> Is that unusual? That specific Canadian criteria is particularly strict compared to others. In the UK an immigrant is allowed in even if they may place a lar

> Is that unusual? That specific Canadian criteria is particularly strict compared to others. In the UK an immigrant is allowed in even if they may place a larger than average burden on health/social services (autism would be covered usually in this case), but may face rejection if they are highly likely to require "major medical treatment" or infectious. It is quite fuzzy, but far more liberal than the Canadian system. > or will mean that they'll never be able to hold down a productive (i.e. tax-paying) job When you look carefully at a number of Western countries, this is not as important as you think it might be! In the short/medium term (up to 20 years), many countries are not expecting the 1st generation to be anywhere close to net-contributors. The hope is to compensate for the major age demographic shifts in the west, 2nd gen. immigrants might be able to compensate for the huge welfare state. Of course, the 1st gen will also be eligible for pensions/social security/healthcare etc. It is a gamble.