7 ms·

"Starting Monday, Canada's government says it will streamline the visa process so that international tech workers can get a work permit in just two weeks — comp

"Starting Monday, Canada's government says it will streamline the visa process so that international tech workers can get a work permit in just two weeks — compared to a complicated process in the U.S. that can take months." I'm increasingly troubled by the notion that the only way one can move from one place to another, is by some contrived rule of value-add that person may offer. Aside from this new rule, Canada otherwise is a difficult country to gain entry to. The exclusivity of such movement is worse than outright border lockdown, because it essentially provides a validated classist bias against others.

aaron-lebo 9y ago
I guess Canadians are pretty happy with their country. Why should they not be picky about who they let in?
- binarymax 9y ago
  Because the pickiness is a stereotype and a form of discrimination. EDIT - removed the "arbitrary", which I could argue for but for the purposes of the discussion concede. I stand by the rest of the claim despite the downvotes :)
  - aaron-lebo 9y ago
    Is a company discriminating against you because they don't want to hire you because you don't have the skillset they are looking for?
  - Karunamon 9y ago
    I see a lot more negatives with allowing unchecked open borders than putting standards in place. Most of the negatives boil down to people not being able to live in whatever arbitrary place they want. I don't think personal preference should carry a whole lot of weight in the context of setting policy on who gets to cross your borders. Certainly not near as much weight as the load on local welfare systems, personal history, culture fit, and so forth.
    - uw_rob 9y ago
      > Certainly not near as much weight as the load on local welfare systems, personal history, culture fit, and so forth. Why do you think this? I personally believe the opposite and think world wide semi-open borders would be for the best. (By semi-open I mean that you still need to pass background checks etc). You could also disqualify people from accepting welfare if they have recently moved into the county.
      - jimmyk 9y ago
        >would be for the best The best for who? Do the people who live in countries with valuable infrastructure and institutions benefit from having to share them with immigrants that will be net-consumers of those services? (Note: I'm not saying all immigrants are net-consumers, I'm specifically asking about the subset of immigrants that are net-consumers.)
      - shados 9y ago
        What you end up then is "pushy" cultures become the norm, and "more open" (from a lack of better term, I know that's not really accurate) get phased out. Essentially, everything will be China given long enough (I'm obviously exaggerating). There might be a few people of middle eastern descent too. Maybe.
  - eekthecat 9y ago
    If their economy needs you, they let you in. If they don't, you don't. Simple as that. Unless we abolish the concept of countries and all live in a global government of sorts, that's how it works _everywhere_.
    - collyw 9y ago
      Europe doesn't need a ton of refugees / migrants but they have been flooding in recently.
  - vetinari 9y ago
    You don't have an inherent right to enter a random country. People living there have to decide, who they allow to enter and who not. Usually, they set up a set of rules to decide, and it is up to them how these rules reflect their values.
    - throwaway29292 9y ago
      Makes me wonder if this comment will age well, after around 50-100 years.
      - vetinari 9y ago
        Don't worry about that. Neither of us will see that, and it would take something very drastic to change how the humans behaved for millennia.
      - jimmyk 9y ago
        It will age very well. Successful countries that behave otherwise don't stay successful for that long. If a country doesn't put its interests first, who will?
        int_19h 9y ago
        Broadly controlling human migration at the border is a relatively recent thing (as in, just over a century). Taking US as an example where this sort of thing is a controversial political topic today - in most of the 19th century, if you had access to any means of transportation necessary to get there (including walking across the border from, say, Mexico or Canada), that was all you needed to become a legal resident. Yet the country did just fine. So it's not at all a given that the current system with tightly regulated borders, visas, conditions of residence etc will still be in place in 100 years.
        sedachv 9y ago
        > Taking US as an example where this sort of thing is a controversial political topic today - in most of the 19th century, if you had access to any means of transportation necessary to get there (including walking across the border from, say, Mexico or Canada), that was all you needed to become a legal resident. Yet the country did just fine. The great land border lockdown between the United States and Canada or Mexico really started after September 11, 2001. The current border controls are extremely excessive by comparison, and the current US president's proposals are completely insane by 20th century standards. Many people born in the 1990s do not realize just how unusual the current border lock-down situation is. To add an anecdote, the most unusual Canada/US immigration story I know is an acquaintance, US citizen by birth, who had illegally immigrated to Canada and was an undocumented under-the-table cash worker for almost a decade by the time I met him in 2010. One of his American grandparents originally came from Canada by literally swimming across a lake in the 1930s to immigrate to the United States.
  - jimmyk 9y ago
    It's pretty much the exact opposite of arbitrary.
  - ChemicalWarfare 9y ago
    >>"arbitrary stereotype" the selection criteria it's not arbitrary and is based on the factors Canada considers important. It's like saying asking for a job applicant to have a certain skillset is "discrimination based on arbitrary stereotype".
  - UweSchmidt 9y ago
    With immigration you will definitively focus on highly educated people, people who have skills needed in the respective industries and who are likely to fit in well culturally. How would you regulate immigration?
    - binarymax 9y ago
      I'd open up all the borders without restriction. It would be a madhouse for the first decade but then the world would be much better off in the long run. It would be the first step in a united planet rather than the pettiness we suffer now with individual competing states.
      - UweSchmidt 9y ago
        I agree on the 'madhouse' part.
      - sintaxi 9y ago
        LOL
      - jimmyk 9y ago
        The people in countries that have built up valuable commons have a tremendous incentive to restrict access to them. How would you get them to go along with this?
      - legolas2412 9y ago
        I think that would only come to pass if you set up a global planet-wide government at the same time.
      - stale2002 9y ago
        Uhh, how about instead, we let Europe do that. And then us in America and Canada can see how that works out for them. The beauty of countries is that different countries can try vastly different things, and then we can look at the results afterwords and see which countries made good decisions and which made bad decisions.
- raverbashing 9y ago
  Canada and Canadians companies were very picky about my CV. Especially those from a eastern province that has its quirks (which shouldn't have been a problem, as I'm conversational in their language). Well, apparently my CV wasn't being taken seriously there. At the end I went back to working in the EU and earning more, (paying 5x less for a mobile plan and not having to shove snow in the winter are advantages as well)
toomuchtodo 9y ago
Why should a country not be permitted to prohibit you entry if you don't add value to said country? That's what sovereignty is all about. If you are down on your luck, I will take you into my home. But there is a limit to how many people I can support without them contributing to the household. Scale this up to nation state scale, and you have visa quotas.
- kmicklas 9y ago
  > Why should a country not be permitted to prohibit you entry if you don't add value to said country? That's what sovereignty is all about. The problem is that capital flows more or less freely but labor does not.
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    Fully agree there needs to be tighter capital controls. Capital should be a second class citizen to labor.
- panic 9y ago
  In this analogy, your home has millions of rooms that you're renting out. The people arriving in your home are paying just the same as the people who have lived there all their lives. Are these new arrivals adding any less value?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- ryandrake 9y ago
  This line of reasoning is not compatible with Birthright Citizenship. If sovereignty is all about prohibiting entry to people who don't add value, why is it not also about kicking existing people out who don't add value?
  - chongli 9y ago
    The prime responsibility of the sovereign state is to maintain the social order. Deporting the children of citizens and breaking up their families is a remarkably swift way to break down the social order. This is basically sovereign suicide.
AnonNo15 9y ago
Canada is one of the easiest First World countries to immigrate to. Apply for college -> graduate and find a job -> get residence.
- angst_ridden 9y ago
  It is if you're young. Over 40? Much harder. Over 50? Extremely difficult.
  - sintaxi 9y ago
    That's because young educated people are more valuable.
  - robotresearcher 9y ago
    Of course. Because on average your remaining tax-paying and GDP-contributing years are short and your benefits-consuming years are long and imminent. Canadians are friendly but not suckers. Over-50s can immigrate if they are joining family, employing people, or exceptionally skilled, etc. You have to make a case that you're a net benefit to Canadians.
- hocuspocus 9y ago
  College education and job offer work in many other countries as well. For a skilled and experienced software engineer, immigration to Canada is far from being trivial compared to EU, UK, Australia, ... even Japan!
j45 9y ago
This is how it's been for over 100 years. The neat thing about international tech workers however, might be that you can get skills without needing to transfer your education over in Canada and still have transferrable value and skills. Not to mention being self taught is good enough to find a way into Canada.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
shados 9y ago
A country has a responsibility to the people already there (especially citizens) first. As long as you have people starving, who need help and money, etc, accepting NEW people who also need help is kind of a kick in the nuts. If you take in more people, it's because it is in the best interest of the people currently there. That might mean as a way to grow the economy, as a tax source, maybe even just as a general way to increase happiness because existing citizens like it. Maybe it's to ensure the country's reputation among other countries. But you don't let people in just for shits and giggles unless everyone already there are fed and happy. And that never happens, so...

aaron-lebo 9y ago

I guess Canadians are pretty happy with their country. Why should they not be picky about who they let in?

binarymax 9y ago
Because the pickiness is a stereotype and a form of discrimination. EDIT - removed the "arbitrary", which I could argue for but for the purposes of the discussion concede. I stand by the rest of the claim despite the downvotes :)
- aaron-lebo 9y ago
  Is a company discriminating against you because they don't want to hire you because you don't have the skillset they are looking for?
- Karunamon 9y ago
  I see a lot more negatives with allowing unchecked open borders than putting standards in place. Most of the negatives boil down to people not being able to live in whatever arbitrary place they want. I don't think personal preference should carry a whole lot of weight in the context of setting policy on who gets to cross your borders. Certainly not near as much weight as the load on local welfare systems, personal history, culture fit, and so forth.
  - uw_rob 9y ago
    > Certainly not near as much weight as the load on local welfare systems, personal history, culture fit, and so forth. Why do you think this? I personally believe the opposite and think world wide semi-open borders would be for the best. (By semi-open I mean that you still need to pass background checks etc). You could also disqualify people from accepting welfare if they have recently moved into the county.
    - jimmyk 9y ago
      >would be for the best The best for who? Do the people who live in countries with valuable infrastructure and institutions benefit from having to share them with immigrants that will be net-consumers of those services? (Note: I'm not saying all immigrants are net-consumers, I'm specifically asking about the subset of immigrants that are net-consumers.)
    - shados 9y ago
      What you end up then is "pushy" cultures become the norm, and "more open" (from a lack of better term, I know that's not really accurate) get phased out. Essentially, everything will be China given long enough (I'm obviously exaggerating). There might be a few people of middle eastern descent too. Maybe.
- eekthecat 9y ago
  If their economy needs you, they let you in. If they don't, you don't. Simple as that. Unless we abolish the concept of countries and all live in a global government of sorts, that's how it works _everywhere_.
  - collyw 9y ago
    Europe doesn't need a ton of refugees / migrants but they have been flooding in recently.
- vetinari 9y ago
  You don't have an inherent right to enter a random country. People living there have to decide, who they allow to enter and who not. Usually, they set up a set of rules to decide, and it is up to them how these rules reflect their values.
  - throwaway29292 9y ago
    Makes me wonder if this comment will age well, after around 50-100 years.
    - vetinari 9y ago
      Don't worry about that. Neither of us will see that, and it would take something very drastic to change how the humans behaved for millennia.
    - jimmyk 9y ago
      It will age very well. Successful countries that behave otherwise don't stay successful for that long. If a country doesn't put its interests first, who will?
      - int_19h 9y ago
        Broadly controlling human migration at the border is a relatively recent thing (as in, just over a century). Taking US as an example where this sort of thing is a controversial political topic today - in most of the 19th century, if you had access to any means of transportation necessary to get there (including walking across the border from, say, Mexico or Canada), that was all you needed to become a legal resident. Yet the country did just fine. So it's not at all a given that the current system with tightly regulated borders, visas, conditions of residence etc will still be in place in 100 years.
        sedachv 9y ago
        > Taking US as an example where this sort of thing is a controversial political topic today - in most of the 19th century, if you had access to any means of transportation necessary to get there (including walking across the border from, say, Mexico or Canada), that was all you needed to become a legal resident. Yet the country did just fine. The great land border lockdown between the United States and Canada or Mexico really started after September 11, 2001. The current border controls are extremely excessive by comparison, and the current US president's proposals are completely insane by 20th century standards. Many people born in the 1990s do not realize just how unusual the current border lock-down situation is. To add an anecdote, the most unusual Canada/US immigration story I know is an acquaintance, US citizen by birth, who had illegally immigrated to Canada and was an undocumented under-the-table cash worker for almost a decade by the time I met him in 2010. One of his American grandparents originally came from Canada by literally swimming across a lake in the 1930s to immigrate to the United States.
- jimmyk 9y ago
  It's pretty much the exact opposite of arbitrary.
- ChemicalWarfare 9y ago
  >>"arbitrary stereotype" the selection criteria it's not arbitrary and is based on the factors Canada considers important. It's like saying asking for a job applicant to have a certain skillset is "discrimination based on arbitrary stereotype".
- UweSchmidt 9y ago
  With immigration you will definitively focus on highly educated people, people who have skills needed in the respective industries and who are likely to fit in well culturally. How would you regulate immigration?
  - binarymax 9y ago
    I'd open up all the borders without restriction. It would be a madhouse for the first decade but then the world would be much better off in the long run. It would be the first step in a united planet rather than the pettiness we suffer now with individual competing states.
    - UweSchmidt 9y ago
      I agree on the 'madhouse' part.
    - sintaxi 9y ago
      LOL
    - jimmyk 9y ago
      The people in countries that have built up valuable commons have a tremendous incentive to restrict access to them. How would you get them to go along with this?
    - legolas2412 9y ago
      I think that would only come to pass if you set up a global planet-wide government at the same time.
    - stale2002 9y ago
      Uhh, how about instead, we let Europe do that. And then us in America and Canada can see how that works out for them. The beauty of countries is that different countries can try vastly different things, and then we can look at the results afterwords and see which countries made good decisions and which made bad decisions.
raverbashing 9y ago
Canada and Canadians companies were very picky about my CV. Especially those from a eastern province that has its quirks (which shouldn't have been a problem, as I'm conversational in their language). Well, apparently my CV wasn't being taken seriously there. At the end I went back to working in the EU and earning more, (paying 5x less for a mobile plan and not having to shove snow in the winter are advantages as well)

toomuchtodo 9y ago

Why should a country not be permitted to prohibit you entry if you don't add value to said country? That's what sovereignty is all about. If you are down on your luck, I will take you into my home. But there is a limit to how many people I can support without them contributing to the household. Scale this up to nation state scale, and you have visa quotas.

kmicklas 9y ago
> Why should a country not be permitted to prohibit you entry if you don't add value to said country? That's what sovereignty is all about. The problem is that capital flows more or less freely but labor does not.
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  Fully agree there needs to be tighter capital controls. Capital should be a second class citizen to labor.
panic 9y ago
In this analogy, your home has millions of rooms that you're renting out. The people arriving in your home are paying just the same as the people who have lived there all their lives. Are these new arrivals adding any less value?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
ryandrake 9y ago
This line of reasoning is not compatible with Birthright Citizenship. If sovereignty is all about prohibiting entry to people who don't add value, why is it not also about kicking existing people out who don't add value?
- chongli 9y ago
  The prime responsibility of the sovereign state is to maintain the social order. Deporting the children of citizens and breaking up their families is a remarkably swift way to break down the social order. This is basically sovereign suicide.

AnonNo15 9y ago

Canada is one of the easiest First World countries to immigrate to. Apply for college -> graduate and find a job -> get residence.

angst_ridden 9y ago
It is if you're young. Over 40? Much harder. Over 50? Extremely difficult.
- sintaxi 9y ago
  That's because young educated people are more valuable.
- robotresearcher 9y ago
  Of course. Because on average your remaining tax-paying and GDP-contributing years are short and your benefits-consuming years are long and imminent. Canadians are friendly but not suckers. Over-50s can immigrate if they are joining family, employing people, or exceptionally skilled, etc. You have to make a case that you're a net benefit to Canadians.
hocuspocus 9y ago
College education and job offer work in many other countries as well. For a skilled and experienced software engineer, immigration to Canada is far from being trivial compared to EU, UK, Australia, ... even Japan!

j45 9y ago

This is how it's been for over 100 years. The neat thing about international tech workers however, might be that you can get skills without needing to transfer your education over in Canada and still have transferrable value and skills. Not to mention being self taught is good enough to find a way into Canada.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

shados 9y ago

A country has a responsibility to the people already there (especially citizens) first. As long as you have people starving, who need help and money, etc, accepting NEW people who also need help is kind of a kick in the nuts. If you take in more people, it's because it is in the best interest of the people currently there. That might mean as a way to grow the economy, as a tax source, maybe even just as a general way to increase happiness because existing citizens like it. Maybe it's to ensure the country's reputation among other countries. But you don't let people in just for shits and giggles unless everyone already there are fed and happy. And that never happens, so...