3 ms·

This seems like a good idea and it carves out exceptions for foreigners who are residents. I presume this puts pressure on other countries to do the same, since

by ls15 4y ago

This seems like a good idea and it carves out exceptions for foreigners who are residents. I presume this puts pressure on other countries to do the same, since investors are looking for other opportunities.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
smnrchrds 4y ago
It is important to note that according to Canadian law, permanent residents (equivalent to green card holders in the US) are not considered foreign nationals. They enjoy roughly the same rights and privileges as Canadian citizens, with very limited exceptions such as voting, running for office, serving as a jury, and some high-level government positions. > Foreign national: A person who is not a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident. https://www.canada.ca/en/services/immigration-citizenship/helpcentre/glossary.html#f https://www.canada.ca/en/services/immigration-citizenship/he...
- kashunstva 4y ago
  However the law does seem to exclude people who reside in Canada on a work permit, many of whom are accruing time to apply for PR status. Since those who reside in Canada on a temporary work permit pay income taxes, it seems unjust to limit their housing choices. Ideally the law could have been worded with more specificity around prohibition of income generation by the property and still allow work permit holders to buy property.
- hippich 4y ago
  I think you can say the same about green card holders in the USA. Or there is some specifics that specifics between treatment of permanent residents in USA vs Canada?
  - smnrchrds 4y ago
    > Or there is some specifics that specifics between treatment of permanent residents in USA vs Canada? This is not a topic I am super familiar with, but I believe the answer is yes. For example, in Canada, permanent residents have the right to enter the country, similar to Canadian citizens. In other words, they enter the country by right, not at the discretion of CBSA officers. This is not necessarily the case in the US. Trump's travel ban initially prevented green card holders who happened to be outside of the US when it came into force from re-entering. This was loosened later on after protests [1]. Another example is that new immigrants to the US (those who have gotten their green card within the last 5 years) are not eligible to buy Medicare [2] or if low-income, to get Medicaid [3]. Permanent residents of Canada have the same rights and access to public healthcare as Canadian citizens. In the US, American citizens do not have to carry or present any form of ID, but according to a law that is thankfully rarely enforced, not having your green card on your person at all times is a criminal offence. ("Failing to have your green card with you is a criminal misdemeanor. If you are found guilty you can be fined up to $100 and put in jail for up to 30 days. (I.N.A. Section 264(e), 8 U.S.C. Section 1304.) " [4]). Canada does not have discriminatory laws like this applying only to permanent residents. So the difference is both in specific laws, and the general attitude in lawmaking. Existing Canadian laws and new legislation tend to give the same rights to permanent residents as Canadian citizens (with some exceptions), but in the US, the legal framework creates a bigger gap between the rights of those two groups. [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-trump-immigration-idUSL1N1FK0JM https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-trump-immigration-idUSL1... [2] https://www.insubuy.com/medicare-for-new-immigrants-green-card-holders/ https://www.insubuy.com/medicare-for-new-immigrants-green-ca... [3] https://www.healthcare.gov/immigrants/lawfully-present-immigrants/ https://www.healthcare.gov/immigrants/lawfully-present-immig... [4] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/do-i-really-need-carry-green-card-me.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/do-i-really-need-car...
    - cvalka 4y ago
      No. The Trump's ban was drafted by morons bypassing the regular rule making process. The non-application to green card holders was almost immediately enacted not because of the "protests" but for the reason of having a 0% chance withstanding a legal challenge.
asdff 4y ago
Such opportunities for investors only exist if the government artificially strangles the housing supply as many local western governments have done over the past century. If a nation wanted to effectively end such investment into the housing stock, then lawmakers should devalue this asset by allowing production of an excess by updating restrictive zoning codes, not ban foreign investment which could very well bring in benefits in some cases.

by ls15 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

smnrchrds 4y ago

It is important to note that according to Canadian law, permanent residents (equivalent to green card holders in the US) are not considered foreign nationals. They enjoy roughly the same rights and privileges as Canadian citizens, with very limited exceptions such as voting, running for office, serving as a jury, and some high-level government positions. > Foreign national: A person who is not a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident. https://www.canada.ca/en/services/immigration-citizenship/helpcentre/glossary.html#f https://www.canada.ca/en/services/immigration-citizenship/he...

kashunstva 4y ago
However the law does seem to exclude people who reside in Canada on a work permit, many of whom are accruing time to apply for PR status. Since those who reside in Canada on a temporary work permit pay income taxes, it seems unjust to limit their housing choices. Ideally the law could have been worded with more specificity around prohibition of income generation by the property and still allow work permit holders to buy property.
hippich 4y ago
I think you can say the same about green card holders in the USA. Or there is some specifics that specifics between treatment of permanent residents in USA vs Canada?
- smnrchrds 4y ago
  > Or there is some specifics that specifics between treatment of permanent residents in USA vs Canada? This is not a topic I am super familiar with, but I believe the answer is yes. For example, in Canada, permanent residents have the right to enter the country, similar to Canadian citizens. In other words, they enter the country by right, not at the discretion of CBSA officers. This is not necessarily the case in the US. Trump's travel ban initially prevented green card holders who happened to be outside of the US when it came into force from re-entering. This was loosened later on after protests [1]. Another example is that new immigrants to the US (those who have gotten their green card within the last 5 years) are not eligible to buy Medicare [2] or if low-income, to get Medicaid [3]. Permanent residents of Canada have the same rights and access to public healthcare as Canadian citizens. In the US, American citizens do not have to carry or present any form of ID, but according to a law that is thankfully rarely enforced, not having your green card on your person at all times is a criminal offence. ("Failing to have your green card with you is a criminal misdemeanor. If you are found guilty you can be fined up to $100 and put in jail for up to 30 days. (I.N.A. Section 264(e), 8 U.S.C. Section 1304.) " [4]). Canada does not have discriminatory laws like this applying only to permanent residents. So the difference is both in specific laws, and the general attitude in lawmaking. Existing Canadian laws and new legislation tend to give the same rights to permanent residents as Canadian citizens (with some exceptions), but in the US, the legal framework creates a bigger gap between the rights of those two groups. [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-trump-immigration-idUSL1N1FK0JM https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-trump-immigration-idUSL1... [2] https://www.insubuy.com/medicare-for-new-immigrants-green-card-holders/ https://www.insubuy.com/medicare-for-new-immigrants-green-ca... [3] https://www.healthcare.gov/immigrants/lawfully-present-immigrants/ https://www.healthcare.gov/immigrants/lawfully-present-immig... [4] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/do-i-really-need-carry-green-card-me.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/do-i-really-need-car...
  - cvalka 4y ago
    No. The Trump's ban was drafted by morons bypassing the regular rule making process. The non-application to green card holders was almost immediately enacted not because of the "protests" but for the reason of having a 0% chance withstanding a legal challenge.

asdff 4y ago

Such opportunities for investors only exist if the government artificially strangles the housing supply as many local western governments have done over the past century. If a nation wanted to effectively end such investment into the housing stock, then lawmakers should devalue this asset by allowing production of an excess by updating restrictive zoning codes, not ban foreign investment which could very well bring in benefits in some cases.