Refugees reporting higher earnings in Canada than investor immigrants

Refugees reporting higher earnings in Canada than investor immigrants

 | March 2, 2015 | Last Updated: Mar 2 8:08 PM ET
The findings, reported last week by Ian Young of the South China Morning Post, may indicate the expected social and economic benefits of the investor-class program have not shown dividends. Furthermore, the rate of investor immigrants reporting any income whatsoever is far below the Canadian average.

Richard Lam/Postmedia NewsThe findings, reported last week by Ian Young of the South China Morning Post, may indicate the expected social and economic benefits of the investor-class program have not shown dividends. Furthermore, the rate of investor immigrants reporting any income whatsoever is far below the Canadian average.

Refugee immigrants are reporting higher incomes to the Canada Revenue Agency than investor-class immigrants, according to data compiled by Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC).

Furthermore, the rate of investor immigrants reporting any income whatsoever is far below the Canadian average.

The findings, reported last week by Ian Young of the South China Morning Post, may indicate the expected social and economic benefits of the investor-class program have not shown dividends.

“The data that suggests many investor migrants tend to treat Canada as some kind of holiday resort or educational/retirement bolt hole, while doing business back ‘home’ is quite clear,” wrote Young on his website.

While the investor-class program was scrapped last year, a similar, smaller pilot program, the Immigrant Investor Venture Capital, was announced last December.

In the old program, more than half of all investors chose B.C. as their destination in the late 2000s, with over 5,000 coming into the province annually, according to CIC.

‘Should Canada wait for the grandchildren of investor immigrants to join the workforce before seeing the supposed benefits of millionaire migration?’

While there is no available regional data on where exactly the investors landed, Richmond saw 18,685 new immigrants from 2006 to 2011, according to National Household Survey data.

In Richmond, long standing complaints over lack of integration has City Hall presently undertaking a public consultation process on non-English signs throughout the community and their perceived threat to “community harmony.”

(…)

Plain diversity or selective diversity?

From CIR readers:

Plain diversity or selective diversity?

By Audrey  Davis

February  2015

 The Federal Court of Canada has ruled it is “unlawful” for Ottawa to order new citizens to remove their face-covering veil when taking the oath of citizenship. This decision deserves applause.

 More likely, outraged voices will thunder in disapproval of this latest ruling triggered by the case of Zunera Ishaq, who arrived from Pakistan in 2008 after being sponsored by her Canadian husband.

 Ms Ishaq successfully passed the citizenship test in November 2013 and was scheduled to be sworn in at a citizenship ceremony in Scarborough two months later but decided to forego the event after learning she would need to remove her niqab under a ban introduced in 2011 by then Immigration Minister Jason Kenney.

 I am shocked that our government is so blatantly opposed to multiculturalism and diversity while simultaneously promoting these principles as core Canadian values.

 The Canadian Multiculturalism Act declares:

 “The Constitution of Canada provides that every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination and that everyone has the freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief, opinion, expression, peaceful assembly and association and guarantees those rights and freedoms equally to male and female persons.”

 Ms Ishaq’s refusal to remove her niqab in public is her fundamental right, as the head garment is not a fashion-related item, but a symbol of her deep religious belief. Interfering with one’s rights to preserve and enjoy their own culture, in this case the removal of a niqab, is a violation of religious rights protected by the Act.

 Why this two-faced attitude on multiculturalism and diversity promoted in our society?

 Conventional politeness encourages being a proponent of an open and multicultural society. Being opposed to diversity automatically triggers daunting names in the form of ethically questionable libels: racist, anti-…., intolerant …-phobic, etc.

 Nobody wants to be vilified, thus people are simply recycling the same reasons for loving multiculturalism and diversity: food, restaurants and… interesting spices. Using various food-related elements will not mask the truth: they are talking about food.

 The one-step-more-advanced proponents are those who solemnly and proudly state that multiculturalism and diversity are tools of cultural enrichment, as they “learn so much about other cultures”.

 How much of this claim is true? How much do you personally know about your spouse’s or co-worker’s culture?

I don’t doubt that some really learn, but knowledge is not related to being in direct contact with a representative of a certain culture.

 There is a misconception related to how we perceive each member of a cultural community: it is mechanically seen that each individual is an ambassador of their own culture. Some don’t know their own history; others have no basic knowledge about their literature, art or philosophy.

Sharing a space with members of a cultural community does not automatically make one more informed.

 Would you say that while riding a multicultural bus , one would routinely engage in culturally enriching conversations?

 How many times have you asked someone who was chatting with a friend in an unknown language what language they spoke? And how many times have you asked more questions about their culture?

Probably never as this would be seen as unacceptable behaviour, rather than thirst for knowledge.

 Let’s take this basic test:

1.            What is the official language of Brazil?

2.            Is Burkina Faso a monarchy?

3.            What is the difference between a burka and a niqab?

4.            Why do Chinese dislike  #4?

5.            Who was Dracula?

6.            Is Somalia located on the east or west coast of Africa?

7.            A Muslim place of worship is called: a church, synagogue, temple or mosque?

8.            Before entering a Japanese home, one must: wash their feet, remove their shoes, wash their hands or remove their socks?

9.            Offering your right hand is an insult in many countries, especially India. True or false?

10.        What is the Philippine’s recognised language?

 

This is basic knowledge that every proponent should know as many Canadians have hired a nanny from the Philippines, while others are probably married to an immigrant or have adopted a baby from China or Africa.

 Now, let’s return to Ms Ishaq.

She came to Canada to be reunited with her husband.

She grew up in Pakistan, perhaps in a little village where women wear niqabs.

How does one demand that she suddenly “become Canadian and embrace our culture and values”?

This request is not only unachievable, but also ridiculous and cruel in its blindness.

 We all know what love means. We fell in love with a person and we know that every person has faults. But we have chosen one person to love, cherish and spend our lives with, not because that person is perfect, but because we love that person, in spite of their faults.

This is love.

If we think that the person we love is faultless and once we discover a fault, we decide to abandon him or her, would we call that love?

 Multiculturalism and diversity are not different.

We have opened our doors to non-European immigration, knowing so well that Canada would become a space shared by many non-European cultures that bring very specific, new and powerful customs and family traditions, as well as values that may not be similar to ours.

We asked them to marry Canada. And they said “Yes”.

Consequently, they came to Canada with their languages, food, clothes, lifestyle and philosophy.

 They came only because we had opened the doors telling them: “Come and live with us and your cultural identity will be preserved and protected.”

 Please do not be angry with Ms Ishaq.

Please do not hate those immigrants who live according to the Canadian Multiculturalism Act.

 If you don’t smoke and you invite a smoker for dinner, don’t be shocked if the guest will smoke.

You should have informed your guest in advance.

 If you feel uncomfortable mentioning the fact, next time your guest will smoke again. Out of politeness, you allow your guest to smoke in the living room, while enjoying the cup of coffee. The smoke bothers you, yet, you dare not say anything.

The evening ends and you feel frustrated about the odour left behind; the curtains got impregnated with the unmistakable cigarette smell.

Do you feel angry? Will you blame your guest?

Perhaps you shouldn’t have invited him/her again. Next time, select your guests more carefully.

Find the guts to tell him/her or speak no word and stop complaining.

Your guest might choose to continue visiting you, while making a major compromise or might simply stop visiting you, if enjoying a glass of wine without smoking is not an option.

 How about this scenario? You need a roommate and you accept a devote Muslim who needs to pray five times a day, who doesn’t smoke, drink or eat pork.

After a few days, you begin feeling irritated by his cultural practices. After a few weeks, you mention the prayer-related aspect: it disturbs you.

Your roommate doesn’t understand your reaction and he is right.

You have accepted him in the first place and you were supposed to be aware of his cultural practices. Now, you are asking him to stop praying or move out.

What is wrong in this picture?

 Asking immigrants who have been accepted into Canada with their unmistakable cultural identity to suddenly abandon it denotes crass thoughtlessness and ignorance.

 If Canada wants diversity and multiculturalism, so be it. Then be ready to accept kirpans in schools, gender-separation, religious accommodations, non-English or French signage, honour-killings, dowry feuds, and arranged marriages.

 If you are ready for all this, you are a true proponent of diversity and multiculturalism.

If not, you support a selective diversity and multiculturalism and this is simply insolent.

 True proponents of multiculturalism would proudly stand with Ms Ishaq in defending her right to wear the niqab while being sworn in as Canadian citizen.

 In lieu of supporting “weekend diversity” by dining at ethnic restaurants and maintaining token social ties with visible minorities at work, a real multiculturalist embraces diversity without being selective. Offering unconditional support to all cultural practice is non-negotiable, particularly if some cultural aspects cause some level of social discomfort.

Multiculturalism is a table d’hote affair, not a buffet.

TORONTO: Former refugees worried they could be deported after extended visits to their homelands

  • Share on Facebook
  • Reddit this!
More than 10 years after he was granted refugee status and became a permanent resident, Toronto's Milan Kumar Karki was told in January that he has returned for extended stays in Nepal numerous times and "no longer required Canada's surrogate protection." He may now lose his permanent residency and be deported.

NICHOLAS KEUNG

More than 10 years after he was granted refugee status and became a permanent resident, Toronto’s Milan Kumar Karki was told in January that he has returned for extended stays in Nepal numerous times and “no longer required Canada’s surrogate protection.” He may now lose his permanent residency and be deported.

By:  Immigration reporter, Published on Mon Feb 23 2015

Ottawa has slowly — and quietly — stepped up efforts to strip permanent resident status from former refugees who were granted asylum in Canada and later returned to the country where they once faced persecution.

Wielding new powers that came in with changes to immigration law in 2012, the federal government is now actively pursuing reopening asylum files under what’s known as a “cessation application” and forcing refugees whose circumstances have changed to leave Canada.

The number of people who had their protection “ceased” in 2014 was almost five times the number in 2012 — rising from 24 to 116 — according to the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB), which is mandated to decide if the individuals are still refugees or not.

Toronto imam Hamid Slimi calls for Ottawa to stop linking Islam and terrorism

End to the war of words: Toronto imam calls for Ottawa to stop linking Islam and terrorism

 | February 21, 2015 4:25 PM ET
Dr. Hamid Slimi, centre, chairman of the Muslim seminary, the Canadian Centre for Deen Studies, called on the federal government to stop using language linking Islam to terror at a conference last week in Toronto.

DR. HAMID SLIMI Dr. Hamid Slimi, centre, chairman of the Muslim seminary, the Canadian Centre for Deen Studies, called on the federal government to stop using language linking Islam to terror at a conference last week in Toronto.

At a conference to combat radicalization held last week in Toronto, a prominent local imam called on the federal government to stop using language linking Islam to terror.

“Lead by example, change the rhetoric, and stop saying these words. They hurt,” said Dr. Hamid Slimi, former chairman of the Canadian Council of Imams and current chairman of the Muslim seminary, the Canadian Centre for Deen Studies.

The plea, met with overwhelming applause, referred specifically to remarks made by Prime Minister Stephen Harper weeks before that characterized mosques as potential spaces of radicalization.

Several days later, U.S. President Barack Obama, whose government has refused to use words such as “Islamic” or “jihad” to characterize violent extremism, found himself under fire for taking the opposite side of the semantic battle.

“What’s wrong with this man that he can’t stand up and say there’s a part of Islam that’s sick?” former New York Mayor Rudi Giuliani reportedly said, after the president defended his government’s position this week at a White House summit on combating extremism.

“We are not at war with Islam,” Mr. Obama said. “We are at war with people who have perverted Islam.”

Immigrant Investor Venture Capital (IIVC) Pilot Program application period extended

Canada immigration: Good news for investors

Application window for Immigrant Investor Venture Capital (IIVC) Pilot Programme has been extended till April this year.

By Majorie van Leijen
Published 

Canada has extended the period in which it accepts applications for the Immigrant Investor Venture Capital (IIVC) Pilot Programme, the new programme for investors interested in migrating to Canada.

Instead of closing for applications on February 11, 2015, Canada has announced to extend the application period until April 15, 2015, giving investors more time to prepare and submit their complete files.

The IIVC programme is geared towards wealthy investors who wish to settle down in the Northern American country. The programme replaced the Federal Immigrant Investment Programme (FIIP) and the Entrepreneur Programme, both of which had been closed for applications for a long time due to an increasing backlog.

Thousands expected to receive permanent resident visas following nomination by a province

 Thousands expected to receive permanent resident visas following nomination by a province

Since the launch of the Express Entry immigration selection system earlier this year, the role played by Canadian provinces within Canadian immigration policy has changed significantly. The most significant adjustment has been with respect to how a portion of the Provincial Nominee Programs (PNPs) are now aligned with the federal Express Entry system.

The provinces of Nova ScotiaBritish ColumbiaSaskatchewanPrince Edward Island, and Manitoba have already unveiled their respective Express Entry categories, and proactive candidates for Canadian immigration are taking advantage of the opportunities presented by these PNPs.

Background

In Canada, the federal government and the provinces and territories share jurisdiction over the selection of immigrants. Geographically and politically, Canada is divided into 10 provinces and three territories. Apart from the territory of Nunavut and the province of Quebec, which has its own unique immigration system outlined below, all other provinces and territories have immigration programs that allow them to nominate individuals who wish to immigrate to Canada and who are interested in settling in a particular province. The federal government then attends to health and security matters before issuing the permanent resident visa.

Provincial and territorial governments have been using these programs to welcome new permanent residents to Canada. Each PNP is tailored to the specific needs of the provinces and territories, which aim to select new immigrants who will be able to settle into life and work in the region and effectively contribute to the community, both socially and economically.