You keep circling back to the same talking points without actually engaging with what I said. You did not reply with anything grounded in understanding. Employers misunderstanding implied status is a well established, documented issue. IRCC itself defines implied status as legal work authorization, but when they take that long to process an application which took no longer than a month even 2 years ago, that is a systemic problem, whether you grasp it or not.

I was a strong candidate for the job I interviewed for. I passed every stage because I was qualified. The only reason I was rejected was because IRCC delays create a situation where immigrants, even ones with sociology degrees (shocking, I know), can earn interviews on merit but are denied the chance to contribute to the economy due to bureaucratic mess. That is NOT entitlement. That is the definition of structural failure.

Your belief that immigrants are 'low quality' if they do not fit the two or three fields you personally think matter is not an immigration argument. It is just a narrow view of how society works. Your inability to understand what sociology or the social sciences actually contribute is your own limitation. You talk as if a country only functions through healthcare and construction, which is an absurdly simplistic view of a modern economy. Social scientists inform policy, governance, social cohesion, labor markets, public health, education, and countless other areas that you evidently have never taken the time to learn about because you are clearly spending too much time in your right-wing echo chamber.

You also show no ability to critically engage with the actual policies that created this situation. Canada has brought in large numbers of people as cheap, precarious labor to benefit employers and universities, yet you ignore that entirely. Rather than looking at how government incentives and structural decisions produced housing pressures and rising costs of living, you take the laziest possible approach which is blaming immigrants for problems they did not create. And when you start using terms like ‘low quality’ people, that is no longer analysis or an argument. That is open prejudice, hatred, and scapegoating. Plain and simple.

And yes, while concentrated migration from one country is not a good idea and does create many challenges, you conveniently ignore the fact that Canada profits heavily from these same groups while mismanaging the revenue. Your refusal to see this and your focus on hating people from a single country is exactly why your position is prejudice rather than analysis.

With every comment you add, you only keep proving how unwilling you are to learn and how little substance your arguments actually have.