i'm not going to challenge the basis of denial; it's an objective test, and if you're above it then you fail the criterion and don't get to stay. we can have discussions about whether the economy should be based on resources or finances, and argue that artificial scarcity should be abolished, but so long as we live in a society where bankers set the rules, we have limits that need to be abided by. i have to put some trust in the state to arrive at numbers, as i can't derive that myself; whatever the limit is, one should exist.

the problem here strikes me as a lack of communication between government departments. this family was brought here and settled here, then told at the last minute they can't stay. you can't do that. and, they'll win their court battles because of it.

i don't oppose the idea of setting limits on what the country accepts in terms of health care costs. the correct solution is that the united states - a much more populated country - should adopt universal health care. that's what's wrong here, on that level.

but, you can't bring people in and then kick them out - and the courts will uphold that point.

what should come out of this is a change in the process: the feds should be reviewing applications before the province pre-admits them. what that means is that they should not have been accepted in the first place; but, they were, and now you can't just kick them out.

http://globalnews.ca/news/3620003/family-in-shock-after-permanent-residency-denied-by-immigration-canada-due-to-daughters-disability