A populist myth about immigration courts and public opinion: evidence from the US and Sweden | openDemocracy

Interesting analysis on the differences in decisions between individual immigration adjudicators. Sean Rehaag has does similar analysis with respect to IRB decision makers (Refugee approval rates reflect subjectivity of decision-makers, prof says – Montreal – CBC News):

Contemporary populist movements on the right in Sweden and the US believe in a collusion between elite institutions such as courts and marginalized groups such as immigrants. The “people”, they believe, are really against immigration. Courts therefore go against the will of the people.

These populist movements claim that such a collusion poses an existential threat to their respective nations by furthering mass immigration. And they see themselves as the only ones that can save their nation.

Screenshot of Breitbart front page headline, July 9, 2017.

Some immigration scholars even argue that while popular opinion in western countries favours restrictionism, the autonomy and human rights concerns of the judiciary has ensured the permanency of mass immigration.

But the available evidence from the US and Sweden presents a different picture. Immigration courts are influenced by politics and ideology and exhibit significant variation in decision outcomes. Popular sentiment on immigration is mixed and shifting but is far from uniformly anti-immigrant.

Variation and ideology in immigration court decisions

In asylum applications that end up in immigration court, we find that the judiciary is far from uniformly trigger happy to approve cases. In the United States, major variation exists between liberal states, such as California, and conservative states, such as Georgia. Between 2012-2017 immigration judges in Atlanta, Georgia had a 79-91% denial rate, while those in San Francisco, California exhibited a much more fluctuating rate between 9-94%. But even in San Francisco, considered to be the pinnacle of the American progressive city, there were major differences between individual judges. Out of 21 judges, four had a denial rate of over 50%, while seven had a rejection rate below 20%.

Statistics aside, American immigration courts have structural features that can undermine due process. Dana Marks, a veteran immigration judge in San Francisco, described some of these features to Mother Jones magazine: “the federal rules of evidence don’t apply, the judges don’t have contempt authority over attorneys… We don’t have court reporters.”

In Sweden, an executive officer at the Swedish Migration Agency told me that less than 5% of all rejected asylum decisions are overturned in court. Two recent studies on Swedish immigration courts partly explain why this is the case. The economist Linna Martén has demonstrated that political party affiliation influences the decision-making of immigration jury members. Simply put, jury members from conservative parties tend to reject asylum seekers’ appeals more than those from leftist parties.

The legal scholar Livia Johannesson has shown that Swedish immigration courts, like American ones, do not fully measure up to the strictures of due process. Asylum seekers in court are structurally at a disadvantage in that they lack key knowledge of laws and procedures and are met with distrust by the court. In general, asylum seekers suffer from somewhat arbitrary court interpretations of what constitutes a “credible” narrative of persecution, which is the key piece of evidence in Swedish asylum cases.

Public opinion on immigration is complex and changing

With regard to the popular support of restrictionism, we find a complex and shifting picture. In a 2014 European Social Survey the majority of Swedish respondents believed that immigration should be allowed to a “great” or “pretty great” extent. However, by late 2016, following the “refugee crisis” of 2015, a majority in the polls wanted to see a reduced intake of refugees.

In 2015, a Public Religion Research Institute national survey found that nationally 55% of the American population believe that “immigrants today strengthen our country because of their hard work and talents”, while 36% believe that “immigrants today burden our country because they take our jobs, housing, and healthcare”. Unsurprisingly, there were significant variations between states.  In 34 states, including California and Texas, over 50% responded that they believe immigrants strengthen the country.

When it comes to Syrian refugees, the same research institute found in 2015 that: “Despite heightened concerns about terrorism – and political rhetoric linking Muslim refugees to the threat of terrorism – a majority (53%) of Americans support allowing Syrian refugees to come to the US provided they go through a security clearance process”.

In 2016, the same Institute found that 62% of Americans believe that “immigrants who are currently living here illegally should be allowed a way to become citizens provided they meet certain requirements”, while 15% believe that they should become permanent legal residents but not citizens. 19% believe that “illegal immigrants should be identified and deported”.

Mass immigration is a politicized concept

According to immigration scholar Christian Joppke, the pro-immigration stance of courts explains why we continue to see mass immigration in the west even though there is a popular demand to bring it to a halt. But this far too neat explanation is not borne out by the evidence. Moreover, it takes for granted that the concept of mass immigration is an innocent empirical description, which is not the case.

To begin with, it is questionable whether “mass” is an accurate word to describe the numbers of immigrants who arrive in western countries every year. Even at its worst, the number of asylum seekers in the EU during the refugee crisis of 2015 led to increases in immigration population by at most 1.5 percentage points in countries like Sweden and Germany. In the United States, immigration between 2010 and 2016 led to an increase in the immigrant population that was less than one percentage point.

Then there is the fact that western states are far from powerless in regulating the numbers of immigrants that can enter their territory. The Swedish government’s recent introduction of border controls and tougher asylum laws effectively brought the number of new asylum seekers to desirable levels. The number of border patrol agents in the US has increased from 3,200 in 1986 to 19,437 in 2017. Deportations of immigrants have been known to exceed one million per year since the 1980s.

Clearly the concept of mass immigration in general, and mass immigration as a threat in particular, is politicized. Rather than merely registering reality objectively, it is used to further particular interests of the state as well as powerful non-state organisations, such as private corporations that profit from the detention and monitoring of immigrants.

Two sides of the same coin? Diaspora Investment and Citizenship-by-Investment

Good commentary on the differences:

It’s no secret that many small states struggle to acquire the finance needed to support their development goals. The Commonwealth Secretariat has recently been exploring the potential of diaspora investment to support development. A recent Commonwealth publication estimates that on average, small states could raise approximately 4.52% of GNI per annum from their migrants alone (excluding first and second generation migrants) as compared to 1.18% of GNI for Commonwealth non-small states (Tavakoli and Raja, 2017).

Similar, but less frequently examined, sources of funding are citizenship-by-investment programmes.These programmes grant citizenship to people who make substantial financial investments in a country. While many countries offer a route to citizenship after a period of residency, with citizenship-by-investment programmes, residency is not often required. This revenue raising scheme is particularly popular with many Commonwealth small states — Antigua and Barbuda, Cyprus, Dominica, Grenada, Malta, St Kitts & Nevis, St Lucia, and Vanuatu all have such programmes. The investments required are often real estate purchases, set term investment in government bonds, or donations to particular charities or funds and the minimum amounts range from $100,000 USD in Dominica to $2.4million USD in Cyprus.

On the face of it, diaspora investment and citizenship-by-investment programmes are two sides of the same coin. They both seek to increase investment by appealing to people’s affinity for a country through its citizenship or would-be citizenship. However, I would argue that their risks and rewards of each are quite different.

With diaspora investment, there is an identifiable pool of people ready and willing to invest in the country of their roots. Their interest in the country is stable and often not subject to the fluctuation of economic cycles. As diaspora investment can take many forms – investment in real estate, bonds, or businesses – the financial benefits can range from increasing government revenue to job creation and adding to GDP. However, the size of the investment can vary greatly from person to person. Furthermore, many diaspora investors may demand higher accountability from the government before investing, or may seek more political rights in the country.

On the other hand, citizenship-by-investment programmes offer an immediate substantial investment which increases government revenue. However, the investment vehicles do not tend to lead to job creation and may have an adverse impact on the property market in small countries with scarce land. Additionally, given that countries offering these programmes are competing with each other for investors, there is the possibility of a race to the bottom. Finally, there is the reputation risk for the country if background checks are not properly conducted.

Given the pros and cons, for my taste, governments would do well to spend more time and effort facilitating diaspora investment as opposed to citizenship-by-investment. I realise however that the issue is completely debatable. Some people argue that criticising citizenship-by-investment undermines sovereignty and attacks a genuine income stream for countries with limited revenue-raising options. Furthermore, some countries don’t have sizeable diaspora communities to make diaspora investment viable. Nonetheless, personally, I think the reputation risks alone outweigh the benefits.

One thing is certain, more research is needed into citizenship-by-investment programmes, including how much money countries actually gain from it.

Where do you stand on the issue? Should more small states consider citizenship-by-investment? Or should more be done to attract investment from diaspora communities around the world?

Source: Two sides of the same coin? Diaspora Investment and Citizenship-by-Investment

Pew Research: Race and immigration

As always, interesting data from Pew and the apparent disconnect between public attitudes and politics:

Majorities in all generations say the country needs to continue making changes to give blacks equal rights with whites, reflecting a public shift in these views in recent years. But Millennials are far more likely to hold this view than Boomers and Silents. The current generational gap in opinion is a relatively new one – as recently as 2015 there was not a substantial difference in these views by generation.

The divide is driven mostly by an uptick in the share of Millennials who say the U.S. needs to continue making changes to give blacks equal rights with whites.

In 2015, similar shares of Millennials (61%), Gen Xers (59%), Boomers (60%), and Silents (57%) said that more changes were necessary in order for blacks to achieve equal rights with whites. In 2017, 68% of Millennials say that more changes are needed, a significantly larger proportion than any other generational group.

There is a similar pattern on views of racial discrimination. In 2012, similar shares of adults in each generation (about two-in-ten) said that discrimination was “the main reason why many black people can’t get ahead these days” rather than that “blacks who can’t get ahead in this country are mostly responsible for their own condition.”

Since 2012, the share of Millennials who cite discrimination as the main reason blacks can’t get ahead these days has more than doubled (24% in 2012 to 52% in 2017), and a 24-point gap now separates the oldest and youngest generations.

The size of the generational divide on views about race is not simply attributable to the larger share of nonwhites in younger generations. White Millennials are 11-percentage points more likely than white Silents to say the country needs to continue making changes to give blacks equal rights with whites, similar to the 14- point generational gap in these views among all adults.

Generational gaps in views of immigrants, immigration policies

The share of adults in all generations saying immigrants strengthen our country because of their hard work and talents, rather than burden the country by taking jobs and health care, has grown in recent years as overall public sentiment has shifted

But there has long been a generational divide in these views. Millennials, in particular, stand out for their positive views of immigrants: 79% say they strengthen rather than burden the country. And while about two-thirds (66%) of Gen Xers now say this, that compares with a narrower majority of Boomers (56%) and about half (47%) of Silents.

These wide divides are seen not just among the generations overall, but also among whites across generations. Fully 76% of white Millennials say immigrants do more to strengthen than burden the country, compared with 61% of white Gen Xers, 54% of white Boomers and 45% of white Silents.

These generational divides are also evident on public views of issues at the heart of the current immigration policy debate: opinions about plans to substantially expand the wall along the U.S. border with Mexico and views about granting permanent legal status to immigrants brought to the U.S. illegally when they were children.

While Boomers and Silents are roughly divided in their views about expanding the U.S.-Mexico border wall, younger generations – especially Millennials – are substantially more likely to oppose expanding the wall than favor doing so. Fully 72% of Millennials – including 70% of white Millennials – oppose expanding the wall. Among Gen Xers, 60% oppose expanding the wall, while 38% support it (white Gen Xers are divided: 49% favor, 50% oppose).

While substantial majorities – two-thirds or more – across all generations favor granting permanent legal status to immigrants who came illegally to the U.S., this sentiment is more widely held among Millennials: 82% of them favor granting permanent legal status, while just 13% are opposed.

Source: 4. Race, immigration, same-sex marriage, abortion, global warming, gun policy, marijuana legalization

Toronto runner set to get Canadian citizenship, trump U.S. travel ban

Good news story:

It appears Soroush Hatami’s dream to compete in the Boston Marathon is finally about to come true.

“That’s exciting news … There’s a high possibility I can get my passport right on time and I hope I can make it to Boston,” Hatami said.

The 37-year-old, who emigrated from Iran to Toronto in 2013 and is a permanent resident of Canada, is set to receive his Canadian citizenship on Friday afternoon.

It would help clear a major hurdle that has barred him from entering the United States.

Marathon runner stopped in his tracks by Trump travel ban

U.S. Supreme Court allows Trump travel ban on residents of 6 mostly Muslim countries

Last January, an executive order issued by U.S. President Donald Trump blocked citizens of several Muslim-majority nations from entering the United States — including Hatami’s birth country of Iran.

Despite qualifying for the Boston Marathon back in October 2017, Hatami was banned from entering the U.S., based on his Iranian citizenship; a decision he calls “unfair” and “xenophobic”.

With over 30,000 runners annually, the Boston Marathon is one of the most prestigious and well-known marathons in the world. (Tim Bradbury/Getty Images)

“Targeting countries and banning everyone from those countries, doesn’t help with U.S. national security,” Hatami said.

But now, with the runner set to take the oath of citizenship after a months-long application process, he’ll be able to apply for a Canadian passport. According to the Government of Canada’s website, with express processing a new passport can be delivered in two to nine business days.

2018’s Boston Marathon is set for April 16.

Beyond the race, Hatami and fellow long-distance runner Daniel Sellers say they aren’t done fighting against the travel ban and hope to help those who may be caught in similar predicaments.

“That’s great that we’re about to realize our goal. However on the other side, the travel ban is not over and our campaign is not over.”

via Toronto runner set to get Canadian citizenship, trump U.S. travel ban – Toronto – CBC News

What’s behind the rise of interracial marriage in the US? | Life and style | The Guardian

Waiting for Statistics Canada to update their mixed union analysis with 2016 data:

It’s been half a century since the US supreme court decriminalized interracial marriage. Since then, the share of interracial and interethnic marriages in America has increased fivefold, from 3% of all weddings in 1967 to 17% in 2015.

The Loving v Virginia ruling was a clear civil rights victory, but as Anna Holmes reflects in a recent article for the New York Times, understanding who benefits from that win and how is a much more complicated story.

For a start, there’s huge geographic variation in where intermarriage happens; it’s more common in metropolitan areas than rural places (18% compared to 11%) according to a Pew analysis of the Census Bureau’s figures. But those are just averages – US metropolitan areas vary significantly from Honolulu, Hawaii, where 42% of weddings are interracial to Jackson, Mississippi where the figure is just 3%.

Geographic patterns in intermarriage Photograph: Pew Research Center
Overall, the most common type of intermarriage is between a partner who is white and one who is Hispanic of any race – those relationships accounted for 38% of all intermarriages in 2010. White-Asian couples accounted for another 14% of intermarriages, and white-black couples made up 8%. You can find detailed maps of intermarriage patterns at a county level in this Census Bureau poster.

There are gender patterns in this data too. In 2008, 22% of black male newlyweds chose partners of another race, compared to just 9% of black female newlyweds. The gender pattern is the opposite among Asians. While 40% of Asian females married outside their race in 2008, just 20% of Asian male newlyweds did the same. For whites and Hispanics though, Pew found no gender differences.

These numbers aren’t simply a matter of love. They’re the consequence of economic, political and cultural factors. To list just a few:

Attitudes (plain racism): While 72% of black respondents said it would be fine with them if a family member chose to marry someone of another racial or ethnic group, 61% of whites and 63% of Hispanics said the same. More specifically though, Americans aren’t comfortable with specific kinds of intermarriage. A Pew survey found that acceptance of out-marriage to whites (81%) was higher than is acceptance of out-marriage to Asians (75%), Hispanics (73%) or blacks (66%).

Migration patterns: The Census Bureau provided the following examples: “the removal of many American Indian tribes from their original lands to reservation lands; historically higher proportions of Hispanics living in the Southwest; historically higher proportions of Asians living in the West” all of which shape where intermarriages happen and between whom.

Availability of partners: Systematic incarceration of young black men, together with higher death rates contribute to the fact that black women are much less likely to get married than women of any other race or ethnicity in the US. This, together with higher black unemployment rates mean that black individuals make up a relatively small share of all marriages, including intermarriages.

Education: People with a higher educational attainment are more likely to intermarry. This affects geographic patterns too – areas with higher educational attainment are more likely to have more interracial couples living there.

via What’s behind the rise of interracial marriage in the US? | Life and style | The Guardian

Conservatives drop India motion after uproar from Canadian Sikh community

Political reality strikes – both the Liberals and Conservatives have been flirting with identity politics:

The Conservative Party decided early Thursday not to proceed with a House of Commons motion that a Canadian Sikh organization says labels its community as “terrorists.”

The Canadian Sikh Association posted on its social media channels Thursday morning that they were thankful the Tories had backed down from a proposed motion from foreign affairs critic Erin O’Toole. Sukhpaul Tut, chair and spokesman for the association, is calling on the party to apologize for having written it in the first place.

One of two the Conservatives were considering for Thursday would’ve asked the House to “value the contributions of Canadian Sikhs and Canadians of Indian origin in our national life” but also to condemn all forms of terrorism “including Khalistani extremism and the glorification of any individuals who have committed acts of violence to advance the cause of an independent Khalistani state in India.” The motion concludes with support for “a united India.”

The Tories have instead opted to pursue a motion about the Canada Summer Jobs program.

According to the Sikh association, that decision came after a night-long campaign. “Throughout the whole night, the Sikh Community has been working aggressively to refute the frivolous allegations of labelling our community as terrorists at the request of foreign and corrupt entities,” a Facebook post says.

“We are thankful that the Conservative Party of Canada has come to its senses and confirms at 7:30 am this morning that they will not proceed with the motion. Our children will continue to live in Canada without facing foreign intimidation.”

O’Toole, reached Thursday afternoon, said the party decided not to go ahead now because “the story’s still evolving.” The motion is still on the notice paper.

“We haven’t pulled it. We’re looking at the right time to do it,” O’Toole said. Still, he said his caucus is “certainly listening to people” and it’s possible there will be adjustments to the motion.

“The motion was being misrepresented by a lot of people and certainly became very political. We want to make sure that no one is offended in the process, and the language will be very careful to make sure of that.”

O’Toole said the party is not trying to perpetrate an attack on any group, and suggested his political opponents were behind Wednesday night’s email campaign. “I’ve got notes from people saying that the Liberal Party itself was behind several of the emails,” he said.

Tut said members of the community from coast to coast engaged in “old-fashioned advocacy,” picking up the phones from late afternoon Wednesday through to Thursday morning. “Everybody was on board and was extremely shocked by this motion and expected that something needed to be done,” Tut explained.

The wording of the motion was “extremely wrong and was disingenuous and needed to be pulled, because the community doesn’t deserve to be painted with such a negative and broad brush like that,” he said. Tut likened the move to “cheap politics” and said the community expects better from its political leaders.

Conservative spokesman Jake Enwright wouldn’t comment on the rationale behind dropping the motion. “The rationale for that motion is that we believe in a united India. We think it’s important that the House states that. But I’m not going to get into any of the conversations that we’re having behind closed doors, and amongst our caucus and amongst our leadership team,” he said.

Enwright didn’t refute the Sikh association’s interpretation of events, but said, “I’m not going to comment on how they took that motion. I respect their opinion and I won’t comment on it.” He added the party doesn’t ultimately move all of the motions it puts on the House of Commons notice paper and it’s a “usual process” to pick and choose.

Canada is estimated to have the world’s largest Sikh community outside of India. More than 450,000 people across the country self-identified as following the religion in the 2011 census. The community has long been important to Canadian electoral politics.

“The Conservative Party has no problem going to our gurdwaras and temples and going to our festival, right, and our celebrations and our parade. I mean, the right thing to do if they’re going to count on the support of the community is to come out and apologize,” Tut said.

“They’re all champions of the community when it’s election time, but now all of a sudden, ‘we can throw the community under the bus.’”

via Conservatives drop India motion after uproar from Canadian Sikh community | National Post

UBC study finds more diversity needed in medical school textbooks

Good analysis. In high school, a group of us analyzed images in science texts where the photos were almost uniformly white men (I suspect today’s texts are better):

UBC researchers studying how race and skin tone are depicted in medical textbooks have found a startling lack of diversity.

And, their new study argues, that could be contributing to racial bias in treatment.

The study by UBC and the University of Toronto, published in the journal Social Science and Medicine, found dark skin tones are underrepresented in a number of chapters , including those dealing with skin cancer.

UBC lead author Patricia Louie, who is now a PhD student in sociology at U of T, says the lack of diversity in medical textbooks is a serious problem.

“Proportional to the population, race is represented fairly accurately, but this diversity is undermined by the fact that the images mostly depict light skin tones,” she said.

For the study, researchers analyzed the race and skin tone of more than 4,000 human images in four medical textbooks: Atlas of Human Anatomy, Bates’ Guide to Physical Examination & History Taking, Clinically Oriented Anatomy and Gray’s Anatomy for Students.

In an interview from Toronto, Louie said they used the textbooks from the 2015 and 2016 reading list for medical students at North American universities. But the textbooks are also widely used around the world.

The study found that only one per cent of the photos in Atlas and Clinically featured dark skin, compared to about eight per cent in Bates’ Guide and about five per cent in Gray’s Anatomy.

More than 70 per cent of the individuals depicted in Clinically and 88 per cent in Gray’s had light skin tones, while Atlas featured almost no skin tone diversity.

“It seems that skin tone isn’t something they are paying attention to. The books include racial diversity but not skin tone diversity, and skin tone is important because it is central to how race is perceived,” said Louie.

Patricia Louie is the lead author of a new study done by researchers at UBC and the University of Toronto that found a startling lack of diversity in skin tone in medical textbooks used by universities.  UBC HANDOUT / PNG
The researchers argue that rates of mortality for some cancers are higher on average for black people, often due to late diagnosis. With skin cancer, the researchers say physicians need to look for melanomas on nails, hands and feet, but they found no images in the textbooks to show what melanoma would look like on different skin colours.

Louie said they also looked at the research for six commonly diagnosed cancers, and another example was that of the images used for breast cancer.

In all the textbooks, they only found two images of black women, and the rest were images of light-skinned women. She said this is alarming because research shows that black women are more likely to die from breast cancer.

Also, there was no representation of Asian, Latino or aboriginal skin tone in any of the books, Louie added.

“The heart of this study is that textbooks may influence how doctors think about patients,” she said. “We think that this underrepresentation may be one way that bias enters medical care. I just think it’s not on their radar.”

UBC sociology professor and study co-author Rima Wilkes said, in a UBC news release, that the findings highlight a need to show greater diversity of skin tones in teaching tools used by medical schools.

via UBC study finds more diversity needed in medical school textbooks | Vancouver Sun

Good luck with the British citizenship test, Meghan Markle. It’s a mess | Thom Brooks | The Guardian

Good pointed commentary – better to have tests that are more general civic knowledge-based, as in Canada, than ones that try to capture obscure facts. A written test, of course, is more administratively efficient and consistent than individual interviews, the main reason it was introduced in Canada in the early 90s:

Meghan Markle is on a fast track from Hollywood to British royalty. She’ll certainly be joining the royal family from the moment of her marriage to Harry in May. And yet, if she wants to remain permanently in the UK, even the wife of the Queen’s grandson must pass a citizenship test.

The test has been sat more than 2m times since its launch in 2005. Anyone applying must correctly answer 18 or more of 24 multiple choice questions to pass – and the test costs £50 for every attempt.

It’s like a bad pub quiz: the test for British citizenship that few Brits could pass. One candidate failed 64 times before finally passing the test, and if you look at what the government’s quiz asks, it’s easy to see why. How many of us know the height of the London Eye, the age of Big Ben’s clock tower, or that Sake Dean Mahomed introduced curry to the UK in opening the Hindoostane Coffee House on George Street, London? These are some of the nearly 3,000 facts in the 180-page test handbook anyone wanting to stay in Britain is expected to know.

The absurdity doesn’t stop there. The test requires knowledge of the numbers of elected representatives in each regional assembly, but not in the House of Commons. Candidates need not know how to report a crime or register with a GP, but must know the approximate size of the Lake District and about 278 historical dates including when the Roman emperor Claudius invaded Britain.

If the citizenship test is meant to help migrants “integrate into society and play a full role in your local community”, there is little evidence to show it succeeds. The test has appeared in three editions and been used for more than a decade, but there has never been a formal consultation on whether its aims are being achieved. So I did it for them.

My 2013 report exposed serious failings, including the test’s impracticality and the many mistakes and omissions. My report made a dozen recommendations for how these problems might be fixed. Despite being raised in parliament, the test remains unchanged.

If left unreformed the test is damaging integration more than it’s enabling it
For my book Becoming British, I interviewed citizens across the UK about the citizenship test. Almost no one believed it helped their integration into a British society where few had even heard of the test. Instead of building bridges, most saw the test as another barrier whose main purpose was to extract additional fees. The lesson to learn here is that the test is currently damaging integration more than it’s enabling it.

There is an opportunity now to get this right as Britain changes its immigration policies after Brexit. Either the test is substantially modified to become a less trivial and fairer test of knowledge required for citizenship, or it should be thrown on the scrap heap.

A citizenship test is not obviously necessary to demonstrate a knowledge of life in the UK or British values. People could instead be tested informally without an exam, for instance by satisfying existing requirements for lawful residency, avoiding a criminal record, paying taxes owed and the like. These are ways in which people do show an understanding of living in this country in harmony with others.

But if the test is kept, change is needed – and a first step would be to make the answers freely available. Displaying knowledge about living in Britain shouldn’t require buying a book with the information in. And rather than the test remaining a block, it should be relaunched as something that is primarily of symbolic importance. In the US, the test is the last step to citizenship with zealously non-partisan questions about who was the first president or which side won the American civil war.

By contrast, half the UK’s test information on education is about setting up the government’s then flagship programme of free schools, but without any mention of a national curriculum, A-levels and more. Such partisanship needs to go. A test aimed at formally recognising the belonging someone has already earned is clearly preferable to what we have.

And if it is revised, it’s critical that there is a public dialogue about what is included. The government imposes this test of Britishness in the public’s name, but it is so alien as to render it absurd. People need to have confidence in our immigration system again, and imposing arbitrary knowledge tests won’t solve it.

Finally, migrants shouldn’t have a veto, but they deserve to have a voice. If the test doesn’t support integration, this needs to be fixed. Second-guessing the experience of migrants like me – who have passed the test and become British citizens – only continues the problem.

via Good luck with the British citizenship test, Meghan Markle. It’s a mess | Thom Brooks | Opinion | The Guardian

Arrest Of Doctor In Detroit For Female Genital Mutilation Fuels Debate By Muslim Sect In Pakistan : Goats and Soda : NPR

More on FGM, this time with respect to Bohra:

For generations, women of a secretive Muslim sect have removed what they call “forbidden flesh” from their girls. They were told they had an infection, or an insect, that needed to be cut out. The girls were ordered to never speak of it again. Others knew to stay quiet, understanding that anything involving their genitals should stay secret.

But now the community is talking.

The arrest of a Bohra doctor in Detroit for performing FGM has given added impetus to a quiet movement in the community against the practice. The Bohra call it khafz or khatna — removing the hood of the clitoria and sometimes part of the clitoris itself when a girl is about 7 years old.

“It’s forced us to have a conversation,” says Leena Khandwalla, a 44-year-old Bohra woman who divides her time between Pakistan and New Jersey.

“It’s also created some kind of reckoning in the Bohra community.”

The Bohras are an offshoot of Shiite Islam that is headquartered in Mumbai, with prosperous communities scattered across the globe. They number several hundred thousand. The community of some 35,000 in Karachi is one of the largest in the world, according to Bohra members.

It is unclear how the practice emerged in the community. The Bohras say the prophet Mohammed sanctioned it — and cut his daughter Fatima, who is revered by Shiite Muslims. Few Muslims hold such a belief.

Ultimately it’s practiced because the sect’s leader in Mumbai, Mufaddal Saifuddin, says so.

“We obey him,” says Mrs. Ali, a 30-year-old Bohra woman who supports cutting. She has asked us to use only her surname. She described him as a father who knew best. “Why would he harm us?”

A survey of Bohra women in India in February led by an anti-FGM advocacy group suggested up to three-quarters of Bohra women were cut.

Although Bohras believe cutting women is necessary, it is not enforced by religious leaders. It is community pressure that keeps the tradition going, one Bohra follower says — often from in-laws to young mothers.

In that way, the continuing practice signals how Bohras embrace an extreme form of conformity.

That was apparent in the Bohra enclave in Karachi on a recent Friday. Male worshippers turned up for prayers in the Bohra mosque in identical clothing. Men wore white skullcaps, pants and long shirts with three buttons — imitating the dress of their ancient religious leaders. Women wore distinctive, colorful, matching skirts and headscarves — all cut in the same style, with ribbons tied under the chin.

And underscoring that conformity, most of the dozen Bohra men and women interviewed asked to only use their first names, or stay anonymous, to protect their identity. Some worried about being excluded from community events. One woman, interviewed in her house, peered from the windows to see if anybody could see the NPR reporters from the street.

But there is a paradox in this community. Bohra followers lead lifestyles that are astonishingly liberal in conservative Pakistan, making their support of FGM more startling. Bohra followers comfortably talked about their sex lives and bodies. They discussed parent-supervised dating and pre-marital sex and marital sex — but not FGM.

The silence around the Bohra practice of FGM began collapsing when Mariya Karimjee, a Pakistani-American writer, wrote of her FGM experience in 2015. It quickly went viral. Another woman, Maryum Saifee, described her experience in The Guardian. That new openness dovetailed with Bohra activism against FGM that began emerging, with groups like Sahiyo: United Against Female Genital Cutting and We Speak Out.

At the same time, an Australian court sentenced a former midwife and two Bohra community members to 15 months in jail over FGM-related crimes. Then in 2017, prosecutors brought the first criminal indictment related to FGM under U.S. law. They arrested Jumana Nagarwala, a Detroit-area Bohra doctor, for cutting at least two girls. Seven other defendants have been charged with related crimes. The case is still ongoing. (Any form of FGM on girls is a federal crime.)

The case in Detroit, in particular, gave new impetus to the conversation about FGM in the Bohra community. And it unleashed something rare in this close-mouthed community: discord.

Khandwalla, the 44-year-old, says the case in Detroit pushed her to do something she had never considered before: go public about her own experience.

And S., a 36-year-old teacher, whose name we are withholding for her anonymity, says the Detroit incident encouraged women like her, once quietly queasy about FGM, to voice their views, sharing articles on Facebook and WhatsApp groups. Arguments ensued among pro-and-anti-FGM supporters.

“On social media, it created a huge crisis,” she says. She met with NPR in a café across town, so other Bohras wouldn’t see her.

Then S. took another step. She was pressured by her in-laws into having her oldest daughter cut years ago. Her youngest girl was meant to undergo it last year — but she quietly refused to do it. “Social media made me realize how wrong this is.”

The secrecy surrounding the practice helped her maintain the impression that she had cut her youngest daughter.

S. says she wasn’t the only mother quietly rebelling against FGM. “I know for a fact a few of them will not do it.”

One religious Bohra merchant says the media furor triggered angry debate about FGM during regular Q&As with spiritual leaders. He recalled women asking, “if it’s symbolic, can’t we do without it?”

His own daughter confronted him, demanding to know why she was cut. “She questioned it a lot,” he says. “Why did you do it? Why do we have to do it?” He says after months of discussion, his daughter now supports the practice.

(The merchant spoke to NPR to explain Bohra beliefs and why they supported cutting. Religious leaders declined to comment.)

Mrs. Ali, who supports cutting, says the debates were turning people against the practice.

“They are like a pinch of salt in flour,” she says — a minority spreading through the community, changing its flavor.

The merchant and Mrs. Ali described female cutting among Bohras as a symbolic ritual, akin to male circumcision. Mrs. Ali had her own daughter cut by a Bohra gynecologist, she says.

She compared the clitoral hood to extra clothes in a crowded closet. “You just move them out of your closet,” she says. “It’s like that.”

Cutting was meant to reduce a woman’s libido and keep them away from pre-marital sex. “It’s just to control your sex drive, that’s it, but it doesn’t destroy your sex drive,” Rasheeda says. “I am married, my sex life is — thank God — perfectly alright.”

But Khandwalla says she had never shaken off the trauma of FGM.

She was 7 when her aunt told her they were going on an errand. She was taken to a dingy apartment. “The next thing I knew, my panties were being taken off and I was sort of just splayed on the ground,” she says.

“Then something really sharp happened,” she adds.

Her aunt ordered her to kiss the hand of the woman who cut her — a traditional sign of respect. For years, she thought the painful procedure was a punishment for some mysterious wrong.

As a teenager, she tried to discover what a normal vagina looked like — pre-Internet. She and her cousin compared their genitalia, but they were both cut. “My cousin looked the same as I did.”

In her early twenties, Khandwalla began having sex. She felt flushes of arousal but struggled to orgasm. She married about a decade ago. She says the experience of FGM left her feeling that her body was dirty and that sex was shameful.

Many of the women who do not oppose FGM did not cite its pain or trauma as a reason. They said they were angry because they had not consented to the procedure. They believe they should have not undergone FGM as a child, but rather should have been asked as an adult if they would consent to it.

And they said they could not find any proof in Islam to justify it.

After the furor surrounding FGM cases in Australia and the U.S., the Bohra spiritual leader issued letters to communities in the West telling them not to undertake the practice if it was illegal.

If it didn’t have to be done in the West, why did they have to do it in Pakistan, asked Alina, a 20-year-old Bohra student. It was a double standard, she argued.

She started doubting the practice after she began dating in high school. She realized being cut hadn’t prevented her from having pre-marital sex. It just made it more painful.

She confronted her mom: “if the only reason you did it is this whole idea of control — it doesn’t do that. So why the hell did you get this done to me?”

The debate surrounding the cases in the U.S. and Australia inflated her doubts and encouraged her to speak out. She saw that her “woke” university friends were all fighting their own liberal causes in Pakistan, and it inspired her.

“If I can make a change, then I should do it,” she says. “I will literally try to convince everyone I know, I will do any research required, to actually show there’s no backing for this.”

She was speaking out against FGM in her community — but she wouldn’t speak out to women from other religious groups — at least not in a way she could be identified, she says. She didn’t want to be seen as publicly trashing her own community, and she feared that Bohra women would be less likely to listen to her if she went public.

She wanted to be that secret minority in her community, spreading doubt about FGM.

She was going to be that pinch of salt in flour.

via Arrest Of Doctor In Detroit For Female Genital Mutilation Fuels Debate By Muslim Sect In Pakistan : Goats and Soda : NPR

Canada vastly unprepared to process migrants and refugees

Latest numbers and update on impact of the change to first-come-first serve:

A small change marks a troubling time in our immigration system.

Overwhelmed by an endlessly ballooning backlog, the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) recently ditched the 60-day timeline to process asylum claims. People wanting to claim asylum will now be processed on a “first-in, first-out” basis.

The 60-day rule was put into place by the previous Conservative government in 2012. It required officials at IRB to process asylum claimants in order of their designated country of origin. Moreover, decision makers within the board had to process claims within two months. A generous analysis would say those changes were meant to improve procedural efficiency. I am not a generous person.

At the same time that Canada was promising ease of access to foreign millionaires, it created massive procedural obstacles for refugees.

In 2015, a federal court concluded that the major elements, specifically the lack of access for those deemed to be from “safe countries” ( i.e. a safe Designated Country of Origin) was unconstitutional. Nonetheless, that program has remained largely in place.

The effect has been catastrophic.

In 2012, when the Designated Country of Origin program was instituted, less than 10,000 claims were rolling in. Starting in 2014, those numbers have grown substantially. So, too, has the backlog.

By the end of the last year, the backlog was as high as 43,000 cases. The organization had anticipated a backlog of 30,000. The average wait time is now 20 months for new claims. Thousands of much older cases have languished.

Some have waited for an answer for more than six years. The new first-in, first-out system has thrown an already-lengthy process into disarray. Thousands of scheduled hearings have been cancelled, reports the Star’s Nicholas Keung.

IRB spokesperson Anna Pape said, “(The board) must postpone recent referrals at this time due to the operational limitations.”

The change at IRB is necessary but, make no mistake, it’s a move made out of desperation. With inadequate resources, the board has performed a herculean feat.

They’ve put in place a two-year task force to sort through legacy cases. Early last year, they dabbled with the first-in, first-out system under its former leader Mario Dion.

Dion had been unequivocal, saying to CBC News in July, “I am afraid the way things are at this point we will need additional resources … because there is a limit to how much you can stretch one person’s time.” He saw no hope in meeting the demands on the system, saying it was “essentially impossible to close the gap using existing resources.”

Money was a major hindrance, said Dion to the Canadian Press: “Efficiency has increased significantly, but there is no way we can deal with 30,000 cases when we’re funded for about 17,000.”

The most recent federal budget does lay out some money for the board but it lags behind what is needed. There is an additional $12 million in legal aid support for asylum claimants. Lawyers for refugees often tell me that a major obstacle is the lack of representation available to claimants.

Significantly, the budget allocates $173.2 million dollars for security operations at the border and for processing at IRB. Of that, $74 million dollars will be spent over the next two years on irregular migration.

There are bright spots within the asylum system. Funding for Yazidi women and girls fleeing ISIS’s terror remains in place. Canada recently stepped up to accept 1,845 refugees of 30,000 African asylum claimants that Israel is planning to mass deport. Canada’s move isn’t game-changing, but for those few, it is life saving.

Nonetheless, without an international action plan, the global migrant crisis will continue unabated. Simmering global hostility to migrants — refugees and non-refugees alike — looks likely to end up at Canada’s ports, airports and borders. For example, rumors and the eventual fact of the Trump administration’s rescinding of Temporary Protected Status is responsible for the Haitian migrants who have walked across the border.

The ministry of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship is aware of the need to pour attention and resources into the board. Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen has received an interim report on the IRB and a full report is expected later this year.

More migrants will come here and we need to be ready.

via Canada vastly unprepared to process migrants and refugees | Toronto Star