Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Canada has the toughest immigration standards in the world. We are not the country you have been told we are, we are far from “accepting”. The reason why Isabel’s people are rejected to immigrate is because having a disability in Canada is still seen as a horrible thing and a burden to our society. There is nothing like the ADA here and disabled people have minimal rights. People in wheelchairs for instance just live with their parents or end up in the streets if they can not sustain themselves another way. There is no compassion here. In many it’s much worse than the U.S. ways
Once more I will try to explain the Canadian Government's official policy about WHO we want to have immigrate to Canada... Notice that word " Immigrate " ?
Canada does NOT want foreign born seniors , despite what their income might be. We DO want young adults, with children, who are going to live here for the long run. We want people who are going to work, pay taxes and contribute to our economy. In other words,. our Immigration policy is based on "what is good for OUR country ".
No one, from any country, can just up and move to our country. We have established long standing regulations about who we accept, and what qualifications they have to have to be granted permission to come here. Notice that word "permission " ??
US seniors, despite what some here seem to think, cannot " Move to Canada ". They CAN visit, but not live here permanently. Its not a matter of money..........It is a matter of our Immigration policy. Period.
I hope that this will clearly set out the position of the Canadian Government....regarding the idea of US citizens " moving to Canada ". It is not going to happen.
XX.
Just for the record, it is very similar to Australia's policy. We, and Canada, I think, have a points system. Here it is even difficult and expensive for residents to bring their dependent parents to the country.
I suspect that some people assume that they would be easily granted entry to Canada and even Australia because they are English speaking. The only country that Australia has specific and more liberal rules for entry is New Zealand.
In other words they discriminate against people with disabilities. That's what the previous poster was asking about.
The way you say that, you make it sound as though you think Canada discriminates against all people with disabilities. Canada doesn't discriminate against its own Canadian citizens with disabilities.
Canada also doesn't discriminate against prospective immigrants who may have certain disabilities but whose proven needed skills, education and productivity and other social contributions they can make to the nation would far out-weigh their disabilities and who demonstrably would not be burdens on the nation in spite of their disabilities.
However, Canada must be and is discriminating about foreigners who want to immigrate to Canada but can't pass the points system, are unskilled, unproductive, unhealthy, uneducated, have no qualifications, can't honestly and legally support themselves, don't want to work and wouldn't be contributing anything that is needed to benefit Canadian economy and society and who would be nothing but social, financial and health burdens on the nation.
Why should Canada detriment itself by taking on other nations' responsibilities and burdens like that? It would make no sense to do so.
I'm confused ... why WOULD Canada want them? What would they ADD to Canada? If they go with health problems, they will become Canada's problem -- and why should that happen?
I'm not being snarky -- just can't figure out why many U.S. citizens who can't or won't work in this country think they can move to Canada so easily? It's bizarre to me that anyone would think that.
You have to be a person with disabilities to understand, I guess. Why can't we marry a Canadian and move there if we want? I don't think it is bizarre to desire to live where you want to live.
However, I do get the reasons why they might discriminate. I'm not saying that Canada should let everyone in, regardless of disability.
You have to be a person with disabilities to understand, I guess. Why can't we marry a Canadian and move there if we want? I don't think it is bizarre to desire to live where you want to live.
However, I do get the reasons why they might discriminate. I'm not saying that Canada should let everyone in, regardless of disability.
Spousal visa for Canada is not as convoluted as spousal visa for US. But first you have to find a Canadian spouse.
You have to be a person with disabilities to understand, I guess. Why can't we marry a Canadian and move there if we want? I don't think it is bizarre to desire to live where you want to live.
However, I do get the reasons why they might discriminate. I'm not saying that Canada should let everyone in, regardless of disability.
In the 2 posts of yours that I quoted, you wrote NOTHING about marrying a Canadian and moving to Canada. That's a totally separate issue.
And of course it's not bizarre to desire to live where you want to live, BUT if that means crossing a border into another country, well, of course you have to deal with THEIR laws. In other words, what I found bizarre was the assumption that Canada should let in anyone who can't pull their own weight, as in work, pay taxes, pay into the Canadian health care system, etc. Now you acknowledge that you didn't mean that (thanks for clarifying ), but that's what it sounded like from your 2 earlier posts (the ones I quoted).
In the 2 posts of yours that I quoted, you wrote NOTHING about marrying a Canadian and moving to Canada. That's a totally separate issue.
And of course it's not bizarre to desire to live where you want to live, BUT if that means crossing a border into another country, well, of course you have to deal with THEIR laws. In other words, what I found bizarre was the assumption that Canada should let in anyone who can't pull their own weight, as in work, pay taxes, pay into the Canadian health care system, etc. Now you acknowledge that you didn't mean that (thanks for clarifying ), but that's what it sounded like from your 2 earlier posts (the ones I quoted).
I did not mean they should let everyone in. The marriage thing was just off the top of my head. I wasn't specific to only that. I reacted to the "Canada doesn't want you" remark in the earlier post. I truly understand all of that stuff that you mentioned. I do not see the desire to move there as bizarre. I do understand that there are details to work out and that some aren't going to get in. This might even include the poster who asked.
You have to be a person with disabilities to understand, I guess. Why can't we marry a Canadian and move there if we want? I don't think it is bizarre to desire to live where you want to live.
However, I do get the reasons why they might discriminate. I'm not saying that Canada should let everyone in, regardless of disability.
If you marry someone from the UK it is extremely difficult to move there. The British spouse has to earn quite a high amount per year, just for a start.
Rightly or wrongly, countries are increasingly making it more difficult for people to migrate. A lot of it is cost based. If a couple with an extremely disabled child migrates to my country, the child would receive a lot of extra assistance at school, a disability pension for life later on and a great deal of medical care funded by the Medicare system. All of which is paid by the taxpayer. Of which we only have perhaps ten million. It is simply impossible to open doors to everyone regardless of their ability to contribute.
IF the original poster is a retired American, who is getting social security pension benefits, they can't "move to Canada ". Canada has rules about who can live here.
A person who is retired and living on a pension, can't move to Canada, and live here, year round. They CAN visit Canada, as a tourist, for a total of 183 days, in any 12 month period of time. The exact SAME rule applies to Canadians, who go to the USA, in the winter time.
In order to live in Canada, on a permanent basis, a person MUST apply and be accepted as a Immigrant, by the Canadian Government. Immigrants must be fully able to work and support themselves, in Canada. Immigrants must be healthy and able to pass a medical examination, in their own country, by a Medical Doctor, who is approved by the Canadian Government. Other regulations about education and actual working skills also need to be met, before approval is granted to come to live and work in Canada.
An American citizen who is a visitor in Canada cannot work, seek work, attend school, use any of our social services programs , or operate a business here. They are responsible for the cost of any medical care that they need, and any prescriptions required are at their cost.
In short, an American citizen is not able to live in Canada, on a year round basis, regardless of their age on income level, UNLESS they have applied for and been granted "Permanent Resident status " by the Canadian Government.
Jim B.
Toronto.
Seems reasonable. Yet if America adopts the same requirements, we get branded as xenophobes, or traitors to the verse on the Statue of Liberty.
Seems reasonable. Yet if America adopts the same requirements, we get branded as xenophobes, or traitors to the verse on the Statue of Liberty.
I'm assuming you're referring to Emma Lazarus’ sonnet, New Colossus. I wouldn't worry about something like that. Did you know that the plaque with that sonnet was only put on the statue 100 years ago in the early 1900's and prior to the plaque being put on there the poem was ignored, most people had never heard of it. So it's really only 100 years that the words on the plaque has been brought to the attention of other people, but America's history is much older than 100 years.
Plaques can be removed when they are no longer useful and their original promise or intent is no longer applicable or appropriate or possible. The verse on that plaque is no longer applicable or possible, if in fact it ever really was. I don't wish to sound offensive but my own personal feeling is that the sonnet is a false promise that was and still is arrogant and ostentatious and it made the statue itself ostentatious in a way that did the statue (and America) no favours. I think the statue alone speaks for itself and would have spoken volumes more on a personal, heart touching level to each person who observed it if that verse had never been put on there. I think the poem should come off and not be replaced with anything. Let the statue speak honestly for itself and for America.
The world has changed and continues to change. I think in the not too distant future that America must out of necessity adopt the same kinds of immigration requirements that Canada and Australia and so many other nations have had to institute for themselves out of necessity and for their own survival. All other nations would understand and say "It's about time."
.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
), but that's what it sounded like from your 2 earlier posts (the ones I quoted).
