Same! I went the other way to escape this craziness - now I risk ending up right back where I started.
The company said: “Any buyer will be required to comply with applicable law with respect to the treatment of customer data.”
And let's hold them to that. There's no way a release of someone's DNA isn't a violation of the GDPR, the CCPA, or something similar. And I'd expect it'd also be protected under various health regulation related laws too.
Was this the article? https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/criminal-case-outcomes-ontario-delays-1.7378668
It seems that it's actually quite difficult to get qualifying experience if one does software, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11220591 (since the experience has to be obtained under a P.Eng and it has to fit the safeguarding of life, health, etc criteria (so the work to develop a new gaming app likely isn't going to count).
This is probably why so few folks in software actually have P.Eng as per https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25826520 (regardless of if they use a title with Engineer in it or not).
The other part is that the article mentions that she shouldn't have applied for the visa at either spot on the border but at the consulate,
The officer I spoke to was kind but told me that, due to my previous issues, I needed to apply for my visa through the consulate. I told her I hadn’t been aware I needed to apply that way, but had no problem doing it.
So reapplying from where she got refused is still the wrong advice.
Same here.
The answer is that it depends on Province.
It seems that Quebec is particularly strict here, with Microsoft losing a battle to use the term "Engineers" over two decades ago, https://www.canadianconsultingengineer.com/quebec-order-of-engineers-wins-legal-battle-with-microsoft/
Similarly, it seems there was a lot of activity a couple of years ago in Alberta to protect the term as per https://edmonton.taproot.news/news/2022/10/17/tech-leaders-seek-easing-of-rules-around-software-engineer-designation - with the result that the law is being changed to explicitly exempt "software engineer" from protection as per https://globalnews.ca/news/10084623/engineers-canada-urges-alberta-to-reconsider-change-to-rules-around-engineer-title/
In Ontario specifically - which is the most populated province of Canada - my layman's reading of https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90p28 12 (1),
When licences or certificates required
Licensing requirement
No person shall engage in the practice of professional engineering or hold himself, herself or itself out as engaging in the practice of professional engineering unless the person is the holder of a licence, a temporary licence, a provisional licence or a limited licence.
Similarly, looking at https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/s10016 5(1)
“practice of professional engineering” means any act of planning, designing, composing, evaluating, advising, reporting, directing or supervising that requires the application of engineering principles and concerns the safeguarding of life, health, property, economic interests, the public welfare or the environment, or the managing of any such act; (“exercice de la profession d’ingénieur”)
where use of the software impacts the health, safety or property of its users. PEO considers non-licensed use of “Software Engineer” to be a violation of our Act.
But most software development is not, for example, directly related to health & safety.
Basically in Ontario it seems "professional engineer" is the main regulated term, and "engineer" is only restricted in a subset of limited cases. (Note that this might be a relatively recent change though - the Professional Engineers Act is dated to 1990, but the Open for Business Act from 2010 made a number of changes to it. And it's specific to just Ontario.)
Edit: Now it seems that the Ontario branch of Engineers Canada, Professional Engineers Ontario, isn't quite happy with this state of affairs. They make their case here, https://www.peo.on.ca/public-protection/complaints-and-illegal-practice/report-unlicensed-individuals-or-companies in the "Software engineering and misleading certifications" section near the bottom:
PEO has taken action against the use of the term "engineer" by several software companies. PEO negotiated with Banyan Systems to revise its training materials to replace the term "Certified Banyan Engineer" with "CBE". PEO also requested that Microsoft Canada Inc., replace the terms "Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer" and "Microsoft Certified Professional Systems Engineer" with alternate terms that do not use the word "engineer", to avoid violating the Professional Engineers Act and trademark legislation.
On July 25, 2002 Microsoft Canada announced that they will continue to use the term 'engineer' as part of the Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer (MCSE) designation.
The rest of the page is just about how to report misuse of the "professional engineer" term, e.g.
use the title "professional engineer" or an abbreviation or variation as an occupational designation
It's quite telling then that the vast majority of jobs in Canada with the title "Network Engineer" are for companies based in Ontario, at least looking at https://ca.indeed.com/q-network-engineer-jobs.html?vjk=4d0293c813a90300
There are other cases of courts declaring engineering to be unprotected, see for example https://www.smartbiggar.ca/insights/publication/canadian-council-of-professional-engineers-fails-to-prevent-registration-of-engineering-mark
Any thought of Canada joining the European Union would be dead.
Sounds to me like we shouldn't wait to do this then. Join now before it's too late, so to speak.
This is pretty old by now, but it was a good starting point for such a big move, written by a USian who had gone personally gone through it, https://dunelm.wordpress.com/moving-to-the-uk/us-to-uk-moving-tips/
I'm also a fan of expatica generally, and they have some good resources on the UK, see for example https://www.expatica.com/uk/moving/relocation/moving-to-the-uk-checklist-693978/
Good luck!
Another article, https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/china-executes-canadians-drug-related-crime-1.7487764 explains that all four were in fact dual citizens.
However, from that article,
The embassy said the cases were handled "in strict accordance with the law" and that the rights and interests of the Canadians were "fully guaranteed."
And from the original article,
China "protects the legitimate rights of the parties concerned as well as the consular rights of the Canadian side, in accordance with the law"
These together read to me like a coded reference to Article 12.3 of https://travel.gc.ca/assistance/emergency-info/consular/framework/china which states,
A national of the sending State entering the receiving State with valid travel documents of the sending State will, during the period for which his status has been accorded on a limited basis by visa or lawful visa-free entry, be considered as a national of the sending State by the appropriate authorities of the receiving State with a view to ensuring consular access and protection by the sending State.
I.e. these folks probably intended to just be treated like any other Canadian by entering China on their Canadian passports somehow. (One method might be to take advantage of the visa-free transit policy, see http://vancouver.china-consulate.gov.cn/eng/ggjry/202412/t20241219/_11502288.htm )
I'm not convinced in any case that dual nationality had much effect on this, as China has enforced these laws before on folks who didn't have it and clearly weren't in any way Chinese, for example see this case of a British Citizen, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/dec/29/akmal-shaikh-execution-china
For the record, I'm against the death penalty and wish national conditions would emerge in such a way as to permit China to gradually abolish it. However, there's also a lot of history behind why China is specifically so strongly against drugs (see https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-02/modern-china-and-the-legacy-of-the-opium-wars/10172386 for an overview).
To be fair, recent events like https://lemmy.ca/post/41181182 and https://lemmy.ca/post/41102961 or https://lemmy.ca/post/41065802 or https://lemmy.ca/post/41091031 suggest it'd be harder for them to move over to the US now than it used to be. At least as Canadians.
Most likely, the only realistic option they have for moving to the US would be to attract someone and marryH^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HH
The only realistic option for them is for Canada join the US as a single country. Which is still wildly unrealistic. But it's all they have, sad as it is.
That being said, if a future option opens up - say from a new treaty provides an option where they irreversibly renounce being Canadian in return for getting US citizenship - I wouldn't necessarily say no to that.