They aim to stop the “talent drain” with economic sanctions.
Nuevo
Agregar La Derecha Diario en
Compartir:
A proposal that emerged during the convention of the Liberal Party of Canada, a party that is part of the governing coalition, sparked strong controversy when it raised the possibility of charging up to 500,000 dollars to citizens who decide to emigrate, especially to the United States. During the debate, the proposal was explicitly formulated: "Do you want to go to the United States? Give me back my money
.”
The focus of the discussion revolved around the so-called “talent drain”. During the presentation, it was mentioned that approximately 30,000 highly qualified Canadians are crossing the border thanks to the TN visa, a permit that allows them to work in the United States for renewable periods of up to three years, with relatively simple requirements and close to
30 dollars.
According to the proposal, this facility would encourage the departure of professionals trained in Canada to the American labor market, where salaries can be significantly higher. As an example, we mentioned the case of job offers of up to 300,000 dollars per year, accessible practically just by showing up at the border and applying for the corresponding visa
.
In this context, one of the central arguments was that the Canadian State invests large sums in the educational training of its citizens. For this reason, it was proposed that those who decide to emigrate “return” the money invested
in their training.
According to this position, which completely leaves aside individual freedom, emigration is seen as a direct economic loss for the country. Under this logic, it was proposed that restricting this flow or requiring compensation could generate an estimated savings of between 5 and 10 billion dollars annually
. The Canadian Prime Minister was present at the convention.
The proposal included two possible paths: directly closing access to this type of visa or establishing a high economic penalty for those who choose to emigrate. Both alternatives generated strong rejection, since they involve directly or indirectly restricting civil liberties
.
Although it is not a formal legislative project, the fact that the proposal emerged at a ruling convention exposes the growing concern within the government about emigration to more competitive economies, as well as the willingness to advance individual liberties to try to curb it.
