It's a lot of vague rah-rah PR between Trudeau (who is the master of that) and a major CEO.
Child has autism? No immigration for you. They have pretty severe criteria for immigrants compared to other western countries. After the '16 election it was all out PR stating how open they are to immigrants, but look how they have very quietly been handling illegal crossings.
The Canadian government deserves a lot of credit for this sleight of hand. They have been unbelievably effective in their PR.
Is that unusual? I would expect most countries with both public healthcare, and disability assistance programs, to not let people immigrate if they have a pre-existing medical condition that will either cost the public healthcare system boatloads of money, or will mean that they'll never be able to hold down a productive (i.e. tax-paying) job, thus putting them "on the dole" of the disability assistance program for the rest of their lives.
Not saying it's a nice stance—but it's the norm, not the exception, in welfare states, no?
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.
No, I think you're wrongly mixing public opinion and public policy here.
Canada's reputation for being accepting of immigration and refugees comes from general public opinion on the matter. While some Canadians tend to align themselves with more modern socially-conservative American values, much of the country has moved on to realize the benefit to the social growth we see by expanding our viewpoints, and trying to make amends for historical transgressions.
Federal policy on immigration is something that your average Canadian is probably more out of touch with than they'd like to admit. It's a work in progress.
This isn't some PR gag. Sleight of hand implies you think there's some crafty, nefarious manipulation going on but I think you're either just jaded, misinformed, or misinterpreting the matter. I encourage you to spend some serious time in different parts of Canada to see for yourself. I've made many friends with people passing through the country on study or temporary work visas, and according to them it's not all that difficult to arrange. (especially if you're from a commonwealth country)
Also, to note: your line about autism is patently false. Conditions like autism will probably garner some further questioning and confirmation, but is not necessarily an immediate, flat-out rejection.
If anybody else is reading these comments, please don't take them at face value and look it up for yourselves. There's a lot of cynicism in this thread.
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/tools/medic/admiss/in...
Edit: Seems people are misinterpreting what I wrote. I'm referring to the public's view of immigration, not immigration or immigration policy itself.
As opposed to the US where if you are born from India, you have to wait 15-20 years for a Green Card due to country quotas.
This forces people from India to stay on H1-B for 15-20 years, and prevents them from easily changing jobs or opening a business.
The process should be completely merit based.
Because... can I ask why, exactly?
Canadian immigration process assigns points for various qualities and qualifications legislature deemed desired and every couple of weeks x top scoring applicants get an immigration visa (pr).
H1-B is designed to just be a pool to temporarily fill labor shortages in the US. It's not intended to be the path for PR hence why it's admittedly arbitrary.
I think that is incorrect. It is expected for F-1 students to move to an H1-B (which allows intent to immigrate) and then move to PR (usually via an EB)
Which means, if you are from India and are waiting in the EB2 queue, you have to painfully maintain H1-B status for 15-20 years.
It seems to me then the real problem is India's brain drain. I don't see how lifting the cap would be good for American workers or the Indian economy.
I still haven't received the actual card, and have been given no date, no tracking#, no interview, nothing. Just "your petition was approved..go back to your stressful wait because it doesn't mean much until you get the document."
In the meantime I'm not eligible for coverage under ACA, cannot be unemployed over 90 days, cannot leave the country, cannot work on anything to do with a defense contract, cannot risk commenting on politics on social media, etc. All this after I acquired a coveted O1A visa to move back in the first place, after 2 years of working on my company remotely while I was out of status.
This hasn't been "dead simple" as gp implies Canadian merit-residencies are. Not in the slightest. It has been expensive, time consuming and stressful. It's been a constant distraction from my work for longer than the lifespan of most startups in Silicon Valley.
If you want immigration due to diversity (which Canada dos) then it would make sense to limit based on country of origin, no? Otherwise you wouldn't get as much diversity.