Immigration Research

Probably the most important question and possibly the hardest to answer is ?is this the right thing to do?? This, of course, is the question only YOU can answer and it depends a lot on your family. If you?re single then there are your parents, siblings, and other close family and friends you may miss who have to be informed. If your married (or separated) with a family then it?s a totally different scenario. If your kids are old enough to understand then they have to be fully informed and you have to listen to them. Both partners need to be 100% committed to the idea ? a half hearted attempt or negative attitude will make the transition even harder.

This is a deeply personal subject and we experienced it first hand. Before we had kids we had visited Canada and I wanted to go for it ? my wife wasn?t sure and didn?t want to leave her parents. About 3 years later after another visit to a different part of the country everything changed, we had a son and the town that was visited was everything we had dreamed of to raise our kids. The lifestyle available was vastly superior to the way we were living and obtainable by ordinary people. My wife came back to the UK and announced that she was 100% behind a move and we set the ball rolling straight away ? the rest they say is history!!!!

So, once you are all in agreement, then you are past the first step. The real ?fun? starts here!!

You need to consider your options very carefully -which Visa class do you qualify to apply for and if there is more than one that fits, which is the best for you? In Canada there are 6 standard classes of visa and then a seventh separate class if you are applying to live in Quebec. All of the main 6 visa types are administered by the Citizen and Immigration Canada (CIC) department which was established in 1994 to handle all the Citizenship and Immigration procedures. Quebec runs its own immigration system!

Read each of the types of visa and go through them in great detail ? always err on the side of caution and be conservative in your assessment of your case. I was applying for the skilled worker class under the old system (70 points ? the latest system is a pass mark of 67) and assumed that with my wife?s sister living in Canada (married to a Canadian) I would score an extra 5 points and bring my total to 74. After several months of assumptions I checked it and found that I wouldn?t be entitled to the points and so failed to meet the pass mark. Then we hired Kerry Martin of Access Migration to act on our behalf and she eventually secured the permanent residency for us.

The skilled worker class is by far the most popular choice of application and is currently taking 18 ? 24 months for applications to be processed. (This is always changing so check www. For the up to date info) The CIC site has an excellent self assessment tool for you to use ? if you pass easily then you shouldn?t have a problem with the application. If you don?t reach the pass mark or are close/don?t want to do it on your own; then I would recommend hiring an Immigration professional (Lawyer or consultant). Do ensure they are registered with the CSIC AND in good standing before you hire anybody to represent you. Both Kerry Martin and Phil Mooney offer free, no obligation assessments and are qualified consultants registered with the CSIC. Kerry can only represent UK nationals and Phil offers his services to clients worldwide.

If you are short of points there are several ways of earning more ? learning second language skills (English or French) is possibly the quickest method. Gaining work experience will take the appropriate number of years as will any educational improvements you may need. Definitely don?t submit your application until it is complete and check it over several times to avoid submitting an application with mistakes. They will most likely be found and will then delay your application while they are sorted out. Always give EVERYTHING that you are asked to provide and to be honest try to give more ? extra evidence of work history, personal character references, other qualifications or skills ? to give too much info shouldn?t affect the application, not enough definitely will!!

Okay, you have chosen the visa, compiled the application and submitted it ? what next? Well, depending upon the type of visa you have applied for you can check the CIC website for the approximate processing times and see how long you have to wait. This time could be several years so you can spend it very proactively and improve your chances of a successful resettlement.

If your educational levels are in need of a boost you would be able to complete some fairly high level courses in 2 years. The major problem is that whatever course you do ? make sure it can be transferred to Canada. The chances are the process will be lengthy with a fair chance it won?t work. The best option would be to enroll on internet courses with Canadian colleges ? then the resulting qualification is Canadian.

Another option is to learn new skills (typing. Welding, electrics, auto maintenance) most skilled trades are in very short supply in Canada and even if it isn?t your chosen career, they pay well and would give you an excellent start in the Canadian workforce. It is always easier to find the career you want from a well paid job. It is most unlikely that your trade skills will transfer directly across to the Canadian system as there are separate legislative/licensing agencies for most trades across each Province so expect to have to retrain and/or sit exams prior to be allowed to work in that profession.

A huge step forward is to identify the area you wish to settle in and then tie in your (and your partners) skills to see if any of the local industry is likely to hire you. You can easily research any of the local companies by using the yellow pages (link), town/city chamber of commerce and the main job searching sites and see who is in commutable distance and whether they are likely to be hiring. If the area of your dreams does not have the industry that applies to your skills is there anything you can offer the companies that are there or do you need to change your plans and move to where the work is?

To be honest, we moved to the area of our dreams and now I have a lengthy commute to work ? this becomes an issue in the winter and provides a longer work day. Would I change it? No, but I think plenty of other people would.

All this is in YOUR control before you move and forewarned is forearmed as they say. It is always better to know what lies ahead, if your qualifications transfer (do you have to retrain) will there be a chance of work in my chosen profession. Etc. so you can plan for it. Once you have moved, you are at the mercy of the local job market and if your settling funds diminish as fast as ours did then it won?t take long for the panic to set in!!

Another vital aspect of your move is the budget ? the chances are you will be selling most of your possessions and moving with your life savings. Choose a conservative exchange rate to work out your settling funds and make sure you account for all of your expenses to move (legal fees for house sales/purchases, shipping/storage, house deposits, replacement of goods you sold to move, flights, hotels, pet shipping costs, rented accommodation, insurance.)

This is where your research will pay extra dividends. If you know the area you want to settle in, housing costs, local taxes, which are the most likely employers and what they are paying, then you can fairly accurately forecast your budget. The following table demonstrates our average monthly outgoings for an 1800 square foot family house:

Life insurance ($250,000 on each parent) = $60
Pet Insurance (for a Dog) = $30
Local taxes (approx 1% of house value) = $215
Cell Phone (family plan 2 phones) = $55
Local town bill (water, recycling, sewage) = $65
Gas (heating + hot water) = $75
Electric (power and cooking) = $70
House phone (long distance + features) = $80
Cable TV and high speed internet = $110.00
Total monthly = $760.00

Then add your mortgage/rent (allow $1,000 for a family house) and living costs (family of four about $250 per week) and it soon adds up. Your wages will see the Canadian Pension Plan, EI and federal/Provincial taxes deducted along with any Provincial healthcare premium that may be applicable. Total deductions will be around 45% of your salary (depending upon the Province you move to) so always bear that in mind too. This is a conservative estimate with everything rounded up but is an honest picture of the level of outgoings you can expect to see. Add in activity costs if you have kids - hockey equipment is expensive with the season ice fees normally in excess of $500.00 and you see the picture.

This is an illustration based upon our experience and will be different for each area ? believe me, the effort involved with this research will pay you back and then some!!!

More detailed information and links to great resources can be found at http://www.onestopimmigration-canada.com/immigration.html

 The author immigrated to Canada in 2003 and has constructed a free information website http://www.onestopimmigration-canada.com about Canadian Immigration and life in Canada based on his family?s experiences.

Bush and Kerry Differ on Immigration Policies

Bush and Kerry Differ on Immigration Policies

 by: Victor Motak

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.

1. Because of his policies, the Mexican border is now more secure.

2. Proposed temporary guest-worker program, for up to 6 years (originally announced in Jan 2004) but is against amnesty for illegal workers.

3. 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.

KERRY ON IMMIGRATION.

1. Our southern border is now more of a security risk.

2. Would put illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship.

3. 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.)

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.

Immigration

Before civilization would know the world, there was no slavery, there was barely any property, and the most destructive form of war was a simple, aggressive feud. Before organized society was born on this planet, life was simple, there was no authority, no authority to abuse, and the land was the common property of all living creatures. Once men organized themselves into hierarchies, giving certain occupations, giving certain authorities, requiring obedience, punishing dissent, then the flame of cruelty would begin to burn in the hearts of men, as it would end in scorching the lives of the innocent. Before mankind decided to turn family into society, to turn villages into cities, to turn government into empire, all of the world was the property of all men and all creatures. When it came to movement, there was no restrictions, no embargos.

Before civilization would know the world, there was no slavery, there was barely any property, and the most destructive form of war was a simple, aggressive feud. Before organized society was born on this planet, life was simple, there was no authority, no authority to abuse, and the land was the common property of all living creatures. Once men organized themselves into hierarchies, giving certain occupations, giving certain authorities, requiring obedience, punishing dissent, then the flame of cruelty would begin to burn in the hearts of men, as it would end in scorching the lives of the innocent. Before mankind decided to turn family into society, to turn villages into cities, to turn government into empire, all of the world was the property of all men and all creatures. When it came to movement, there was no restrictions, no embargos.

The imaginary lines we call borders today would only be able to exist in the nightmare of primitive man. There was no obstruction, no limitations. When a person decided to travel south to the warmth, or north to the temperate, or west to the ocean, or east to the forest, there were no impositions. There were no walls. These men and women of the primitive world never had to fear for customs checks, never had to worry about search and seizures. There was no authority, there was no fear. The world was owned by every man, and this was the greatest comfort to every individual.

As society grew and civilization took root in the history of mankind, borders would be arranged by both law and custom. Individuals would be prohibited from travelling to certain spots. In some cases, it was the land the individual left that would hold them back. In others, it was the land the individual was entering that put up walls. For a law to designate one region from another was not enough. Fences would be erected, and in place of these fences, soon walls would rise, and watch towers would be created, with the aid of soldiers patrolling and scowering. All of this would be created by the authorities of the world, enforced by the greatest armies and the most threatening warriors. It almost seemed as though people would be boxed in, forced to stand in area of land and refused to go anywhere. When we listen to our great demagogues and rabblerousers, our most thoughtful lecturers and speakers, we discover always a love of liberty. There is always a praise of freedom: that a man can do what he wants, what he desires, without obstruction from an outter source, so long as he harms no other person. It has been this ethic, this creed, that has been woven in the fabric of every revolution aiming to overturn an injustice. Without this love of liberty, society would be a dreary and thoughtless musing.

With this love of liberty, there is no doubt that we want to be able to walk where we may, or to travel to whatever lands that capture our heart's desire. The fact of the prehistory man, that all of the world is the common property of mankind, this is the ethic that we wish to uphold. When we find ourselves surrounded with borders, threatened with punishment if we should violate one of these borders, we feel that liberty is needed, that the people must be allowed to have freedom. When we read the history of the Soviet Union, we are appalled. We find that people were not allowed to emigrate. Similarly, when we read the history of the United States, we are also appalled. We find that people were not allowed to immigrate. It almost seems as though a gross, unjust restriction is necessary to any government. Why should people be held, chained, shackled, by their governments? It will only create a state of oppressed versus oppressor.

Why would a man, or a woman, ever desire to move about? Above all things, there is the desire to test the limits of freedom. We have read poetry by great individuals, who talked about the struggle they championed for their rights. We have heard music, with lyrics that discussed hardship and unity. We have solemnly reread those poems in our head, quietly hummed the tune of those songs, and have always held those authors, those poets, those musicians, those creators and cultivators in adoration. We wanted to test this freedom! I want to be able to climb any mountain, as high as I can. I want to be dance in praries, sing songs in caves, sleep on the beach, write poetry on a grassy hill! These people, truly the best citizens of the world, who have desired to travel to test the limits of freedom -- what do you think would happen if they came to a "No Trespassing!" sing? What would do you think would have happened if they came to fence with barbed wire? Or, what if they came to a towering wall, armed with violent guards and soldiers, who have been taught all their life that you are a part of the criminal element? The only humane and logical answer is this: you would think that a great breach of justice had been committed.

We are not discussing here the right to read what you want, or the right to think as you may, or the right to say what is troubling your mind. This is not a matter of censorship of opinions. It is not a matter of gun control, or abortion, or leftist versus rightist ideology in economics. No. This is a simple matter of freedom. Among these great freedoms, it is the freedom to walk and go anywhere that you please, and to do so with that admirable thought in your heart, that this world belongs to you as much as it does to any other person. To go forth, to that magical land that pulls your heart, with the ideal that everything you see is the common property of mankind and the world's animals. I must confess... I can honestly think of no other action that is more indicative of freedom than this.

Among the desire to test the liberty of will, there are so many other reasons. One might be attracted to the ideal of travelling either by economic opportunity, family and friends living at a distance, or in hopes to escape political or religious persecution. If you were to meet a man of another country desiring to enter yours, for the sake of living a life with his family with a higher quality of life, would you honestly tell him no? If he had been living in a nation where to be a child meant to be homeless, where the crime rate and the unemployment rate were enormous, where the constant cry for the hunger pains echoed through the ghettos, would you say to him, that you cannot let him into this country, and then plead with us that you had defended justice? Perhaps he speaks another language, perhaps his skin tone is lighter or darker, perhaps he worships a different god. As a tolerant people, we would reject all of these things as elements that could make us regard this man differently. He is a human being, with passions, and desires, and hopes, and emotions, like any of us. It would be for the sake of justice, not any emotionalism, that we were to let him into our nation. If our own economic policy was effective, then it must be accepted that this man would create his own wealth, and add to the riches of everyone else.

Think of what mankind has done in order to keep these borders alive. There are politicians who exist right now that are bent on making sure these borders are recognized. They want to see a certain and unflinching duty in the guards who patrol these borders. They want these soldiers to believe that poverty was caused by something besides borders and Capitalism. Asside from the soldiers, they want to see every person in another country look to these borders and feel fear, sense pain... Our politicians would have it so that our nation was completely locked up from the rest of the world if their will was unchecked power. As children are starving to death in foreign nations, as men and women are still burned at the stake for religious persecution, as disease infects and destroys these already crumbling bodies of children, as the vices of mankind spread at a rate equal to war, the first words of the politician will be, "Innocent or guilty, just or unjust, those people cannot come in to our country." Whether looking for the long lost touch of their family, their lovers, their friends, or whether seeking to escape emminent persecution for ideals, there are some cases where a person will accept the status of "refugee" when it means escaping.

We look to the freedom to explore ideas, thoughts, and philosophies as perhaps one of the greatest of all freedoms. It is the liberty that stands as the greatest guardian against tyranny. To deny it would be to advance arguments on behalf of every unjust government. And yet, while this right is upheld by Civil Rights groups and active citizen meetings, the freedom to explore the world is hindered. We find borders, lined with armed towers and walls, circulating guards; and the man who is trying to escape the persecution of his own land comes only to find this. As I said earlier, the world was once the common property of mankind. In that era, one that almost reached complete bliss, there was never a war spawned from property conflicts, never an argument based on borders or imaginary lines. Everything belonged to everyone, and as this idea flowed through the minds of these early tribesmen, they would never think for a moment that their ancestors would forget. They did not have the vision to imagine great towers and great walls; they never saw their kin murdering each other, the victimizer motivated by a paycheck and threats from superiors, the victim motivated at an honest chance of life. The early tribesmen never saw this, their shamen conjuring up unreliable spirits and mystical beings could not predict anything like this.

It was called a crime by the United States government when the Soviets put up the Berlin Wall and separated families and friends. Many of them died trying to reach their children, their lovers, their brethren. They were gunned down by the soldiers of a Totalitarian regime. If it is true that the Soviet government committed a crime in separating an entire city, then we must all agree that the United States government is equally guilty of committing a crime. Nay, we are more guilty! The Soviets divided a city, we divide a continent! Whatever the amount of East Berliners that have been shot down by their own soldiers, I imagine that American soldiers are guilty for having shot down ten times as many! It is a crime, and these walls, these barriers, these borders all must come down...

www.punkerslut.com

For Life,

Punkerslut

Punkerslut (or Andy Carloff) has been writing essays and poetry on social issues which have caught his attention for several years. His website www.punkerslut.com provides a complete list of all of these writings. His life experience includes homelessness, squating in New Orleans and LA, dropping out of high school, getting expelled from college for "subversive activities," and a myriad of other revolutionary actions.

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. Othn 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 Othn 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.

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.