Karas: Canada needs an immediate reset on immigration

More commentary arguing for greater emphasis on program integrity and security:

…The federal government must therefore recalibrate all immigration programs. That means stronger pre-arrival screening, improving intelligence-sharing with allies, conducting in-person interviews where warranted, and ensuring that background checks are proportionate to risk. It means holding educational institutions accountable for the students they admit. And it means enforcing existing laws when visas expire or conditions are violated.

Above all, it means acknowledging that public support for immigration depends on confidence in the system’s integrity. When Canadians believe the rules are applied inconsistently—or not at all—support inevitably weakens. A sustainable immigration program requires both generosity and discipline.

Canada can remain open without being careless. It can welcome newcomers while insisting on higher standards, better vetting, and meaningful enforcement. Failing to do so does not serve immigrants, refugees, or Canadians alike. It simply invites cynicism—and risks undermining one of the country’s most important national projects.

Source: OP-ED: Canada needs an immediate reset on immigration

Lederman: Find out if your kin were Nazis – in seconds

Discovering some uncomfortable truths:

…For many descendants of German and Austrian families, it has been easy to hang onto vague family stories of Second World War resistance. Now, it has become easier to disturb that comfortable narrative. 

“Research your family’s Nazi past here,” offers an online resource launched by German newspaper Die Zeit. The publication has downloaded digitized documents released by the U.S. National Archives, which were seized at the end of the Second World War. Subscribers can plug in family names and discover whether relatives were card-carrying members of the Nazi party – and view the actual cards themselves.

This has led to a reckoning – a timely one, even with cards dating back decades. …

Source: Find out if your kin were Nazis – in seconds

Correct link to database: https://catalog.archives.gov/search-within/12044361



Immigration Minister faces criticism from lawyers after interview with influencer

Yet another misstep:

Immigration Minister Lena Metlege Diab is under fire from immigration lawyers for conducting an interview where she discussed forthcoming policy with a social-media influencer who also runs platforms for foreign nationals hoping to settle or study in Canada. 

Ms. Metlege Diab earlier this month conducted a 30-minute interview with Max Medyk about immigration policy, including about a soon-to be announced program allowing thousands of temporary residents to apply for permanent residency, or PR. 

She suggested the program, which has yet to be announced, would be available to people living outside big metropolitan areas. 

During the interview, Mr. Medyk drew the minister’s attention to a site he founded allowing foreign nationals to search for jobs that can lead to PR, and a property rental site used by newcomers and others he acts as an ambassador for. 

The Canadian Immigration Lawyers Association, a non-profit organization with about 500 members, wrote to Ms. Metlege Diab Wednesday expressing concern that she had given indications about a forthcoming policy allowing temporary residents to apply for PR during the interview. CILA’s director Grace Allen said details about the temporary residence to PR program, first referenced in last year’s budget, was being communicated in a piecemeal way including through “commercial and monetized social media platforms,” before being verified by the Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada department, leading to confusion and anxiety among prospective newcomers….

Source: Immigration Minister faces criticism from lawyers after interview with influencer

Jamie Sarkonak: Canada keeps asking non-citizen criminals to stop. They obviously don’t

These policies provide fodder for anti-immigration attitudes and diminish trust in government policies and practices:

…Toothless warnings are only part of why Canada has a reputation for nonchalance towards crime. Non-citizens can also receive sentence discounts to lessen their chances of deportation in some cases, and the deportation process offers many opportunities for criminals to challenge, appeal and delay. The entire system tells outsiders that respect for our rules is optional, and that we’ll do what we can to excuse their bad behaviour. While they enjoy their third, fourth and fifth chances, we have to endure watching our once-high-trust society erode away.

While we don’t have a detailed breakdown of how many stern warning letters have been sent, and how many went ignored by people who went on to commit more crime, we ought to stop the practice entirely. The immigration system isn’t a rehab; it’s a filter that should be working to keep Canadians safe.

Source: Jamie Sarkonak: Canada keeps asking non-citizen criminals to stop. They obviously don’t

Propos sur le « frérisme »: Ottawa accuse le chef du PQ de propager « une théorie du complot »

Valid criticism of PQ:

« Je pense que cela ressemble pas mal à une théorie du complot », a déploré mercredi le député de la région de Québec et ex-ministre Jean-Yves Duclos.

« La politique la plus facile, c’est celle de diviser. Il faut absolument travailler autrement dans le contexte mondial dans lequel on vit. Il faut qu’on soit unis et que l’on travaille ensemble et éviter de se polariser comme d’autres pays le font », a-t-il ajouté.

Pour sa part, le ministre de l’Identité et de la Culture canadiennes, Marc Miller, a qualifié de « ridicules » les propos du chef péquiste.

Le libéral réagissait aux déclarations de Paul St-Pierre Plamondon qui a affirmé que le « frérisme » – une idéologie prônée par les Frères musulmans qui vise à islamiser les sociétés occidentales – « est une réalité documentée dans plusieurs pays d’Europe », mais que « la seule raison pourquoi on ne la documente pas au Canada, c’est que c’est l’agenda du gouvernement en place ».

« Je suis désolé, mais c’est ça », a soutenu le chef du Parti québécois, qui a ajouté que le « Québec n’étant pas un pays est subordonné à des décisions et à un service de renseignements absolument pas orienté par l’intérêt public à [son] avis ».

Il a tenu ses propos lors d’une assemblée publique (townhall) organisée par Centre consultatif des relations juives et israéliennes, le 15 avril. Il répondait alors à une question de Léo Dupire, du groupe de droite Québec Fier, qui lui demandait de reconnaître « qu’il y a un problème avec l’immigration musulmane de masse ». M. Dupire relaie lui-même l’extrait sur les réseaux sociaux.

Le leader souverainiste apporte rapidement des nuances à la question de son interlocuteur. « Je vise la paix sociale », affirme-t-il. M. St-Pierre Plamondon déplore ensuite « l’immigration incontrôlée » imposée par Ottawa et propose de « revenir à l’immigration planifiée ».

« Je n’irais pas à dire l’immigration musulmane parce que j’ai eu plusieurs discussions avec des gens qui ont fui des régimes iraniens, saoudiens, afghans. Des gens qui disent : “Moi, j’ai vu comment une société peut virer et je suis conscient du totalitarisme religieux, donc j’ai choisi le Québec pour ne pas vivre là-dedans” », explique le chef péquiste, qui dit vouloir « inclure tout le monde » dans la discussion.

Le Conseil national des musulmans canadiens a dénoncé des déclarations qui ne font « qu’alimenter la peur entre les Québécois avec des idées importées d’Europe ».

« Les propos tenus par M. St-Pierre Plamondon sont à l’image de sa rhétorique habituelle qui laisse planer la suspicion envers nos concitoyens de confession musulmane. En tant que prétendant au pouvoir, il doit être capable d’affirmer clairement que les Québécois de confession musulmane ne sont pas une menace pour notre société », a déploré le président-directeur général, Stephen Brown.

Dans un point de presse mardi à Québec, Paul St-Pierre Plamondon a rappelé que le Parti québécois « est capable d’attirer des candidatures de toutes les religions » qui sont « d’accord sur le contrat social qu’incarne » sa formation politique. Les candidats péquistes dans Jeanne-Mance–Viger et Anjou–Louis-Riel sont notamment de confession musulmane.

De « l’aveuglement volontaire »

Le leader péquiste a également précisé ses propos à l’égard d’Ottawa, mardi. « L’agenda, c’est le multiculturalisme et l’aveuglement devant l’ingérence étrangère », a-t-il expliqué.

Selon lui, il y a matière à inquiétude sur le phénomène du « frérisme » : « Ce serait surprenant qu’il n’y ait pas cette forme d’ingérence étrangère au Québec alors qu’on est en train de la documenter de manière assez précise dans plusieurs pays européens. » Il montre du doigt « la doctrine fédérale » qui est « de fermer les yeux » et d’ouvrir les vannes de l’immigration.

« C’est ce que Trudeau appelait le postnational. Le postnational, c’est un peu l’effondrement de l’État national qui surveille ses intérêts, puis qui voit à une planification », a-t-il dit, ajoutant ne pas observer de changement avec l’arrivée de Mark Carney.

Le ministre des Transports, Steven MacKinnon, s’est montré tout aussi cinglant que Jean-Yves Duclos. « L’agenda du gouvernement, c’est d’assurer la prospérité et la qualité de vie de l’ensemble des Canadiens. Mais venant du gars qui a regardé la caméra pour dire aux gens de l’Outaouais : “C’est ça qui est ça. Vous allez perdre votre job, mais vous allez agir en bons Québécois quand même”, cela ne me surprend pas », a-t-il décoché.

Source: Propos sur le « frérisme »: Ottawa accuse le chef du PQ de propager « une théorie du complot »

“I think it looks a lot like a conspiracy theory,” lamented Quebec City region MP and former Minister Jean-Yves Duclos on Wednesday.

“The easiest policy is to divide. It is absolutely necessary to work differently in the global context in which we live. We must be united and work together and avoid polarizing ourselves as other countries do, “he added.

For his part, the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, Marc Miller, described the words of the Péquista leader as “ridiculous”.

The liberal reacted to the statements of Paul St-Pierre Plamondon who said that “fraerism” – an ideology advocated by the Muslim Brotherhood that aims to Islamize Western societies – “is a documented reality in several European countries”, but that “the only reason why it is not documented in Canada is that it is the agenda of the government in place”.

“I’m sorry, but that’s it,” said the leader of the Parti Québécois, who added that “Quebec, not being a country, is subject to decisions and an intelligence service absolutely not oriented by the public interest to [his] opinion.”

He made his remarks at a public meeting (townhall) organized by the Advisory Center for Jewish and Israeli Relations on April 15. He then answered a question from Léo Dupire, of the right-wing group Québec Fier, who asked him to recognize “that there is a problem with mass Muslim immigration”. Mr. Dupire relays the excerpt himself on social networks.

The sovereignist leader quickly brings nuances to the question of his interlocutor. “I aim for social peace,” he says. Mr. St-Pierre Plamondon then deplores “the uncontrolled immigration” imposed by Ottawa and proposes to “return to planned immigration”.

“I would not go to say Muslim immigration because I have had several discussions with people who have fled Iranian, Saudi, Afghan regimes. People who say: “I have seen how a society can turn and I am aware of religious totalitarianism, so I chose Quebec not to live in it,” explains the Pequist leader, who says he wants to “include everyone” in the discussion.

The National Council of Canadian Muslims denounced statements that “only fuel fear among Quebecers with ideas imported from Europe”.

“The remarks made by Mr. St-Pierre Plamondon are in the image of his usual rhetoric that leaves suspicion towards our fellow citizens of Muslim faith. As a contender for power, he must be able to clearly state that Muslim Quebecers are not a threat to our society, “lamented President and CEO Stephen Brown.

In a press briefing on Tuesday in Quebec City, Paul St-Pierre Plamondon recalled that the Parti Québécois “is able to attract applications from all religions” who are “agree on the social contract that embodies” its political formation. The Péquist candidates in Jeanne-Mance–Viger and Anjou–Louis-Riel are in particular Muslim.

Of “voluntary blindness”

The Pequist leader also clarified his remarks about Ottawa on Tuesday. “The agenda is multiculturalism and blindness to foreign interference,” he explained.

According to him, there is cause for concern about the phenomenon of “frarism”: “It would be surprising if there was no such thing as this form of foreign interference in Quebec when it is being documented quite precisely in several European countries. He points to “the federal doctrine” which is “to close the eyes” and open the floodges of immigration.

“This is what Trudeau called the postnational. The post-national is a bit of the collapse of the national state that monitors its interests, then sees to planning, “he said, adding that he did not observe any change with the arrival of Mark Carney.

Transport Minister Steven MacKinnon was just as scathing as Jean-Yves Duclos. “The government’s agenda is to ensure the prosperity and quality of life for all Canadians. But coming from the guy who looked at the camera to say to the people of the Outaouais: “That’s what it is. You will lose your job, but you will act like good Quebecers anyway,” it does not surprise me, “he said.

Reclaiming control, restoring caution – Fixing Canada’s broken immigration system: Michael Barutciski

The latest by Barutciski, a good long read to increase the diversity of perspectives. My comments in italics:

..Recommendations

To address Canada’s ongoing immigration-related challenges, the federal government should:

  • In coordination with our allies, including but not limited to the Five Eyes countries, the federal government should explore the development of stricter policies to oblige uncooperative countries of origin to accept the return of their nationals. [Likely would also result in issues with respect to Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA)]
  • Amend section 18(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to clarify that entering Canada in between Ports of Entry is an illegal act with administrative consequences. Likewise, the federal government should amend section 27 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations to remove any ambiguities that could exempt foreigners who enter illegally to claim asylum. In the spirit of continental harmonization to control migration flows, Parliament should consider making illegal entry an offence under the Criminal Code. [Expected court cases on C-12 may provide indication on whether this would hold up]
  • Amend section 3 of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act to clarify that immigrants are not only rights holders, but that they also have an obligation to integrate. Proficiency in at least one official language is an important, although not the only, indicator of integration. [Act already encourages official language knowledge and has always been about integration, “while strengthening the status and use of the official languages of Canada”]
  • Rescind the 1932 Order in Council that gave the RCMP the border protection mandate in between ports of entry. The federal government should concurrently amend section 5(1) of the Canada Border Services Agency Act to clarify that CBSA is responsible for border control and security across the entire land border, including in between land Ports of Entry. [Feasible]
  • Revise the security screening process for admission of foreign nationals with a view to increasing the weight and influence of CBSA assessments. [Feasible]
  • Refine the terminology in section 34(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act so that its use by CBSA will not be easily blocked by legislative interpretations from judges who are reluctant to apply the inadmissibility provisions. [Might be useful to have greater clarity and guidelines]
  • Amend section 34(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act so that it is easier for a CBSA officer at a Port of Entry to deny entry to foreigners in situations where there are reasonable grounds to believe they will promote hate or engage in inflammatory public rhetoric. [Has been happening in some cases. Definitions and guidelines will be critical]
  • Increase CBSA’s powers to investigate potential criminal contraventions under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, as well as amending the Criminal Code to include tougher penalties for employers who exploit migrants. [Agree]
  • Direct the CBSA to explore whether an expanded use of ankle bracelets, as well as UK-style Digital IDs and eVisas, would be an acceptable way to control and track down migrants who are suspected of potentially not conforming to Canadian laws. [To replace detention?]
  • Expand the concept of surety bonds in immigration law to incentivize temporary residents to leave at the end of their visas. This new use of surety bonds would result in significant financial penalties to temporary residents if they were not to comply with their legal obligation to leave the country. [Arguably, these could be shared with employers, educations institutions and the like]
  • Restrict, and eventually suspend, visa issuance to nationals of a country deemed by CBSA to be uncooperative in terms of accepting the return of their nationals. Likewise, international assistance should also be restricted and eventually suspended to any such uncooperative country of origin. The role of CBSA in this regard should be introduced via legislative amendment to the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act. [Restrict is one thing, completely suspend would not be realistic given that there will be always be some cases where a visa still needs to be issued, ranging from economic interests to diplomatic obligations. Same applies to international assistance as some is provided through international organizations that Canada contributes to.]

Conclusion

Canada’s immigration system is causing controversy because it is showing signs of becoming dysfunctional. It is not simply a question of adjusting intake numbers that have become too high and that increased too quickly. As many officials and observers have noted, including most recently the Auditor General, some parts of the system are being abused and appear out of control.

To be truly effective, the federal government’s announced course correction should follow several broad directions. Temporary migration must stop playing a central role in the system. Various problems have been introduced by this recent shift towards a two-step immigration process that is conducted entirely within Canada. Moreover, it has led to unacceptable comprises regarding migration control.

System integrity will also be impossible to preserve without a fundamental rethinking of asylum and the way it has facilitated uncontrolled mass migration. It is clear that political courage will be necessary as institutions are reformed and mandated to improve enforcement.

By refocusing on the selection quality of candidates for permanent residence, the country will be better positioned to address the integration challenges that inevitably come from the diverse migration flows of the 21st century. A central part of this equation is for the government to show it can balance fairness with rigour. Following that, Canadians will be able to feel secure knowing that their immigration system is working properly.


About the author

Michael Barutciski is a professor at York University’s Glendon School of Public and International Affairs and a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.

Source: Reclaiming control, restoring caution – Fixing Canada’s broken immigration system, Vol. 4: Michael Barutciski

So you want to be Canadian, eh? Changes in immigration law will make it easier for Americans

Nothing new in the description but Fen Hampson nails it:

…Fen Hampson, professor of international affairs at Carleton University in Ottawa, said Canadians are generally a “welcoming people.”

“I think where people start looking askance is someone who’s never been to Canada, who has very thin ties. They can get a passport, becoming Canadians of convenience. People don’t like that,” he said.

Hampson said some also worry a surge of interest from Americans could delay efforts by refugees and asylum-seekers fleeing vulnerable situations.

“Canadians don’t like queue jumpers,” Hampson said.

Source: So you want to be Canadian, eh? Changes in immigration law will make it easier for Americans

The Other Right to Choose: Reversing the Trudeau Immigration Fiasco

Another example of conservative immigration commentary, somewhat caricatural, extreme and definitely partisan, but important to understand these perspectives and the risks of denying some of their valid points:

…Remaining attractive also means preserving what draws immigrants now. It means understanding that these conditions didn’t occur by chance, they had something to do with the people and culture that built it. And that a vibrant, innovative economy relies on the rule of law, a high-trust society and social cohesion. These in turn depend on a common culture and shared values which – note to progressives – are a lot more than mere “tolerance” (i.e., indifference). Preserving all that, if only to attract and keep newcomers, will mean, as controversial as it is to some, excluding individuals or groups with entrenched beliefs or cultural practices that undermine it.

In order to compete, we’ll have to be even more “ruthlessly smart”, to hearken back to that long-ago New York Timescommentary, which logically should centre upon a rigorous, adaptable points system. A system that rests on the assumption that immigration serves Canadians and our children first and foremost, not primarily the possible future immigrants or their extended families, let alone the utopian abstraction of open borders with unlimited migration. This points system must include overhauling our asylum policies, because no viable nation can allow itself to be swamped by whoever happens to turn up.

But the political minefields around such reform have already been laid. The Left believes our system – the very fact that we even choose – is a “moral failure,” that the “sorting systems” set up by wealthy nations “filter out the most useful people while condemning the rest to destitution.” But our gut instinct, that we can’t let in everyone and that not all newcomers are created equal, is confirmed by the various studies.

Regions with the most qualified applicants will fare better, resulting in source-country admission disparities. Cue up the accusations of “systemic barriers” and prejudice. Back in my day, our Liberal opposition already claimed we hated Chinese when admissions from Hong Kong dropped slightly.

My family’s experience was that it’s better to be a refugee than to be dead. And it’s vastly better to be in Canada than to be a refugee. But we got in through Canada’s choice, based on Canada’s needs, not our hopes.

This is egalitarianism taken to self-destructive absurdity, the belief that lifting only some – not all – out of destitution is unfair. It glosses over the fact that the past Heinrichs and most of the present ones, while often refugees, are fundamentally economic migrants. They have every right to seek a better life – but we have every right to choose.

Cultural changes will be even more fraught. Agreeing on and preserving whatever pixie dust makes Canada attractive to immigrants now and got us here in the first place is an incendiary topic. Academic ideologues view talk of “common values” as “code words” meant to sustain “unequal social hierarchies.” Preservation of “Canadian heritage” and “Canadian values” is thought to have a “racial subtext.” And if you believe that “white Eurocentric culture in Canada…perpetuates colonial power dynamics,” you might not like points-based immigration. Sadly, threads of such thinking extend right to the Liberal government benches.

My family’s experience was that it’s better to be a refugee than to be dead. And it’s vastly better to be in Canada than to be a refugee. But we got in through Canada’s choice, based on Canada’s needs, not our hopes. Worked then, and would work now.

John Weissenberger is a Calgary-based geologist and former executive at a provincial agency. He was Chief of Staff to the federal Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2007-2008.

Source: The Other Right to Choose: Reversing the Trudeau Immigration Fiasco

Canada changed citizenship rules and Americans are making the most of it

More coverage on the increase of interest among American residents:

…Canada’s move is unusual at a time when many countries are tightening requirements for citizenship. A year ago, Italy passed a law restricting citizenship to the descendants of an Italian-born parent or grandparent, rather than the previous rule, which had no generational limit.

In 2024 Finland increased the required time living in the country before applying for citizenship to eight years from five. The change was said to promote integration by focusing on language skills and long-term residency. Sweden is considering a similar move to take effect this year.

Source: Canada changed citizenship rules and Americans are making the most of it

Globe editorial: Ottawa’s reforms to economic migration have (half) a point

Yep:

…If Ottawa is serious about using immigration to grow the economy, decisions shouldn’t be made on a minister’s whim or under pressure from lobby groups seeking to fill short-term labour gaps. Canada’s points-based system served us well for years before changes under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau damaged it. 

These proposed reforms are a step in the right direction. While enacting them, the government should get rid of category selections, and use general rounds to pick economic immigrants. This will get Canada back to a system that truly selects the best talent in the world.

Source: Ottawa’s reforms to economic migration have (half) a point