PR Chance 2024

[jrrrcircle]

Civilized countries use a point system. You get points for age, education level, occupation, language ability, health, dependents etc. Race is not a factor. If more Indians get more points, come in.

So what you're saying is that the racial makeup in Singapore should be solely determined by the percentages of the races and ethnicities that apply? If 90 percent of the applications are Indians, then, statistically speaking, 90 percent of the approvals should be Indian? Or, if it's PRC Chinese that are 90 percent, they should get all the PR's? Or Malaysian Chinese?

Is this not racist in and of itself? If more Indians apply than Vietnamese, then Indians should get more PR's? I can see this working in a country with large populations but with limited PR's in a place like Singapore? Even the USA has quotas by country.

The civilised countries comment he made is really really dumb.

I think a quota system is a great half-way measure. Altho i am kinda on the fence about the quota being used to keep one race 70%. SG can get away with it due to great public relations, but can you imagine the outrage if this was a thing in a "western" state?

call me dumb but i do think the 70/20/10 system will be out one day. Just not in our lifetime so theres no point in complaining about it as what can we really do?

[tiktok]

No, I'm saying race should not be a criteria. The US does not have race quotas, but at times they have had limits on visas per country, but no country has a bigger quota than others.

Many countries including the US had Chinese exclusion laws. Singapore now has the opposite and that's just as bad.

[Strong Eagle]

No, I'm saying race should not be a criteria. The US does not have race quotas, but at times they have had limits on visas per country, but no country has a bigger quota than others.

Many countries including the US had Chinese exclusion laws. Singapore now has the opposite and that's just as bad.

You didn't answer my question. So, if Indians make up 90 percent of the PR applicants then your position is that 90 percent of all PR's granted should be Indian?

[tiktok]

Nope I'm saying if countries want to impose a max per country that's fine. Your question is vague because "Indian" is both a race and nationality. US puts a limit of 7% from any country IINM and I'm fine with that.

Singapore selects Chinese primarily on their race, not nationality. Even Israel doesn't use race as immigration criteria. In fact what country does?

[Strong Eagle]

Nope I'm saying if countries want to impose a max per country that's fine.

Isn't that what the Singapore gahmen is doing right now?

[tiktok]

Duh no it's not. Haven't you noticed every PR or SC discussion on this forum involves the question of ethnicity?

[sundaymorningstaple]

Nobody if forcing anybody to apply for SPR or SGC. If you want it, you know that those requirements and limitations are already in print and virtually carved in stone. Therefore, you have no right to complain as you know the rules and odd of success up front. Therefore you are, as usual, just trying to create the tempest in the teacup as posted by SE earlier.

[tiktok]

Everyone has the right to complain about racist immigration policies. If they didn't, we'd still have White Australia policy and Canada's Chinese head tax.

[sundaymorningstaple]

It's not racist if the same formula is used for any/all races. Here it is governed solely by the existing demographic makeup of the citizen/prs here. these racial percentages have been in existence as long as I've been here (which is right at 42 years next month. They have maintained the same racial demographic of the island as it was when they got the island in 1965. The population has increased but the demographic percentages have remained, for all intents and purposes, the same. It was loosely based on the status quo when the country became a nation apart from Malaysia. You appear to be doing it again.....

[the observer]

Everyone has the right to complain about racist immigration policies. If they didn't, we'd still have White Australia policy and Canada's Chinese head tax.

You sound like a person who has done some research. An innocent question, why aren't you seeking greener pastures?

[Strong Eagle]

Duh no it's not. Haven't you noticed every PR or SC discussion on this forum involves the question of ethnicity?

Take your dunce cap off, tiktok. Indians don't get in because there is a quota on them.

Just like you said...

Nope I'm saying if countries want to impose a max per country that's fine.

That's the bottom line.

PS: What's "ethnicity", tiktok? When it comes to India, for example, it's pretty much nationality equal race equal ethnicity. Yes, I get that there are major ethnic groups, subdivided into numerous sub groups, castes, and tribes. But they are all "Indians". I don't see the Singapore government specifically excluding one group or another... they set a quota on "Indians".

[tiktok]

Ethnicity is not the same as nationality. Although there are many words in English that can be used interchangeably. If someone asks you to prove you have Chinese ancestry, like the SG government does, they are specifically looking at ethnicity.

So on the one hand SE is saying that race is not a criteria, and on the offer SMS says that SGs policy is to maintain the proportions of races in the population. It doesn't take a genius to see the contradiction there.

[gold.spot]

Nope I'm saying if countries want to impose a max per country that's fine. Your question is vague because "Indian" is both a race and nationality. US puts a limit of 7% from any country IINM and I'm fine with that.

Singapore selects Chinese primarily on their race, not nationality. Even Israel doesn't use race as immigration criteria. In fact what country does?

Why is imposition of a country based quota fine? It's just as arbitrary a quota as any.

And with Israel, using religion as a criteria is just as arbitrary as well.

But these make sense to their local populations, for whatever reason they had when putting these criteria in. I think it's safe to say almost all Singaporeans are okay happy with whatever ICA is doing.

[Strong Eagle]

So on the one hand SE is saying that race is not a criteria,

I never said that. I specifically asked the question, "If 90 percent of the applications are from Indians, then do you think that 90 percent of the approved PR's ought to be Indian as well, statistically speaking."

You said quotas by country are OK. But, you weasel out with that remark because you and I both know that India is filled with... well... Indians... many groups, sub groups, and tribes... but all readily identifiable as Indians. And a quota on the country is a quota on the various Indian ethnicities and races.

That's not true for the USA where the racial composition is far more mixed (58% white, 19% Hispanic, 12% black, 6% Asian)... but really, it's not the USA we're talking about when it comes to racial quotas, is it?

[tiktok]

I think a quota system is a great half-way measure. Altho i am kinda on the fence about the quota being used to keep one race 70%. SG can get away with it due to great public relations, but can you imagine the outrage if this was a thing in a "western" state?

call me dumb but i do think the 70/20/10 system will be out one day. Just not in our lifetime so theres no point in complaining about it as what can we really do?

Yes. Quota to prevent too many people from a single country is one thing. Quota to keep one race as an overwhelming majority is something completely different.

Take Canada for example. White people have been there about as long as Chinese have been in Malaya, and have contributed at least as much to the economic development of that country. Imagine if they had an immigration policy that maintained a 70% white population. When you apply for PR, you have to prove your white heritage.