Regional disparties and prejudicial government policies

Hey thanks for all the feedback on my idea guys, with all this constructive criticism there might be room in our survey (after a little tweaking) for a correlation between admission and settlement after all...

I'd like to work off Jessica's point for a second and consider the notion of the Canadian government accepting 'cream of the crop' immigrants. I don't want to get too far ahead of ourselves here, but lets say hypothetically we could associate this type of immigrant to one of the admission categories or criteria; linking an immigrant who utilizes one of the criterion as a 'preferred' immigrant of the government to one who chooses say, familial ties to get into BC. If we then survey respondents based on their chosen method of immigration, categorizing them into 'preferred' or 'not preferred' types of immigrants I think we may soon find not only that the former number of immigrants will exceed the latter, but that those preferred immigrants may indicate far easier times settling into BC (ie: successfully applying for permanent residency).

I think Hiram was also on the right track suggesting that immigrants who have stood up to the challenges of immigration and stayed in Canada might closely relate their success to their perceived difficulties during the admissions process. In other words, the (hypothetical) bias or prejudice of the government's admissions standards may share a direct relationship with the immigrants settlement experience.

What do you guys think?