Canadian immigration says son with Asperger’s ‘inadmissible’

Post Reply New Topic

Seems pretty unlikely to me that someone who is employed as a university academic wouldn't be able to pay his mildly disabled son's health care costs or wouldn't be able to leave a decent inheritance to his kid.

Is this guy currently doing anything with his life? Would this be any different if he was working (at least enough to cover the $7000 a year) or studying?

Reminds me of an Australian case a few years ago with a Doctor who's family was refused permanent residency because he had a son with Down's. In that case public outcry and ministerial intervention helped turn things around, maybe it will end up being the same here.

People do not buy health insurance in Canada but the government provides health insurance for free in exchange for payment of taxes. Therefore regardless of your income everyone is entitled to free health care coverage. Unfortunately Canada feels that autistics are a burden on society and since they can't deny health care coverage even to people that can afford to pay for it themselves the cheapest thing to do is bar autistics from entering the country.

This is a true statement.

It is certainly cheaper to bar them. I always thought Canada would be a great place to settle en masse. This travesty only makes me want to do it more.

Explain your statements Mr. G, dude.

Canada I feel is a place that takes pride in its liberal approach to most issues no matter which government seems to be in power. The nearest comparison is Norway or Sweden. It is also conveniently for us a very large place that can be quite peaceful. It would seem a natural place to want to live for us in large numbers and not be bothered if some of us wanted that, which I believe is true.

As for what has happened now it spurs me to action because I am not a burden on anyone. I could prove this time and again but the fact is many people alledge that what is true for one of us is true for all of us whether or not it has been proven conclusively, despite the prevailing (if flawed) model of the spectrum, without any consideration of environmentally-influenced psychological factors not to mention the controversy that springs up around us all the time that can distort the truth. If the most capable go in with a plan to just set up and become even marginally productive without any need for government assistance we can spear this prevailing view in its ass before it becomes entrenched and I am sure everyone here knows that unreflective, entrenched views about what they are are the bane of their existence.

I find that what I do in advocacy is part of that solution. The other compromise for some is to reject the label instead of wanting to redefine it because they don't find themselves disabled. Autism however is a disability label created to assist people with developmental related disabilities that are disabled in life limiting ways by the condition. Other then the guilt factor of costing others money and the peer pressure to make autism be that great thing for issues like this and others I find it's better to face reality. Those that do not find themselves substantially disabled are similar to those who are and to create means of inclusion such as what I do and I encourage others to do in macro PR should assist and lead similar efforts. These solutions will not come by fighting facts which are true for some but not others but embracing a common sense that realizes while similarities exist solution should come from us rather then leaders blaming people around us and creating hard feelings. Leadership can be so very effective and life changing with better approaches and simple undertakings on a larger scale.

Starting our own country would be a great idea, as we could probably run it better than the neurotypicals can. Autistics are my 1st choice for people to run a country, as they can think for themselves. My 2nd choice would be Atheists as they are godless, and religion wouldn't blind their rule.

I must be honest. I don't really like Canadian bacon as it taste like ham.

Yay, massive slippery slope and false singular failures. First, a group of people with shared characteristics don't think as one. They're not the bloody borg. Most probably have no idea of what we think and many probably don't register it. Also there's a big difference between not liking us and trying to obliterate us you smokingly ignorant idiot.

Enough with the name calling. It takes one to know one. (That counts too)

So avoid the obtuse accusations and unrealisic depictions of how people want to harm us and focus on the fact that I called him names. You sure don't have your priorities straight, or maybe you do.

Calling people names like stupid, ignorant and idiot are my pet peeve. Realistically you can win arguments better without the name calling.

So much for the much-vaunted system of Canadian Socialized Medicine.

So you prefer obtuse arguments with theories of why other people disagree with you? All that does is replace a direct frankness with a sleazy, underhanded bent and does you no credit.

Being a poor sport on the matter of name calling won't get you that far. Just refrain from it and you will be more successful. You to have theories and that is a natural part of thinking. Without assumptions to test we would be think-less beings. To achieve understanding and absolute fact however name calling seems to distract from the intent of a more so scientific process in social analytics. No one is psychic in the regard of mind reading absolutes.