Considering the massive difference in population size between Canada and the US I’m not sure it is. There are only so many people who want to immigrate and I am not sure that even if the US took everyone that it would amount to 20%
(I had trouble wording this sentence, it’s just I give up, glory in the awkwardness!)
I am friends with two couples, both half Canadian and half American, one who emigrated to each country.
Both processes were over a year long, both included visits after the fiancee visa was obtained and both were annoying, stressful and expensive. It is not a simple process to move from one of our countries to the other in either direction.
I don’t know all the details of the system, but immigrants to Quebec still have to meet federal requirements. The federal and Quebec governments have a harmonised system.
However, once an immigrant has status as a permanent resident under federal law, they have a constitutional right to move about in Canada, same as a citizen does: Charter: s. 6.
It would be interesting if the US had such an arrangement, where people who fulfill a set of baseline Federal criteria could bypass the “lottery” and familial sponsorship system by being sponsored by a state (or possibly even territory). E.g. Wisconsin could have a dairy farmer sponsorship program and Alaska could sponsor skilled oil workers.
Really? I was going to ask if you considered moving somewhere closer like Eugene, but I thought you hated the Oregon weather. Hope it works out for you.
My experience, importing the same man into both countries, was that the Canadian system was cheper and faster. Some of this was because the situations weren’t strictly parallel, but what we paid for one three-year US visa is what we paid for one Canadian permanent residency. The processing times were similar.
We do have that on a very small scale for physicians who agree to hold certain jobs.
Of course, Quebec makes it a point to find immigrants who would be more comfortable and a better fit in Quebec - i.e. French as their main language rather than English.
A person with a permanent resident card obtained in Quebec can move anywhere in Canada.
Note, however, that a person with a permanent resident card obtained in the Rest of Canada cannot move to Quebec without first applying for and being selected by Quebec.
After a person becomes a citizen, that person can live anywhere in Canada.
The exception to all this is Indian Reserves. A Band Council has absolute authority over who lives on its reserve (even if the person was full-status, born and raised on the reserve, the reserve’s band council can toss them out).
Do you have a cite for that? I thought that PRs had freedom of movement, and I can’t find anything to confirm or deny.
I agree. I don’t think that’s correct, Muffin. See s. 6(2) of the Charter, which says that citizens and permanent residents have the right to move to any province.
Dr. Drake’s Man Import & Export! Call now for a quote! Cartage and handling fees will be all-included!
Dr. Drake and Northen Piper, you are right, and I am wrong. I had it incorrectly in my own muddled mind that Quebec’s position had succeeded in the negotiating of the Canada-Quebec Accord relating to Immigration and Temporary Admission of Aliens (something that emerged following the failed Meech Lake), but it’s preamble specifically keeps it in line with the Constitution in protecting the mobility rights of permanent residents. Had the Canada-Quebec Accord done otherwise, it would have been in violation of the Constitution. Thanks for correcting me.
Du rien. 
I’m revisiting my own hijack at a very early post in this thread. Regarding looking at college as a training ground for some profession rather than seeing it as an opportunity to be come better rounded, better educated in general, John Stuart Mill said, “Universities are not intended to teach the knowledge required to fit men for some special mode of gaining their livelihood. Their object is not to make skillful lawyers, or physicians, or engineers, but capable and cultivated human beings.” This was in 1867 and is still true.
Yes, I have a problem with the college=job training thing too. It’s not just employers nowadays - certification programs are increasingly requiring degrees. It’s not just “a degree” anymore, a lot of them are requiring very specific degrees to qualify. For example, the National Athletic Trainers’ Association requires that one have a degree in Athletic Training to qualify for certification. They are even bold enough to say that if you have a degree in something else, your only choice is to go back and get another university degree, this time in Athletic Training. This is a travesty of everything that universities are for. You study at a university to learn how to think logically, clearly, and critically, and to pick up a basic modicum of knowledge (e.g. calculus, Shakespeare, good grammar, basic structure of the atom, etc.). Then, once you know how to think (evidenced by your degree in Medieval French Literature or whatever), you can go get trained to do a job.
I guess that in the USA, as here in the UK, there has been an increase in the number of people taking ‘Mickey Mouse’ degrees like ‘advertising’ or ‘tourism’, or that old favourite - media studies. They are fine if you want to go into those fields, but no use at all if you want to be a teacher or a lawyer. Probably OK if you fancy being a politician though.
If the degree program is not rigorous, that’s a problem with the degree program, not the subject. You can get a solid university education in advertising or tourism or media studies. The fact is, though, that universities are no longer funded by the government, so they now have a strong financial incentive to dumb down their degrees in order to attract “customers” (formerly “students”) whose priorities are not necessarily the ones that will challenge them and make them grow intellectually.
Have you ever been convicted of any crime, including DWI or drug charges?
What’s still true is that creating “capable and cultivated human beings” is still desirable.
But I daresay we have a lot more occupations today which legitimately require more vocational training than was common in 1867.
Maybe what we really need is to stop trying to run a primary research facility, *and *a networking arena and finishing school for fatcat’s kids (i.e. the primary use of universities from 1850 to 1950) *and *a vo-tech school for complicated jobs all under one roof.