Talk:Canadians of convenience

For the record
Lest there be any misunderstanding: I provided the following so that the article, as it was and is now, would not go unchallenged. My objections stand. --P00r (talk) 05:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The article is a record of xenophobic arguments.

Many of the quotation in the article are not properly referenced. The Economist's is not even closed off properly! Turner's claim about "many immigrants" is uncited and unsupported. The quotation of The Economist's "560,000" is not properly referenced. And no number is provided of the number of native-born Canadians who are dual citizens and/or hold foreign passports.

The article does not mention the costs (eg the $900 Landing Fee) charged to an immigration applicant, nor of the stringent language requirements demanded of all but few Family Class immigrants.

The article demonstrates gross ignorance about dual-citizenship.

Despite the prevalence of Canadians abroad, and the huge immigrant and second-generation population (ie even native-born Canadians are often considered citizens by their parents' country), and the huge numbers of Canadians who live and work in the USA, this pejorative arose only when Arab-Canadians ended up on the wrong side of a war. The article does not cite any instances of similar uproar about white US-resident Canadians who send their kids back to Canada in order to avoid paying high US university fees. P00r 19:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The article is a record of the debate. It neither supports or rejects the use of the term.  Yes, Turner often has facts wrong, as is clearly pointed out in the article regarding the cost of evacuation.  The references are all in a section in the bottom.  I moved one up to the sentence where you requested a citation.  Is your problem that you want more in-line references?  The Economist article is at the bottom. The landing fee -- not entirely relevant in my opinion, but feel free to add it in (it was reduced by 50% in 2006 -- make sure you have the right figure). Pundits only use the term as it related to immigrants to Canada -- you are right that they do not apply it to Canadian-born people living abroad as they are not part of any immigration discussion.  Regardless of whether you agree, that is how they use the term.  Your assertions about it being racists are your own unsubstantiated opinion and cannot be reflected in the article.  Turner and Worthington were specifically discussing issues of economics, not race.  Deet 21:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for closing The Economist's quotation, and providing a link to the National Post article.


 * There is no "debate" presented. Is a record of unchallenged Nazi articles on Jews, gypsies, gays, blacks, etc. a record of the debate or a record of the propaganda? By not noting the absence of hard data, and the presence of unsubstantiated claims, this fails, by any measure, to be a "debate," or a record thereof. To wit, are the following addressed, or even noted?


 * * How many of the evacuees were long-term residents of Lebanon, and how many were visitors?
 * * How many of the long-term residents had returned to Lebanon immediately upon obtaining their citizenships?
 * * Hard data on the number which returned to war-torn Lebanon whose Beirut airport was shut down by Israel. Who collected such data, and how?
 * * The pejorative refers to "Canadians." If there are Canadians, other than those entangled in this war, to whom the alleged behaviour applies, then such evidence as may have been presented can be dismissed as unsupportive of the appellation. Specifically, if the alleged behaviour is prevalent in other sub-populations, then the pejorative is strictly discriminatory.


 * The unreferenced quotations which I refered to include the "Other editorials" and "Some of the comments" lines. By not providing the referenced sources, neither the presented summary nor the quoted articles can be examined in the same manner as the National Post's. Furthermore, they pass the burden of meticulous refutal to the reader, rather than meeting the evidentiary requirement when the assertion is being made.


 * As for your remark when you deleted the Criticism section, a 'never' cannot be "substantiated"; it can only be disproven! Hence, unless if you can present a case wherein the pejorative has been applied to Canadians other than Arab-Canadians, the Criticism section must stand. After all, the implied premise of the generalisation is that the behaviour does not apply to just Arab-Canadians. And no one has argued -- nor, I submit, can argue -- that the alleged behaviour, such as it is, is not apparent in other ethnic groupings.
 * P00r 15:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You say "?There is no 'debate' presented. Is a record of unchallenged Nazi articles on Jews, gypsies, gays, blacks, etc. a record of the debate or a record of the propaganda?", but I have read nothing in this article that refers to Nazism (National Socialism), and definitely *nothing* that refers to Jews, Romani, homosexuals or "Blacks". As described in this article, the people who use the term say that they have a problem with the abuse of Canadian immigration policies and extraordinary government benefits by people who are Candian citizens in name only. The only racial, religious, social or ethnic group that appears to be specifically pointed out are Arabs.


 * I'm not even in favour of this law, as I think the aim would have been much better accomplished and without the negative side-effects on Canadian expats or holiday-makers who do not abuse the system, by merely inserting a minimum residency requirement by Canadians born abroad, say that they must have lived a minimum of 5 years or a third of the time since their citizenship in the country. This way ridiculous situations such as canadian resident citizens who give birth while on holiday overseas being denied citizenship for their children, would be avoided... In any case, I think the law is awkward, full of faults and doesn't effectively accomplish its aims, but I post here merely to point out that your arguments are sloppy and faulty indeed. 122.149.66.199 (talk) 00:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Labour Statistics
The referenced statistics for immigrants employment rates indicate an employment rate of 60% for the principal applicant of the Skilled worker category. Almost all immigrants fall within this category; refugees, Family and Investor classes form a small minority. To claim that the employment rate of immigrants is "only 44%" is, at best, disingenuous.

Furthermore, to include the spouse and dependents in the employment rates is, at best, incompetent. What would the employment rate of Canada, as a whole, look like if one were to count the spouses and children? --P00r 16:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll have to revisit all of your comments later when I have more time, but only 20% of immigrants are skilled worker principal applicants, and only they have the 60% employment rate. Read it more carefully.  My overall comment to you is to nominate the article for deletion if your think it merits it.  I believe your request will be denied.  Deet 22:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 20% are of the Skilled category, or 20% are this category's principal applicants? It is the principal applicant which has to fit the eligibility requirements, and thus will be the bread-winner. It is statistically illegitimate to take his/her school-age dependents into the calculation for the employment rate. Even the canadianeconomy.gc.ca rate includes those over-15. And it is an entirely different animal from the Stat's Can. 2001 table which has a 60% employment rate for the bread-winner and, not surprisingly, half of that for the spouse and dependents. To quote the averaged 44% for any purpose other than to simply fill the table, is disingenuous.


 * As for "deletion," please, at first, address only the points which I explicitly mentioned.
 * --P00r 00:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 20% of ALL immigrants are skilled worker principal applicants. The 44% versus the 60% is a completely legitimate apples to apples comparison.  The 44% if for ALL immigrants of working ages, as is the 60% for ALL working ages in Canada.  Any other comparison of trying to positively select the immigration cohort of "bread winner" immigrants and compare to the general population would be misleading.Deet 08:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The Canadian Policy Research Networks reference is not supportive of the assertion made. It makes no mention of, and offers no data on, welfare payments to immigrants. It is a paper on the needs for, what it calls, "supportive housing." While it does argue for a need for such housing amongst immigrants, it makes no mention of, and offers no data on, housing subsidies to immigrants. --P00r 16:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph of Section 4.3 clearly supports the statement. Deet 08:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I restored one reference, not because it has any merit whatsoever, but because the rest of the article is, as mentioned earlier, a mess! It stands as solid as Swiss cheese. --P00r 17:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The canadianeconomy.gc.ca reference provides a statistic encompassing those over 15 years of age whereas the Stat's Can. data includes all "dependents." The two, thus, cannot be compared. --P00r 17:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Restoration of Invalid Reference
As I mentioned before, the CPRN file provides no data on welfare or housing subsidies. "The incidence of core need amongst" is not even a suggestion of such payments; it suggests merely CPRN's belief in a need. You need to provide such data. Until such time, please do not restore the reference. This advocacy group's article provides _none_! Period. (As an aside: the article does not even properly define its terminology: what, for their purposes, is "core need"?) P00r 01:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Core need is a concept defined by CMHC. Section 4.3 of the references clearly supports the comment in the article.  Deet 08:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Clean up of Amendments to Citizenship Act
I cleaned up the article, shortened some entries for relevance(rather then deleting). I restored deleted entry from Statistics Canada. Someone apearently though it irrelevant. I think it ´´very´´ relevant, as citizenship rules directly and indirectly affect population growth (or declines) trends. Please refrain from deleting again, no matter how much it hurts. Please keep postings neutral, and refrain from ´´pro´´ or ´´anti´´ immigrant entries. And always cite credible refences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigerjojo98 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Canadians of convenience. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071010052918/http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20060814_131837_131837 to http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20060814_131837_131837
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121113073418/http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/faq/citizenship/index.asp to http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/faq/citizenship/index.asp#rules
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110830195045/http://thecanadianexpat.com/index.php/2009/01/27/new-canadian-citizenship-rules-impact-children-of-expats/ to http://thecanadianexpat.com/index.php/2009/01/27/new-canadian-citizenship-rules-impact-children-of-expats/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)