| The Global Skills Strategy is only for a certain category of employers, mainly large ones. A startup cannot use that to hire a worker. [1] > more points for an applicant with a bachelor's degree in computer science from anywhere in the world Quebec's immigration system is not point based as of now. Its FCFS. Though they say its points based, there is no indication from statistics that MIDI selects workers based on points. In fact, MIDI is a blackbox when it comes to revealing the strategy that they use to select workers while Federal Express Entry is fully transparent. Bachelor's degree holders in Comp. Sc are waiting for more than 5 years for a CSQ from Quebec, while they can immigrate to other provinces within months ! There are reports of systematic discrimination by MIDI regarding the selection of applicants based on their citizenship. As a US citizen, its no wonder you are given priority than applicants from third world countries. There are two class action suites against MIDI currently regarding systematic discrimination in selecting applicants. [2] [5] [7] Ombudsman's Annual Report About MIDI says there are 31,378 applications pending as of March 31, 2017. [3] > Quebec will still give them a leg up based on that experience if they later apply for permanent residence That has been on hold with no explanation from MIDI since 2017. [4] MIDI systematically discriminates applicants even in French priority category (PEQ) if they are from China or India [5] A forum where applicants discuss about delays from MIDI [6] [1] https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/se... [2] https://imk.ca/en/rahim-and-rhia-basnet-v-midi/ [3] http://publications.virtualpaper.com/protecteur-du-citoyen/e... [4] http://www.journaldemontreal.com/2018/02/27/des-travailleurs... [5] http://chalkimmigration.com/2018/04/29/update-peq-group-judi... [6] https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-boa... [7] http://oreopoulos.faculty.economics.utoronto.ca/wp-content/u... |
But again, many of these statements rely on inaccurate assumptions, overlook important nuances or past/present/near-future changes on each system, are not supported by the linked cites, or are otherwise inaccurate or leave the wrong impression.
I have no reason to doubt that you're discussing in good faith with good motives. But if you're learning conclusions like those in these comments from media pundits or social network posts, you may want to prefer primary sources, pay close attention to details when examining or discussing any source, and give targeted cites corresponding precisely to each point you want to support.
Have a good weekend, and see you here Sunday night or Monday if this post's conversation activity is still going.