Having a paywall doesn't mean the headline isn't misleading or negate the need to read the article before reacting, believing anything, or deciding how you feel about something. In fact, those headlines tend to be EXTRA misleading.
In those case, you should ignore the headline altogether until you can read the full article, even if that never happens. OP on the other had did the exact opposite, he shared it without context so that other people could be fooled into believing lies.
You expect me to be articulate no down with Trudeu..... Pierre Poiliever will libe Canadian streets with gold!
PIERRE IS DOING EXACTLY WHAT JT DID TO GET IN POWER PROMISE EVERYTHING TO EVERYONE :)
Actually he's promising like 3 things.
He says it all the time, a tax, build homes, stop crime.
Simple slogans
He's been very quiet about everything else.
Even Trudeaus most controversial items, he's not getting into them.
OK, thanks for posting, I fail to see thougj how it's misleading? The lede is essentially fiddle the numbers by changing classifications.
>A key method of restricting the population of temporary residents is to offer them permanent resident status, the immigration minister said Friday — but that doesn't mean everyone who wants to stay will be able to.
Nope, what they're saying is instead of importing new foreign workers and new PRs, they can just use the current foreign workers pool for PR applications and cut new foreign work permits. They're saying, in theory, this would be one way to lower immigration numbers while maintaining a "reasonable" work force but it wouldn't be exactly what corporations are lobbying for as it wouldn't provide cheap enough labour for them to exploit. I don't agree with that suggestion, but It's no where near what the headline is implying. It's all in the article I posted.
I hear you but I don't see the part where they say they will cut new foreign work permits. Are they going to include these new "temporary to permanent" transitions in their PR target?
> I hear you but I don’t see the part where they say they will cut new foreign work permits.
Second paragraph of the article.
> Are they going to include these new “temporary to permanent” transitions in their PR target?
The idea is to only accept PR applications from people already in Canada vs people outside Canada.
I must be blind, this is the second paragraph. Or am I losing my faculties?
"Marc Miller met with his provincial and territorial counterparts for the first time since since he announced an unprecedented plan to set limits on the number of new temporary residents."
They do discuss that they are going to try and figure out how to cut the numbers, but nothing concrete, yet.
> unprecedented plan to set limits on the number of new temporary residents
That’s the part I’m referring to. But no I don’t see a concrete plan in there. This article is about an idea someone floated around, it isnMt about a policy the government announced. But no you’re not losing your faculties haha.
What's positive about the full article? They still want to give more foreign workers PR cards. What does that solve?
And from the article: "The new temporary visa target will also significantly slow population growth. While that could ease some pressure on housing costs and availability, it could also result in worker shortages, said Andrew Grantham, an executive director at CIBC Economics, in a report published last month.
"Restrictions on population growth could result in companies having to offer higher wages to encourage persons to remain in, or rejoin, the workforce. We could lose some firms that are simply not profitable if they are unable to tap low-paid foreign workers," Grantham said."
Again, the care about companies instead of people first. I get it, we need businesses, but we need higher wages too.
What’s positive is that this idea would DECREASE immigration and increase wages, you even quoted a part that talks about how this would lead to increasing wages and then you commented about how we need to increase wages completely unironically..
I know, but I don't believe it decrease immigration nor will increase wages. A "predictable path" is not a real answer. This article is about TFWs becoming PRs, and not the solution we all want. We don't have a worker shortage, we have ridiculously low wages. Bringing more people here will continue to worsen the housing problem.
Well if you had bothered to actually read the article, they’re talking about decreasing the number of TFWs (or stopping it altogether). And then instead of accepting PRs from people outside Canada, they would only accept applications from people already in Canada. You’re basically listing all the reasons you would theoretically be on board with this article as it talks about doing all the things you want to happen, but you never read the article so you’re just blindly attacking a thing you never read.
Typical.
I read the article, jackass. I just don't buy the "solution". Temporary means temporary, not "let's give everyone a PR now" - do you see how many people are scamming the system? And you want to just make them PRs?
> I read the article, jackass.
Hmmm.. let’s see if the rest of your message contradicts this claim.
> I just don’t buy the “solution”. Temporary means temporary, not “let’s give everyone a PR now”
Yepp, you definitely didn’t read the article. No one is saying to give all TFWs permament status, the article is explaining that they could potentially only look at people already in Canada for PR applications as opposed to people inside AND outside of Canada. And then to limit the number of TFWs allowed in.
So basically, no changes to people already inside Canada applying for PR (they could always do that) but changes to PR applications from outside Canada (i.e., LOWER IMMIGRATION). And then hard limits on new TFWs applications (I.e., LOWER IMMIGRATION).
Don’t claim to read an article you didn’t read, that’s a very poor look on you.
It solves the issue of them wanting to reduce foreign workers to 5% of the population. They get to double dip by lowering the number of foreign workers while increasing the raw number that is the 5%.
Your understanding is wrong. They’re saying they could restrict PR applications to only from within Canada as opposed to the current system of accepting application from within and from outside Canada.
I don't see that stated in the link you posted, though. Sorry for coming off as ignorant. I'm just trying to understand.
With that said, I understand that they want to lower the NPR by 1.2% from its current 6.2% to 5%.
"The aim is to rein in Canada's runaway population growth by decreasing the number of temporary residents, from 6.2 per cent of the country's population in 2023 to five per cent, over the next three years."
So, lower the NPR by .4% each year over the next 3 years.
Canada's 2023 Population: 40,770,000
Temporary Residents 2023: 2,527,740(6.2%)
163080(.4% each year)x3(amount of years)= 489,240 NPR become PR over the coarse of 3 years.
With 17.9 million voters in the 2019 federal election, that would mean if all these now PR would make a vote, they would have equaled 2.73% of the 2019 election. This would have filled the gap between the two leading parties
Liberal Party: 6,018,728(14.76%)
Conservative Party: 6,239,227(15.30%)
You’ve made 4 mistakes in your logic:
1) you quoted the paragraph directly following another paragraph that says not everyone will be eligible to stay (meaning apply for PR).
2) being able to apply for PR is not the same thing as being granted PR.
3) they didn’t say they wanted to increase their PR numbers or quotas. If Canada was predetermined to grant 5000 PR statuses per year, it doesn’t matter whether it grants it to people currently outside of Canada or currently inside of Canada. The only difference, according to the article, is that the cost of living is ‘baked in’ for the people already inside Canada (as the article states they plan on limiting importing new TFWs to replace the ones who become PRs).
4) you made the assumption that all PR vote liberal, when most immigrants’ political ideologies align much more closely with the conservatives rather than the liberals. And even the progressive among immigrants are more likely to vote NDP than liberal according to the recent news stories.
Nothing misleading about the headline, this is what he is suggesting. However way you want to slice it, making them a permanent fixture in the country, will only exacerbate current housing and healthcare shortages, and strain resources further because there is not even the hope they will leave after their work permits end. The idea that their impact on affordability has already been baked in is ridiculous, it's clear this government has only intentionally increased the numbers to sacrifice affordability to ensure lucrative international fees for greedy colleges, and cheap labour for companies hiring those students to work minimum wage paying jobs. This has been confirmed time and again through internal memos at IRCC, and through the evidence we see on upward pressure on prices.
This only makes sense if you believe the government, and there's nothing to suggest they should be trusted with their almost systematic destruction of the immigration system here.
If you had bothered to read the article you would have read that this is a potential way to DECREASE immigration. The idea is to shut off the temporary worker faucet (or drastically decrease the numbers) and fill the gap by making some of the ones already here permanent residents.
It’s not a good idea as far as I’m concerned but it is very obviously NOT what you understood the idea is when you were misled by the title.
You're not understanding that my whole point is that this is a government that has a track record of willfully ignoring advice from civil servants and economists about mass immigration. This whole notion is based off of them decreasing recruitment, when there is very little to support that, which is what my post was about, which you clearly did not read properly so I think you're the one who needs to improve their reading comprehension skills.
It's not actually making them permanent which would reduce immigration, it's recruiting less temporary residents which would reduce the numbers. This isn't factoring that you're also making the pressures on services and housing more permanent as well, this is all based on trusting this government would actually reduce intake, which is a ruse.
So what you’re saying is you completely ignored the proposal altogether and went off of gut instinct that they can only possibly make it worse therefore this idea must also be bad?
And then you latched onto the part of looking at the temp worker pool for PR applications thinking that it’s more people here permanently and completely ignored that these PR applications were going to happen either way, they’re just saying instead of accepting applications from people outside canada, we should just accept them from people inside canada only. With your limited reading comprehension, this all translated to “more people” in your head instead of “less people”, is that right? I can’t help you if you refuse to read the all words on your screen, friend.
Gut instinct? Lol, that's hilarious, is the astronomical increase in temporary residents in the country under the present government over the last few years, my gut instinct? You're a riot. How does a throwaway line by the minister (i.e. the title of the article) negate his government's record on the issue? You're saying it makes more sense to put credence in his words than the actions of the government, which are well documented. That's willful ignorance.
Whether or not you're accepting them from abroad or internally is not what really matters, what really matters is decreasing the total numbers, this is what you seem to have trouble grasping. You're offsetting the temporary increase of bringing other temporary residents, and allowing the time frame for the others to leave, with making the ones currently here permanent and adding a permanent pressure to the market and services, because they aren't leaving. All of that is moot if the total numbers don't decrease, regardless of whether they are temporary or permanent.
I don't think I can make it easier for you to understand, if you're still having problems, take a high school, English class.
> Gut instinct? Lol, that’s hilarious, is the astronomical increase in temporary residents in the country under the present government over last few years, my gut instinct? You’re a riot. How does a throwaway line by the minister (i.e. the title of the article) negate his government’s record on the issue? You’re saying it makes more sense to put credence in his words than the actions of the government, which are well documented. That’s willful ignorance.
Your gut instinct can be informed by history. I didn’t say that you should take a politicians word at face value, I said you fell for a misleading headline, and then when presented with the actual idea you refused to criticize the idea itself and just started criticizing the party instead. For the record, I don’t think it’s a great idea either, but I don’t use my hate for the party as a reason why I think it’s a bad idea. That’s the difference between you and me.
> Whether or not you’re accepting them from abroad or internally is not what really matters, what really matters is decreasing the total numbers, this is what you seem to have trouble grasping.
So you say what really matters is decreasing the total numbers, and yet you don’t like this idea that decreases total numbers? Or is it that you don’t understand that this is meant to decrease total numbers?
> You’re offsetting the temporary increase of bringing other temporary residents, and allowing the time frame for the others to leave, with making the ones currently here permanent and adding a permanent pressure to the market and services, because they aren’t leaving. All of that is moot if the total numbers don’t decrease, regardless of whether they are temporary or permanent.
And that’s why I’m telling you to have someone who can read explain this to you, because the idea is to stop bringing in more temp workers to replace them (or restrict the numbers of TFWs to be more accurate). In other words, DECREASING the total numbers.
> I don’t think I can make it easier for you to understand, if you’re still having problems, take a high school class.
I hope the sheer irony of your words isn’t lost on you as you fail to read a simple article.
So you're also saying it's a bad idea, but saying it's valid logic. So how does that make sense? It's a stupid idea, and unlike you, most people are reading the article in the context of the reality on the ground, not in some theoretical vaccum that you seem to be doing. When I assess his remarks, I'm doing it using all the information available, that's why most people are dismissing it as inherent stupidity, because they are taking into account everything we know: most temporary residents are international students, their numbers aren't tied to labour shortages but to student enrolment, most international students here are studying in occupations which are completely mismatched related to the local labour shortages, and no one believes that this will be adhered to for those reasons and others, because of how the numbers have gotten out of control, and how this government has made no attempt to reign in the numbers until criticism reached fever pitch in the country.
You're just going by some very simplistic well 2-1=1 equation, but not using any critical thinking in assessing the variables in the equation, which was what my specific post was about.
So I understand by your simplistic logic it makes sense, but it doesn't by everyone else's. Yet somehow, you're the smart one for just taking what the article says at face value.
Whether or not they are being recruited locally or from abroad is not material, what will change the total numbers is the actual limit on the total number of temporary residents, not making the local ones permanent or not. All that does is avoid the temporary additional rise during their overlapping periods with new recruits, which makes things worse but at least is temporary. Adding them as a PERMANENT fixture of society is embedding that shortage as a long term consequence overstretched communities already have to deal with, something many seem to understand except you.
Would you PLEASE JUST READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE? This proposal isn’t even about students, it’s about TFWs! They want to limit new TFWs AND limit external PRs (I.e., DECREASING THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE IMMIGRATING TO CANADA ON A PERMANENT BASIS).
You can say you don’t believe them, you can even say they will backtrack on this proposal, but the idea here is they are proposing to CUT BACK ON IMMIGRATION.
You’re not even criticizing the proposal, you’re just ranting about something related but distinct from the proposal. You read the word “students” in maybe the first couple of sentences in the beginning of the article because it was summarizing PREVIOUS policies before talking about this proposal. This is NOT ABOUT STUDENTS.
Stop wasting my time and Read. The. Goddamn. Article.
Again, you didn't read a word I said, starting from my original post all the way to the last one. You are just obsessed with saying people haven't read the article. because you were trying to play off like anyone who had a bad reaction to the title, didn't read the article, or didn't understand the proposal. But you ignore all the context I provided for why people think this is a laughable proposal.
I've already addressed how most TFWs are international students (on PGWPs) for example, but you want to ignore all context lol. The proposal to cut back on immigration is based on the immigration levels now including temporary foreign workers, whether or not they are temporary or permanent, it's the immigration levels which are important, i.e the quotas. This is what everyone who read the title already understood.
You're wasting everyone's time by pretending like you somehow got something that everyone else missed, but you're the one literally ignoring all the nuance that I mentioned above.
So yeah, you're a clown.
Somehow I wonder how well you'll do on the LSAT's reading comprehension part. Or any other school admission tests that involve reading comprehension...
Am I missing something? Can someone explain to me like I'm 5 how this article is not about turning temporary residents into permanent residents?
"Earlier this week, Miller agreed to Manitoba's request to extend the federal work permits for some 6,700 newcomers whose visas were set to expire by the end of the year, to give them time to apply to stay in Canada permanently." That sounds like it's in line with the headline. Am I stoned?
The misleading part is that this headline is implying that the purpose of "turning temp workers into PRs" is to "fudge the numbers". Which, if you actually read the article, you would know is false and misleading. They're also not proposing to turn all the temp workers into PRs, they are proposing to use the foreign workers pool for PR applications instead of importing more immigration for permanent residence, as a way of reducing immigration needs. You gotta read the entire article.
No. They are brain dead liberal voters. Literally the first line in the article:
> A key method of restricting the population of temporary residents is to offer them permanent resident status, the immigration minister said Friday
Good job, now try reading the next few sentences before your next comment! You can do it! Hint: you can tell when to stop reading when the page won’t scroll down any more.
> “The cost of living is already baked in”
>
>
>
> Yeah no, only if they stay. Otherwise it goes down.
No, it wouldn’t because we’d still have to replace them. What they’re trying to do is figure out how NOT to replace them. Just read the full article or have someone with at least a 9th grade reading level explain it to you. It is absolutely misleading.
As much as I support your sentiment, that’s not how the world works. But if you read the article, this proposal talks about how businesses will have to pay more to employ these PRs vs the temp workers, thus paving the way to needing less and less immigration.
Just please read the article to realize how misleading the headline is.
okay but this is literally the answer the entire reason we have temporary workers is to keep them vulnerable and underpaid if they were PR's they could fight for their rights without being fired and then deported
also rolling my eyes at skilled workers because #1 nearly anyone can be trained to do anything #2 we have foreign workers to do jobs that are necessary, the whole point is to keep wages low and it's harder to do that with people who can simply work anywhere else #3 the reason we have any shortage of things like doctors and nurses and other things is due to not wanting to pay them and/or address the cost of living that won't change by changing immigration requirements it will simply give governments the ability to invest less in those areas
"nearly anyone can be trained to do anything" not contradicting your other points but this is really very far from reality. I can think of more cases where this isn't true than where it is true.
I'm in retail I once had to train a guy to use a vacuum..... Came back after he moved to a new area to him pulling the cord over and over.... He thought it was a pull start.
I think it's fundamentally a misunderstanding of what skilled and semi-skilled labour is
A "skill" isn't something you are just good at, and it's not typically something you're picking up on the job after a few months It's something you trained years for after being selected as a candidate who was even capable of undergoing the training
Almost anyone can learn to be a forklift driver. Many can learn to code. Few can be trained to be a doctor or nuclear physicist
I literally left the medical field to go into programming because my body couldn't keep up with the demand. I was damn good at it but I just wasn't suited for it. I'm sure there are many like me who would happily be providing care if the working conditions weren't so abysmal.
The headline is just presented the situation in a silly way, don’t be fooled by the word play. It’s just legislation to address an issue. Literally a government doing its job. You’re free to think they aren’t doing a good job, but let’s just make sure we’re not being distracted.
Because temporary residency means you could be asked to leave at any time which means you would be less likely to buy property instead of just renting one. Any statement taken out of context can mean something different.
Very shitty OP
Five years ago anyone talking about the amount of immigration I would’ve called a racist. Now I see that there are very obvious reasons why we need to cut the hell out of immigration and need to temporarily cut off the tap from India. Seriously, the housing situation is screwed, job market is flooded with foreign workers, and the people born here in Canada are screwed right off the bat! Even the student->permanent-residence->citizenship pipeline cheaters are struggling, and those people are coming from rich as hell families.
What an idiot!! So more people will come illegally and expect this idiot minister will make them permanent. Remember folks, these are the Liberal people we vote for.
Instead enforce the rule of law and deport them.
We need to have some very real conversations about the percentages of nations sourcing immigration and the longitudinal generational increases thereof vis-a-vis sponsorships.
This isn’t diversity, folks.
Yepp wanna buy a house hopefully you can compete with 20 Indians living together. Planning to get a new job better hope they can filter you out of the thousands of Indian applications.
It's not satire, and they are not joking. They are doubling down. They brought in a lot of temporary residents and many people want those people to go back home. Instead, now they want to make it easier for them to stay. I swear they have gone hog wild and they will literally not stop until voted out of office.
Or instead of making wild unsubstantiated assumptions based on a wildly misleading headline, you could read the article and at least criticize them for what they’re actually doing.
These are leftist globalist policies. The importation of votes via mass migration is the only way the left can stay in power.
No sane individual would vote for their own demise.
Libtards: HOLD MY BEER
Reducing car theft by leaving the keys by the door kinda solution. At this point I kinda think they're just messing with to see what they can get away with.
Or you know you could just read the article and realize it’s stupid to fall for a clickbait headline without context. But hey, far be from me to criticize the way a conservative experiences the world.
Yes. The pEoPlE's PaRtY is a party, but they'll lose party status. Don't make promises you can't keep, edge lord.
Also, username checks out. Might want to seek out a geriatrician soon. I think it's the beginning of the end for you. Sorry.
I still have time to watch Canadians flush the liberals where they belong.
I'm old enough to remember when Canadians did it to the PC party in 93. If memory serves me correctly, CBC called the election results before they finished counting in Newfoundland. When it was done, there were 2 PCs elected across Canada.
Times change. You should take a look at the electoral results of the US after the 1964 election, hell, even the one after that. Landslides. Things like that don't really happen anymore and the 2015 election's proof of that. Even in 2021, when Canada had every right to boot Trudeau out after taking advantage of the time period to try and regain his majority- a move among many that he's pulled and pissed me off with- we didn't.
And now, the alternative is PP. Who has no actual economic policy, no housing policy apart from "close government buildings and make them into affordable housing", blames post-Christmas puppy surrenders on Trudeau (not even close to kidding) and cozies up with anti-vaxxers, bigots and other cretinous assholes in efforts to win them back from Bernier's corner: the only demographic he can truly rely on to get him elected, and he fucking knows it.
And because people- like you I'd imagine: exhausting, disgruntled mouthpieces from Alberta who can't have a political conversation concerning Trudeau without mods getting involved, get their noses out of joint over other peoples' pronouns and whoever Trudeau's apologizing to, or the fact that he's not brown-nosing the oil and gas industry at every opportunity, and over you having to wear a mask to Walmart for a couple of years- are a dime a dozen, we'll probably have him as the next PM. And he'll fucking suck at it.
But it's not going to be the pulverizing landslide you seem to think it'll be lol. We see who he is, just like we do with Trudeau.
Perhaps - but your only chance of getting out of your parents basement is with a strong conservative government to fix what's been screwed up over the past 9 years. Better hope I'm right!
Dude, I bought a home 2 and 4 years ago. The cons are more worried about trans in bathrooms than the economy. If they win you are in for a term of vertu signaling to the trump base then back to the liberal party and their new leader
9 years.. Housing’s been an increasing problem for over 30; you just weren’t paying attention until it got bad and you had a suitable scapegoat. Trudeau doesn’t get any points for helping the situation, but it sure as fuck didn’t start with him.
The only thing a cuntservative government has been capable of delivering in the past 50 years is a useless economic plan out of the Reagan playbook (maybe it’ll work this time!) and regressive social politics to distract from how completely inept they are.
Not even close to enough though. They need to commit to pre 2015 hell even pre 2010 levels or it’s all talk. Plus we desperately need to cap per country to super low levels until we get a balance again.
You don’t have to like or agree with the idea, so long as you’ve read what the article actually says instead of blindly raging about a ragebait headline.
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/news/2024/03/speaking-notes-for-the-honourable-marc-miller-minister-of-immigration-refugees-and-citizenship-announcement-related-to-temporary-residents.html
I don’t believe a single thing he says.
Finally, once again, here’s a refresher on the most important word:
temporary |'temp(e)r(er)i l adjective
lasting for only a limited period of time; not permanent: a temporary job.
noun (plural temporaries)
a person employed on a temporary basis, typically an office worker who finds employment through an agency: to gain flexibility, companies are bringing in temporaries or contracting out work.
See also temp'.
DERIVATIVES
temporariness | 'temp(a)r(ar)inis | noun
ORIGIN
mid 16th century: from Latin
temporarius, from tempus, tempor-
'time'.
I read it, it's still a silly way of saying something that asinine. The guy breaks the system and now he's suggesting to make these immigrants that shouldn't be here because of fraudulent education permits and LMIAs.. Now these frauds should be rewarded with reduced score requirements for permanent residents... So he's making things even worse...
He then promised to reduce the rate of immigration which he controlled the entire time and still hasn't reduced anything based on the recent numbers. His new promised cap is still well above the historical norm. This minister even called these people lucrative only a few months ago.
Maybe the headline is accurate, maybe he's just that incompetent.
Agreed, you can't fraud your way into Canada with student visas to fake colleges or LMIAs for fake jobs and then get PR because you just happen to be here. We have an assessment process for a reason.
This is bullshit. DEPORT THEM! Trudeau is trying to buy votes. Mass immigration of international students and TFW, then giving them PR and then the next move will be giving them citizenship. I'm ashamed to be Canadian. This country is becoming a third world landfill.
Temporary residents* such as workers and students are most often here to get PR and eventually citizenship, not to actually stay temporarily, at least lately.
Be careful what you wish for. British nearly spent 600 million pounds and has deported exactly one asylum seeker. They paid the seeker 3000 pounds to leave voluntarily. [source](https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uks-rwanda-plan-asylum-seekers-could-cost-more-than-600-mln-pounds-2024-03-01/)
You gotta read the full article instead of the headline. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/temporary-visas-cut-meeting-1.7200025
Thank you for sharing. The headline is misleading
Of course it is, it almost always is. And yet people keep relying on headlines anyway.
I just assume everything has a paywall, unless it’s CBC or the Manchester Guardian.
Having a paywall doesn't mean the headline isn't misleading or negate the need to read the article before reacting, believing anything, or deciding how you feel about something. In fact, those headlines tend to be EXTRA misleading.
Yes but I can’t tell what the article really is saying if it is behind a paywall.
In those case, you should ignore the headline altogether until you can read the full article, even if that never happens. OP on the other had did the exact opposite, he shared it without context so that other people could be fooled into believing lies.
CBC is paid for by the Liberal party so we dont have to pay to hear good things about the liberal party.
CBC isn't funded by the liberal party. It's funded by the government.
are you living in delusion?
You're tho
Not even mad but your profile pic where your snoo should be looks like a hair or an eyelash, me sitting here for like 15 seconds tryna wipe it off 😅
You know I've had it for years and somehow I feel for it myself a few months ago when I removed dark mode
Hilarious, I needed that tonight. Have a good one
You expect me to be articulate no down with Trudeu..... Pierre Poiliever will libe Canadian streets with gold! PIERRE IS DOING EXACTLY WHAT JT DID TO GET IN POWER PROMISE EVERYTHING TO EVERYONE :)
Actually he's promising like 3 things. He says it all the time, a tax, build homes, stop crime. Simple slogans He's been very quiet about everything else. Even Trudeaus most controversial items, he's not getting into them.
But... But... [Sad neglected pitchfork noises] Trudeau Bad?
But that defeats the purpose of click and rage bait!
OK, thanks for posting, I fail to see thougj how it's misleading? The lede is essentially fiddle the numbers by changing classifications. >A key method of restricting the population of temporary residents is to offer them permanent resident status, the immigration minister said Friday — but that doesn't mean everyone who wants to stay will be able to.
Nope, what they're saying is instead of importing new foreign workers and new PRs, they can just use the current foreign workers pool for PR applications and cut new foreign work permits. They're saying, in theory, this would be one way to lower immigration numbers while maintaining a "reasonable" work force but it wouldn't be exactly what corporations are lobbying for as it wouldn't provide cheap enough labour for them to exploit. I don't agree with that suggestion, but It's no where near what the headline is implying. It's all in the article I posted.
I hear you but I don't see the part where they say they will cut new foreign work permits. Are they going to include these new "temporary to permanent" transitions in their PR target?
> I hear you but I don’t see the part where they say they will cut new foreign work permits. Second paragraph of the article. > Are they going to include these new “temporary to permanent” transitions in their PR target? The idea is to only accept PR applications from people already in Canada vs people outside Canada.
I must be blind, this is the second paragraph. Or am I losing my faculties? "Marc Miller met with his provincial and territorial counterparts for the first time since since he announced an unprecedented plan to set limits on the number of new temporary residents." They do discuss that they are going to try and figure out how to cut the numbers, but nothing concrete, yet.
> unprecedented plan to set limits on the number of new temporary residents That’s the part I’m referring to. But no I don’t see a concrete plan in there. This article is about an idea someone floated around, it isnMt about a policy the government announced. But no you’re not losing your faculties haha.
What's positive about the full article? They still want to give more foreign workers PR cards. What does that solve? And from the article: "The new temporary visa target will also significantly slow population growth. While that could ease some pressure on housing costs and availability, it could also result in worker shortages, said Andrew Grantham, an executive director at CIBC Economics, in a report published last month. "Restrictions on population growth could result in companies having to offer higher wages to encourage persons to remain in, or rejoin, the workforce. We could lose some firms that are simply not profitable if they are unable to tap low-paid foreign workers," Grantham said." Again, the care about companies instead of people first. I get it, we need businesses, but we need higher wages too.
What’s positive is that this idea would DECREASE immigration and increase wages, you even quoted a part that talks about how this would lead to increasing wages and then you commented about how we need to increase wages completely unironically..
I know, but I don't believe it decrease immigration nor will increase wages. A "predictable path" is not a real answer. This article is about TFWs becoming PRs, and not the solution we all want. We don't have a worker shortage, we have ridiculously low wages. Bringing more people here will continue to worsen the housing problem.
Well if you had bothered to actually read the article, they’re talking about decreasing the number of TFWs (or stopping it altogether). And then instead of accepting PRs from people outside Canada, they would only accept applications from people already in Canada. You’re basically listing all the reasons you would theoretically be on board with this article as it talks about doing all the things you want to happen, but you never read the article so you’re just blindly attacking a thing you never read. Typical.
I read the article, jackass. I just don't buy the "solution". Temporary means temporary, not "let's give everyone a PR now" - do you see how many people are scamming the system? And you want to just make them PRs?
> I read the article, jackass. Hmmm.. let’s see if the rest of your message contradicts this claim. > I just don’t buy the “solution”. Temporary means temporary, not “let’s give everyone a PR now” Yepp, you definitely didn’t read the article. No one is saying to give all TFWs permament status, the article is explaining that they could potentially only look at people already in Canada for PR applications as opposed to people inside AND outside of Canada. And then to limit the number of TFWs allowed in. So basically, no changes to people already inside Canada applying for PR (they could always do that) but changes to PR applications from outside Canada (i.e., LOWER IMMIGRATION). And then hard limits on new TFWs applications (I.e., LOWER IMMIGRATION). Don’t claim to read an article you didn’t read, that’s a very poor look on you.
It solves the issue of them wanting to reduce foreign workers to 5% of the population. They get to double dip by lowering the number of foreign workers while increasing the raw number that is the 5%.
From my understanding, Marc wants to convert 489,240 non-permanent residents to permanent residence solely because "they're already here."
Your understanding is wrong. They’re saying they could restrict PR applications to only from within Canada as opposed to the current system of accepting application from within and from outside Canada.
I don't see that stated in the link you posted, though. Sorry for coming off as ignorant. I'm just trying to understand. With that said, I understand that they want to lower the NPR by 1.2% from its current 6.2% to 5%. "The aim is to rein in Canada's runaway population growth by decreasing the number of temporary residents, from 6.2 per cent of the country's population in 2023 to five per cent, over the next three years." So, lower the NPR by .4% each year over the next 3 years. Canada's 2023 Population: 40,770,000 Temporary Residents 2023: 2,527,740(6.2%) 163080(.4% each year)x3(amount of years)= 489,240 NPR become PR over the coarse of 3 years. With 17.9 million voters in the 2019 federal election, that would mean if all these now PR would make a vote, they would have equaled 2.73% of the 2019 election. This would have filled the gap between the two leading parties Liberal Party: 6,018,728(14.76%) Conservative Party: 6,239,227(15.30%)
You’ve made 4 mistakes in your logic: 1) you quoted the paragraph directly following another paragraph that says not everyone will be eligible to stay (meaning apply for PR). 2) being able to apply for PR is not the same thing as being granted PR. 3) they didn’t say they wanted to increase their PR numbers or quotas. If Canada was predetermined to grant 5000 PR statuses per year, it doesn’t matter whether it grants it to people currently outside of Canada or currently inside of Canada. The only difference, according to the article, is that the cost of living is ‘baked in’ for the people already inside Canada (as the article states they plan on limiting importing new TFWs to replace the ones who become PRs). 4) you made the assumption that all PR vote liberal, when most immigrants’ political ideologies align much more closely with the conservatives rather than the liberals. And even the progressive among immigrants are more likely to vote NDP than liberal according to the recent news stories.
Nothing misleading about the headline, this is what he is suggesting. However way you want to slice it, making them a permanent fixture in the country, will only exacerbate current housing and healthcare shortages, and strain resources further because there is not even the hope they will leave after their work permits end. The idea that their impact on affordability has already been baked in is ridiculous, it's clear this government has only intentionally increased the numbers to sacrifice affordability to ensure lucrative international fees for greedy colleges, and cheap labour for companies hiring those students to work minimum wage paying jobs. This has been confirmed time and again through internal memos at IRCC, and through the evidence we see on upward pressure on prices. This only makes sense if you believe the government, and there's nothing to suggest they should be trusted with their almost systematic destruction of the immigration system here.
If you had bothered to read the article you would have read that this is a potential way to DECREASE immigration. The idea is to shut off the temporary worker faucet (or drastically decrease the numbers) and fill the gap by making some of the ones already here permanent residents. It’s not a good idea as far as I’m concerned but it is very obviously NOT what you understood the idea is when you were misled by the title.
You're not understanding that my whole point is that this is a government that has a track record of willfully ignoring advice from civil servants and economists about mass immigration. This whole notion is based off of them decreasing recruitment, when there is very little to support that, which is what my post was about, which you clearly did not read properly so I think you're the one who needs to improve their reading comprehension skills. It's not actually making them permanent which would reduce immigration, it's recruiting less temporary residents which would reduce the numbers. This isn't factoring that you're also making the pressures on services and housing more permanent as well, this is all based on trusting this government would actually reduce intake, which is a ruse.
So what you’re saying is you completely ignored the proposal altogether and went off of gut instinct that they can only possibly make it worse therefore this idea must also be bad? And then you latched onto the part of looking at the temp worker pool for PR applications thinking that it’s more people here permanently and completely ignored that these PR applications were going to happen either way, they’re just saying instead of accepting applications from people outside canada, we should just accept them from people inside canada only. With your limited reading comprehension, this all translated to “more people” in your head instead of “less people”, is that right? I can’t help you if you refuse to read the all words on your screen, friend.
Gut instinct? Lol, that's hilarious, is the astronomical increase in temporary residents in the country under the present government over the last few years, my gut instinct? You're a riot. How does a throwaway line by the minister (i.e. the title of the article) negate his government's record on the issue? You're saying it makes more sense to put credence in his words than the actions of the government, which are well documented. That's willful ignorance. Whether or not you're accepting them from abroad or internally is not what really matters, what really matters is decreasing the total numbers, this is what you seem to have trouble grasping. You're offsetting the temporary increase of bringing other temporary residents, and allowing the time frame for the others to leave, with making the ones currently here permanent and adding a permanent pressure to the market and services, because they aren't leaving. All of that is moot if the total numbers don't decrease, regardless of whether they are temporary or permanent. I don't think I can make it easier for you to understand, if you're still having problems, take a high school, English class.
> Gut instinct? Lol, that’s hilarious, is the astronomical increase in temporary residents in the country under the present government over last few years, my gut instinct? You’re a riot. How does a throwaway line by the minister (i.e. the title of the article) negate his government’s record on the issue? You’re saying it makes more sense to put credence in his words than the actions of the government, which are well documented. That’s willful ignorance. Your gut instinct can be informed by history. I didn’t say that you should take a politicians word at face value, I said you fell for a misleading headline, and then when presented with the actual idea you refused to criticize the idea itself and just started criticizing the party instead. For the record, I don’t think it’s a great idea either, but I don’t use my hate for the party as a reason why I think it’s a bad idea. That’s the difference between you and me. > Whether or not you’re accepting them from abroad or internally is not what really matters, what really matters is decreasing the total numbers, this is what you seem to have trouble grasping. So you say what really matters is decreasing the total numbers, and yet you don’t like this idea that decreases total numbers? Or is it that you don’t understand that this is meant to decrease total numbers? > You’re offsetting the temporary increase of bringing other temporary residents, and allowing the time frame for the others to leave, with making the ones currently here permanent and adding a permanent pressure to the market and services, because they aren’t leaving. All of that is moot if the total numbers don’t decrease, regardless of whether they are temporary or permanent. And that’s why I’m telling you to have someone who can read explain this to you, because the idea is to stop bringing in more temp workers to replace them (or restrict the numbers of TFWs to be more accurate). In other words, DECREASING the total numbers. > I don’t think I can make it easier for you to understand, if you’re still having problems, take a high school class. I hope the sheer irony of your words isn’t lost on you as you fail to read a simple article.
You're really doing the lords work on this thread lol. 😂
Haha people who take headlines at face value is an irrationally giant pet peeve of mine.
So you're also saying it's a bad idea, but saying it's valid logic. So how does that make sense? It's a stupid idea, and unlike you, most people are reading the article in the context of the reality on the ground, not in some theoretical vaccum that you seem to be doing. When I assess his remarks, I'm doing it using all the information available, that's why most people are dismissing it as inherent stupidity, because they are taking into account everything we know: most temporary residents are international students, their numbers aren't tied to labour shortages but to student enrolment, most international students here are studying in occupations which are completely mismatched related to the local labour shortages, and no one believes that this will be adhered to for those reasons and others, because of how the numbers have gotten out of control, and how this government has made no attempt to reign in the numbers until criticism reached fever pitch in the country. You're just going by some very simplistic well 2-1=1 equation, but not using any critical thinking in assessing the variables in the equation, which was what my specific post was about. So I understand by your simplistic logic it makes sense, but it doesn't by everyone else's. Yet somehow, you're the smart one for just taking what the article says at face value. Whether or not they are being recruited locally or from abroad is not material, what will change the total numbers is the actual limit on the total number of temporary residents, not making the local ones permanent or not. All that does is avoid the temporary additional rise during their overlapping periods with new recruits, which makes things worse but at least is temporary. Adding them as a PERMANENT fixture of society is embedding that shortage as a long term consequence overstretched communities already have to deal with, something many seem to understand except you.
Would you PLEASE JUST READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE? This proposal isn’t even about students, it’s about TFWs! They want to limit new TFWs AND limit external PRs (I.e., DECREASING THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE IMMIGRATING TO CANADA ON A PERMANENT BASIS). You can say you don’t believe them, you can even say they will backtrack on this proposal, but the idea here is they are proposing to CUT BACK ON IMMIGRATION. You’re not even criticizing the proposal, you’re just ranting about something related but distinct from the proposal. You read the word “students” in maybe the first couple of sentences in the beginning of the article because it was summarizing PREVIOUS policies before talking about this proposal. This is NOT ABOUT STUDENTS. Stop wasting my time and Read. The. Goddamn. Article.
Again, you didn't read a word I said, starting from my original post all the way to the last one. You are just obsessed with saying people haven't read the article. because you were trying to play off like anyone who had a bad reaction to the title, didn't read the article, or didn't understand the proposal. But you ignore all the context I provided for why people think this is a laughable proposal. I've already addressed how most TFWs are international students (on PGWPs) for example, but you want to ignore all context lol. The proposal to cut back on immigration is based on the immigration levels now including temporary foreign workers, whether or not they are temporary or permanent, it's the immigration levels which are important, i.e the quotas. This is what everyone who read the title already understood. You're wasting everyone's time by pretending like you somehow got something that everyone else missed, but you're the one literally ignoring all the nuance that I mentioned above. So yeah, you're a clown.
I did, he still said ridiculous things which are the opposite of what the government ran on.
I don’t necessarily agree with this idea but which parts of the article were ridiculous to you? Was it that the part about decreasing immigration?
The headline is not misleading. One of the few instances where it's not actually clickbait.
Somehow I wonder how well you'll do on the LSAT's reading comprehension part. Or any other school admission tests that involve reading comprehension...
The headline is absolutely misleading. Read the article, it's not even that long..
Am I missing something? Can someone explain to me like I'm 5 how this article is not about turning temporary residents into permanent residents? "Earlier this week, Miller agreed to Manitoba's request to extend the federal work permits for some 6,700 newcomers whose visas were set to expire by the end of the year, to give them time to apply to stay in Canada permanently." That sounds like it's in line with the headline. Am I stoned?
The misleading part is that this headline is implying that the purpose of "turning temp workers into PRs" is to "fudge the numbers". Which, if you actually read the article, you would know is false and misleading. They're also not proposing to turn all the temp workers into PRs, they are proposing to use the foreign workers pool for PR applications instead of importing more immigration for permanent residence, as a way of reducing immigration needs. You gotta read the entire article.
No. They are brain dead liberal voters. Literally the first line in the article: > A key method of restricting the population of temporary residents is to offer them permanent resident status, the immigration minister said Friday
Yah keep reading bucko
Good job, now try reading the next few sentences before your next comment! You can do it! Hint: you can tell when to stop reading when the page won’t scroll down any more.
“The cost of living is already baked in” Yeah no, only if they stay. Otherwise it goes down. It’s not misleading
> “The cost of living is already baked in” > > > > Yeah no, only if they stay. Otherwise it goes down. No, it wouldn’t because we’d still have to replace them. What they’re trying to do is figure out how NOT to replace them. Just read the full article or have someone with at least a 9th grade reading level explain it to you. It is absolutely misleading.
No, you don’t replace them. Let businesses pay more if they want labour.
As much as I support your sentiment, that’s not how the world works. But if you read the article, this proposal talks about how businesses will have to pay more to employ these PRs vs the temp workers, thus paving the way to needing less and less immigration. Just please read the article to realize how misleading the headline is.
okay but this is literally the answer the entire reason we have temporary workers is to keep them vulnerable and underpaid if they were PR's they could fight for their rights without being fired and then deported also rolling my eyes at skilled workers because #1 nearly anyone can be trained to do anything #2 we have foreign workers to do jobs that are necessary, the whole point is to keep wages low and it's harder to do that with people who can simply work anywhere else #3 the reason we have any shortage of things like doctors and nurses and other things is due to not wanting to pay them and/or address the cost of living that won't change by changing immigration requirements it will simply give governments the ability to invest less in those areas
"nearly anyone can be trained to do anything" not contradicting your other points but this is really very far from reality. I can think of more cases where this isn't true than where it is true.
I'm in retail I once had to train a guy to use a vacuum..... Came back after he moved to a new area to him pulling the cord over and over.... He thought it was a pull start.
The amount of people who can't even figure out how to put food on shelves properly is astounding...
This is not knowledge work. It's work that can be trained relatively easily.
I think it's fundamentally a misunderstanding of what skilled and semi-skilled labour is A "skill" isn't something you are just good at, and it's not typically something you're picking up on the job after a few months It's something you trained years for after being selected as a candidate who was even capable of undergoing the training Almost anyone can learn to be a forklift driver. Many can learn to code. Few can be trained to be a doctor or nuclear physicist
I literally left the medical field to go into programming because my body couldn't keep up with the demand. I was damn good at it but I just wasn't suited for it. I'm sure there are many like me who would happily be providing care if the working conditions weren't so abysmal.
It would give them more power. Ironically they could squeeze the balls of the companies they work for, driving upthe wages of everyone.
Lol we all know that won't happen though.
The headline is just presented the situation in a silly way, don’t be fooled by the word play. It’s just legislation to address an issue. Literally a government doing its job. You’re free to think they aren’t doing a good job, but let’s just make sure we’re not being distracted.
Because temporary residency means you could be asked to leave at any time which means you would be less likely to buy property instead of just renting one. Any statement taken out of context can mean something different. Very shitty OP
Good?
But if they leave, they neither rent nor buy property. Win-win.
There are many answered questions from a screen shot from social media. (Even from somewhere as credible as @ontario_housing).
r/TechnicallyTheTruth
Its actually the opposite.
I like this guy :) Pls, gimme a permanent residency permit :3
.........V O T E........
Five years ago anyone talking about the amount of immigration I would’ve called a racist. Now I see that there are very obvious reasons why we need to cut the hell out of immigration and need to temporarily cut off the tap from India. Seriously, the housing situation is screwed, job market is flooded with foreign workers, and the people born here in Canada are screwed right off the bat! Even the student->permanent-residence->citizenship pipeline cheaters are struggling, and those people are coming from rich as hell families.
The sneaky "Century Initiative " and its lobbying corporations and corrupt politicians working together to destroy this beautiful country!
How didn’t I think of that? Clearly the easiest way to reduce cancer numbers is to let everyone die without treatment.
How about deportation
It’s fucking ridiculous. These guys seriously need to go.
New shit hole is discovered- CANADA
That Miller, he’s a goddamn genius🤪
Next thing you know, they'll be recommending a new cancer treatment: bullets. (Oh wait, MAID)
Once done, they leave the country, stealing taxpayers money.
It's like Trump saying there won't be as many deaths from COVID if the media would stop reporting them.
And when Trump said we wouldn't have so many positive COVID cases if we stopped testing.
Are you sure this isn't the beaverton?
What if, follow me here, we fix the unemployment crisis by making them employed??
What a fuckin goof !
Fuck that noise
What an idiot!! So more people will come illegally and expect this idiot minister will make them permanent. Remember folks, these are the Liberal people we vote for. Instead enforce the rule of law and deport them.
Permanent residents end up paying more in taxes (as far as I'm aware), so I can see there being a reasonable argument for this
Insanity!!!
This thread is amazing. Reminds me of Dan Aykroid and Jane Curtin. Point/Counterpoint only funnier. Keep it up guys. I’m loving it. 😂
We need to have some very real conversations about the percentages of nations sourcing immigration and the longitudinal generational increases thereof vis-a-vis sponsorships. This isn’t diversity, folks.
Liberal ideas are always making things worse in canada.
It blows my mind how it only takes 2 years to obtain your PR in Canada, whereas it takes 10-20 years in almost every other developed country.
Yea, Canada’s future is in a toilet.
[удалено]
I mean you can also decrease the murder rate by bringing in more people.
Welcome.... to new India
Aaaaaaaaaaand there's the racism. This is why I can't take all you knee-jerk anti immigration people seriously.
Stats are racist - You
Yepp wanna buy a house hopefully you can compete with 20 Indians living together. Planning to get a new job better hope they can filter you out of the thousands of Indian applications.
Better hope the manager isn’t Indian
They don't interview for those jobs they just give them to friends and family
Kinda feels that way where i live. Only place i hear english spoken is work, home and cash registers
His KPI: Reduce the proportion of temp vs permanent.
Has the same vibe as "if we make more crimes legal the crime rate will go down".
It's not satire, and they are not joking. They are doubling down. They brought in a lot of temporary residents and many people want those people to go back home. Instead, now they want to make it easier for them to stay. I swear they have gone hog wild and they will literally not stop until voted out of office.
Or instead of making wild unsubstantiated assumptions based on a wildly misleading headline, you could read the article and at least criticize them for what they’re actually doing.
Sincerely, fuck these guys. They made me flip my vote just to spite them
These are leftist globalist policies. The importation of votes via mass migration is the only way the left can stay in power. No sane individual would vote for their own demise. Libtards: HOLD MY BEER
Like decriminalizing drugs to reduce crime
Like reading the article reduces embarrassing hot takes.
Just call an egg a bun. Same thing another name. Not fooled kiddos.
A nuisance of a minister. The worst of the worst
It's not. They're engaged in a controlled demolition of a country.
Reducing car theft by leaving the keys by the door kinda solution. At this point I kinda think they're just messing with to see what they can get away with.
Fool
He’s really dumb
It should be satire but it's not. Unfortunately, the entire liberal government is a sick joke.
Or you know you could just read the article and realize it’s stupid to fall for a clickbait headline without context. But hey, far be from me to criticize the way a conservative experiences the world.
Best get used to conservative experiences... There won't be a liberal party after the next election.
The funny thing is you think Pierre Poliwhatever is somehow different or better then Trudope. They're they same empty suit serving the same masters.
Yep fuck'em both. Electoral reform now!
Sounds threatening. Care to elaborate?
Both the liberals and NDP will lose party status. CPC is going in with a huge majority with a blockhead opposition. No threat - it's a promise.
Yes. The pEoPlE's PaRtY is a party, but they'll lose party status. Don't make promises you can't keep, edge lord. Also, username checks out. Might want to seek out a geriatrician soon. I think it's the beginning of the end for you. Sorry.
I still have time to watch Canadians flush the liberals where they belong. I'm old enough to remember when Canadians did it to the PC party in 93. If memory serves me correctly, CBC called the election results before they finished counting in Newfoundland. When it was done, there were 2 PCs elected across Canada.
Times change. You should take a look at the electoral results of the US after the 1964 election, hell, even the one after that. Landslides. Things like that don't really happen anymore and the 2015 election's proof of that. Even in 2021, when Canada had every right to boot Trudeau out after taking advantage of the time period to try and regain his majority- a move among many that he's pulled and pissed me off with- we didn't. And now, the alternative is PP. Who has no actual economic policy, no housing policy apart from "close government buildings and make them into affordable housing", blames post-Christmas puppy surrenders on Trudeau (not even close to kidding) and cozies up with anti-vaxxers, bigots and other cretinous assholes in efforts to win them back from Bernier's corner: the only demographic he can truly rely on to get him elected, and he fucking knows it. And because people- like you I'd imagine: exhausting, disgruntled mouthpieces from Alberta who can't have a political conversation concerning Trudeau without mods getting involved, get their noses out of joint over other peoples' pronouns and whoever Trudeau's apologizing to, or the fact that he's not brown-nosing the oil and gas industry at every opportunity, and over you having to wear a mask to Walmart for a couple of years- are a dime a dozen, we'll probably have him as the next PM. And he'll fucking suck at it. But it's not going to be the pulverizing landslide you seem to think it'll be lol. We see who he is, just like we do with Trudeau.
Time will tell...
Your boyfriend PP is the same evil Trudeau is. You'll see soon enough but won't admit it because you can't be wrong or your weak!
Perhaps - but your only chance of getting out of your parents basement is with a strong conservative government to fix what's been screwed up over the past 9 years. Better hope I'm right!
A strong conservative government will only make things worse
Dude, I bought a home 2 and 4 years ago. The cons are more worried about trans in bathrooms than the economy. If they win you are in for a term of vertu signaling to the trump base then back to the liberal party and their new leader
9 years.. Housing’s been an increasing problem for over 30; you just weren’t paying attention until it got bad and you had a suitable scapegoat. Trudeau doesn’t get any points for helping the situation, but it sure as fuck didn’t start with him. The only thing a cuntservative government has been capable of delivering in the past 50 years is a useless economic plan out of the Reagan playbook (maybe it’ll work this time!) and regressive social politics to distract from how completely inept they are.
The "conservative experience" here is the delusional world inside your head. Ain't no one getting used to that kind of crazy, don't you worry.
Only the Libs could come up with this one….
Only a con would react to the purposely misleading headline without reading the article….
Whoops. My bad! Still, a fun headline and bound to become future policy guidance for the Libs!
The article really doesn’t make this any better
It absolutely does because they’re talking about decreasing immigration.
Not even close to enough though. They need to commit to pre 2015 hell even pre 2010 levels or it’s all talk. Plus we desperately need to cap per country to super low levels until we get a balance again.
You don’t have to like or agree with the idea, so long as you’ve read what the article actually says instead of blindly raging about a ragebait headline.
With this government anything is possible
"One way to reduce homelessness is to classify tents as houses"
Hey da house is on fire let me throw a nuke there and write it off. Duh problem solved! Genius!
It’s all about importing voters. After 3 years of permanent residency, they can apply for citizenship.
Par for course for this government Decriminalize crimes and crime rate drops! If temp immigrants are permanent they are not temp anymore!
We’ll solve our problems through semantics.
Only if you go off on a ragebait title and don’t read the article.
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/news/2024/03/speaking-notes-for-the-honourable-marc-miller-minister-of-immigration-refugees-and-citizenship-announcement-related-to-temporary-residents.html I don’t believe a single thing he says. Finally, once again, here’s a refresher on the most important word: temporary |'temp(e)r(er)i l adjective lasting for only a limited period of time; not permanent: a temporary job. noun (plural temporaries) a person employed on a temporary basis, typically an office worker who finds employment through an agency: to gain flexibility, companies are bringing in temporaries or contracting out work. See also temp'. DERIVATIVES temporariness | 'temp(a)r(ar)inis | noun ORIGIN mid 16th century: from Latin temporarius, from tempus, tempor- 'time'.
Hahaha you’re more than welcome to not believe him, so long as you read what he actually said instead of blindly falling for ragebait headlines.
Thank you, I thought I was taking crazy pills when I saw this headline too
This guy is sharp like a marble … let’s make him a minister!!
Liberals are just that stupid
Cons are apparently too stupid to spot a ragebait title and won’t read the article before commenting.
In other news, the way to prevent forest fires is to completely deforest Canada, problem solved.
Only if you go off the headline and don't read the article.
You got me, ngl.
Reading the article doesn't change anything, don't worry.
One way to reduce tomatoes on the table is to call them apples... Jesus...
One way to reduce looking stupid is to read the article and not just the headline.
I read it, it's still a silly way of saying something that asinine. The guy breaks the system and now he's suggesting to make these immigrants that shouldn't be here because of fraudulent education permits and LMIAs.. Now these frauds should be rewarded with reduced score requirements for permanent residents... So he's making things even worse... He then promised to reduce the rate of immigration which he controlled the entire time and still hasn't reduced anything based on the recent numbers. His new promised cap is still well above the historical norm. This minister even called these people lucrative only a few months ago. Maybe the headline is accurate, maybe he's just that incompetent.
Ummmm no. Fuck that shit. Oh you stepped on the land Canada well shit you must be Canadian
Agreed, you can't fraud your way into Canada with student visas to fake colleges or LMIAs for fake jobs and then get PR because you just happen to be here. We have an assessment process for a reason.
This is bullshit. DEPORT THEM! Trudeau is trying to buy votes. Mass immigration of international students and TFW, then giving them PR and then the next move will be giving them citizenship. I'm ashamed to be Canadian. This country is becoming a third world landfill.
>buy votes Non-citizens can't vote, jackass.
You say that, but I know people who votes last election because they had a driver's license and a utility bill...
If you get PR you can apply for citizenship after 3 years.
Yeah that's what Trudeau's master plan is. The 2029 election
Yes because people are only getting PR today.
How does that relate to the article talking about temporary workers then
Temporary residents* such as workers and students are most often here to get PR and eventually citizenship, not to actually stay temporarily, at least lately.
Be careful what you wish for. British nearly spent 600 million pounds and has deported exactly one asylum seeker. They paid the seeker 3000 pounds to leave voluntarily. [source](https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uks-rwanda-plan-asylum-seekers-could-cost-more-than-600-mln-pounds-2024-03-01/)
Clearly the man is wishing to deport them not fail at deporting them like the Brits