.S. citizen wanted to do."
George Orwell famously observed that political speech is
"designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and
to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." What else can be
said of a phrase such as "undocumented worker" which presupposes
the subject is working, and transmutes the violation of our
borders into an apparent paperwork mixup? Will we now refer to a
bank robbery as an "unauthorized withdrawal?" And what shall we
call the children of undocumented workers? Undocumented students?
Orwell forewarned us more than fifty years ago that sloppy
language begets foolish thinking -- and vice versa -- and it's as
true today as ever. Purposely misleading expressions such as
"work Americans won't do" are solid proof that big lies still fit
neatly into short phrases.
It's time we banished them.
University has released an annual List of Banished Words, a brief
inventory of the year's most annoyingly popular expressions, with
the recommendation they be "banished from the Queen's English for
mis-use, over-use and general uselessness."
This year, the tiresome "metrosexual" and the insufferable "bling
bling" were deservedly condemned, as were several war-inspired
entrants such as "embedded journalist" and "smoking gun." I was
disappointed that none of my three choices for this annual
dishonor made the cut, however. My nominees for banishment were:
"Guest worker program," "Matching willing workers with willing
employers," and the worst offender, "Work Americans won't do," as
in "our economy needs illegal immigrants because they do work
Americans won't do."
Combined, these three Orwellian phrases are calculated to convey
the impression that there are certain occupations so inherently
dangerous or otherwise disagreeable that we lazy, self-indulgent,
American crybabies must rely on hardy immigrant stock to roll up
their sleeves and get the job done for us. Tell that to a
Pennsylvania coal miner!
Although it's true that less glamorous jobs are frequently filled
by illegal aliens, the jobs themselves are not intrinsically
unacceptable. Rather, the ready supply of illegal labor has
resulted in many perfectly satisfactory jobs becoming
unacceptable. In short, illegal aliens will work under unsanitary
and unsafe conditions for minimum wage or even less, thereby
lowering standards, and as long as employers can fill jobs by
exploiting illegals, there will simply be no incentive to improve
wages or working conditions.
A recent piece by Nancy L. Othón and Mike Clary in the South
Florida Sun-Sentinel illustrates this principle in action with
the story of Gregorio Ruiz Aviles and Lauro Marquez Hernandez,
two young Mexican illegal alien construction workers crushed to
death in the collapse of a three-story building on which they
were working. Five other men were injured in the accident. The
Florida company which employed them was fined $2.4 million for
having no workers' compensation insurance, but according to Othón
and Clary, "five months after the deaths of Ruiz and Marquez, few
public officials, employers, workers and immigrant advocates
express much hope that change would come soon in an industry
where undocumented workers willingly take any job they can get."
Worse still, employers who play by the rules are easily underbid
by their unscrupulous rivals, and the downward pressure on wages
and safety intensifies. And this phenomenon is certain to worsen
-- not lessen -- under any program which would legalize the
process. Why? Because a "documented" worker is easier to deport,
and will therefore be more likely to do "work Americans won't do"
to avoid unemployment and ineligibility. A guest worker program
will therefore simply institutionalize the current gray market
for employees who will tolerate the intolerable.
It's a tenuous doctrine, that American workers are so expensive
that even American companies can't afford them, and the plan to
extricate ourselves from this invented predicament by pinning our
hopes on the newly legendary Mexican work ethic is flimsier
still. And yet, there is some evidence that muddleheaded
Americans are being persuaded by the hypnotic repetition of
immigration Newspeak issuing from the White House, the Congress,
and the major news media. A February 2004 Gallup Poll found that
46% of Americans support President Bush's plan to legalize
Mexican nationals currently living here illegally, "as long as
they hold jobs that no U.S. citizen wanted to do."
George Orwell famously observed that political speech is
"designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and
to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." What else can be
said of a phrase such as "undocumented worker" which presupposes
the subject is working, and transmutes the violation of our
borders into an apparent paperwork mixup? Will we now refer to a
bank robbery as an "unauthorized withdrawal?" And what shall we
call the children of undocumented workers? Undocumented students?
Orwell forewarned us more than fifty years ago that sloppy
language begets foolish thinking -- and vice versa -- and it's as
true today as ever. Purposely misleading expressions such as
"work Americans won't do" are solid proof that big lies still fit
neatly into short phrases.
It's time we banished them.
About the Author
Mr. Salientian is a regular contributor to PHXnews.com. You can read more of his articles on politics, economics, trade and immigration at HotFrog.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)