Minister Fraser celebrates Citizenship Week

Yet another missed opportunity to release the revised citizenship guide! Understand the guide has been ready and approved for some time.

No surprise on elimination of citizenship fees given not in Budget 2022.

Don’t understand the reference to “Most recently, these amendments include broadening the interpretation of “citizenship by descent” to be more inclusive for families.” as the first generation limit has not been change, although Bill S-245 has been approved in the Senate but has not reached first reading in the House:

The Honourable Sean Fraser, Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, today issued the following statement to mark the start of Citizenship Week, which runs from May 23 to 29, 2022:

“Today, I join Canadians from coast to coast to coast to mark the beginning of Citizenship Week. This week is a chance to celebrate what it means to be Canadian—from the rights we enjoy, to the responsibilities we share, to the diversity that makes us a strong and proud nation.

“This year, we marked the 75th anniversary of the first Canadian Citizenship Act. The passage of the Act, which was later replaced with the Citizenship Act in 1977, was a monumental moment in Canadian history that shaped the identity we share today. In the days that followed, Canada held its first-ever citizenship ceremony, establishing a formalized rite of passage that millions of new Canadians have taken part in since.

“Canada is known around the world as a country that respects and celebrates our differences. As we have grown, we have amended our Citizenship Act so that it reflects our values and promotes an inclusive society. Most recently, these amendments include broadening the interpretation of “citizenship by descent” to be more inclusive for families. They also include establishing a new Oath of Citizenship that recognizes the inherent and treaty rights of First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples, and the obligation that all citizens have to uphold the treaties between the Crown and Indigenous nations. We are committed to ensuring that the tragic parts of our history are not forgotten, as we continue on the path of reconciliation.

“Canadian citizenship holds so much significance and meaning. For some, it represents the achievement of a dream and the promise of a new life. For others, it is an innate and unbreakable bond to the beautiful country we call home.

“For all of us, citizenship remains a commitment not only to Canada, but to our fellow Canadians. Whether volunteering for a community project, helping out a neighbour in need or welcoming newcomers to our country, I encourage all Canadians to look for ways to take part in building a strong, inclusive and prosperous Canada—this week and every week.”

Source: Minister Fraser celebrates Citizenship Week

The U.S. Failed Miserably on COVID-19. Canada Shows It Didn’t Have to Be That Way

Not to be smug, as USA provides too easy a benchmark. Better comparison is with Europe, where we are slightly better in terms of infection and death rates. Hard to see how even an enquiry will address the deeply divided public opinion and Republican denialism of science, evidence and susceptibility to mis- and disinformation:

646,970 lives.

This is the number of Americans who would be alive today if the United States had the same per capita death rate from COVID-19 as our northern neighbor, Canada.

Reflect for a moment on the sheer magnitude of the lives lost. 646,970 is more than the entire population of Detroit. And it is more than the total number of American lives lost in World War I, World War II, and Vietnam combined.

No country is more similar to the U.S. than Canada, whose economy and culture are closely intertwined with our own. Yet faced with a life-threatening pandemic of historic proportions, Canada showed far greater success in protecting the lives of its people than the U.S. How are we to understand Canada’s superior performance and the disastrous performance of our own country, which has the highest per capita death rate (3023 per one million, compared to Canada’s 1071) of any wealthy democratic country?
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

In comparing the two countries, the starting point must be the different response at the highest levels of government. In Canada, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stated in March 2020, “I’m going to make sure that we continue to follow all the recommendations of public health officers particularly around stay-at-home whenever possible and self-isolation and social distancing”. This message was reinforced by Dr. Teresa Tam, Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer, who in March delivered a message urging solidarity, declaring “We need to act now, and act together.”

In the U.S., President Trump in striking contrast declared that he would not be wearing a mask, saying “I don’t think I will be doing it…I just don’t see it”. And instead of reinforcing the messages of Dr. Anthony Fauci and other leading public health officials, Trump actively undermined them, declaring in reference to stay-at-home orders in some states, “I think elements of what they’ve done are just too tough.” Not content with undercutting his top public health advisers, President Trump further undermined public confidence in science by suggesting “cures” for COVID-19, including at one point ingesting bleach and taking hydroxychloroquine, a drug that research confirmed had no efficacy as a COVD-19 treatment.

These divergent responses at the national level were to shape responses at the state and provincial level of the U.S. and Canada, respectively, as well as the response of the public. By the beginning of July 2020, the impact of these divergent responses was already visible, with Canada’s death rate just 60 percent of the American rate. As Canada’s more stringent public health measures—which included larger and stricter stay-at-home orders, closure of restaurants, gyms, and other businesses, curfews, and limits on public gatherings—took effect, the gap between the two countries widened even more. By October 2020, the per capita death rate in Canada had dropped to just 40 percent of the rate in the U.S.

It is tempting to blame America’s disastrous response to COVID-19 on Trump, and there is no question that he bungled the situation. But the pandemic revealed deep fault lines in America’s institutions and culture that would have made effective responses difficult no matter who was in the White House. Had Barack Obama, for example, been in office when COVID-19 arrived, he, too, would have faced the country without a national health care system, one with deep distrust of government, exceptionally high levels of poverty and inequality, sharp racial divisions, a polarized polity, and a culture with a powerful strand of libertarianism at odds with the individual sacrifices necessary for the collective good.

The differences between the U.S. and Canada became even more starkly visible on the issue of vaccines. The U.S., which had purchased a massive supply of vaccines in advance, was initially far ahead, with 21 percent of Americans and only 2 percent of Canadians vaccinated by April 1, 2021. The U.S. was still ahead in July, but by October 1, 74 percent of Canadians were fully vaccinated, compared to just 58 percent of Americans. Part of the difference no doubt resides in the superior access provided by Canada’s system of universal, publicly funded healthcare. But equally, if not more important, is the far greater trust Canadians have in their national government: 73 percent versus 50 percent in the U.S. Coupled with greater vaccine resistance in the U.S., the net result is a vast gap in the proportion of the population that is not fully vaccinated: 32 percent in the U.S., but 13 percent in Canada.

Also implicated in the far higher COVID-19 death rate in the U.S. is the simple fact that Americans are less healthy than Canadians. Lacking a system of universal healthcare and plagued by unusually high levels of class and racial inequality, Americans are more likely to have pre-existing medical conditions associated with death from COVID. Americans have an obesity rate of 42 percent versus 27 percent for Canadians and a diabetes rate of 9.4 percent versus 7.3 percent for Canadians. Overall, the health of Canadians is superior and they live longer lives, with an average life expectancy of 82.2 years compared to 78.3 years in the U.S.

Exacerbating these differences in health are the deep cultural differences between the two countries. More than three decades ago, the sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset noted in Continental Divide that the ideologies of anti-statism and individualism were far more resonant in the U.S. than in Canada. For the many Americans influenced by the powerful libertarian strand in American culture and by its elaborate right-wing media apparatus, masks were a violation of freedom and vaccines a form of tyranny. Canada, which produced a trucker convoy that shut down the nation’s capital, is not immune to such sentiments. But they were far more pervasive in the U.S. and led to a degree of non-compliance with the government and public health officials that had no parallel in Canada; to take but one example, the percent of Canadians wearing masks in January 2022 when the Omicron variant was at its height was 80 percent compared to just 50 percent in the U.S.

Following a national disaster of this magnitude, there must be a serious inquiry into what happened and how it might be prevented or mitigated in the future. This is what the nation did after the attack on September 11, forming a Commission that issued a major report within two years of its formation. Surely a pandemic that has taken the lives of more than one million Americans warrants a report of at least equal seriousness. But in the current atmosphere of intense political partisanship, it might be better if such an investigation were conducted by a nongovernmental entity composed of distinguished citizens and experts, or by a non-political body such as the National Academy of Sciences. But whatever form such a commission might take, it must address a pressing question: why so many countries, including Canada, proved so much more effective in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. We could—and should—learn from their experiences, so that the U.S. does better when the next pandemic arrives.

Source: The U.S. Failed Miserably on COVID-19. Canada Shows It Didn’t Have to Be That Way

America’s states are drifting apart over illegal immigration

As in so many areas:

Congressional dysfunction can cause chaos in America. Look at illegal immigration, where the law strands 10.5m unauthorised migrants in limbo, with little chance of deportation or the legal status that confers the right to work. In the absence of legislation, presidents oscillate wildly. Barack Obama sought to declare almost half of the unauthorised population exempt from deportation and eligible to work. Donald Trump turned the screws the other way, and tried deterring migrants by heartlessly separating parents from children. President Joe Biden is facing dissent from Democrats fearful of Republican attacks if, as planned, he ends a pandemic-response measure called Title 42 on May 23rd. This lets American border police expel asylum-seekers and other migrants on public-health grounds.

America’s federalist system wisely leaves much room to the states to act as laboratories. But state experimentation on immigration has gravitated to the extremes. In some Republican states the aim seems to be cruelty for its own sake. Greg Abbott, the governor of Texas, has suggested that the Supreme Court should reverse precedent and remove the obligation to educate illegal children, as if that would do anybody any good.

Democratic states, by contrast, have opted to spend money. They are expanding welfare benefits for their illicit residents. New York, which in 2019 began issuing driving licences to residents in the state illegally, set up a $2.1bn fund to provide unemployment benefits and pandemic relief. Three years ago California expanded Medicaid, the government health-insurance programme for the poor, to include young irregular residents. Its governor, Gavin Newsom, wishes to offer the programme to all, regardless of immigration status.

America is an outlier. In Europe and elsewhere access to benefits is limited to citizens or legal immigrants—who often have to wait for several years to be eligible. You would not expect Bavaria to sponsor Syrian migrants that the German interior ministry had turned away, or councils in London to offer housing benefits to adults who are in Britain illegally. It is Congress’s lack of will to deal with illegal immigration in America that explains the urge in California and New York to do something about their permanent shadow-class. Despite vigorous efforts, one-tenth of California’s non-elderly population lacks health insurance. Of that group, the illegal immigrants account for 40%.

Alas, these efforts are likely to be yet another stop-start measure. Because most federal laws ban spending on illegal residents, states must fund the expanded services without federal subsidies. At present, their budgets are swollen by a strong recovery and overgenerous federal funding during the pandemic. In a recession, when budgets are squeezed, such spending is likely to come under political attack. Democrats have long maintained, correctly, that unlawful immigrants by and large work hard and pay taxes, but receive few benefits. That line will be harder to sustain as these programmes grow—to the relish of the nativist right, who will deem their warnings vindicated.

Only Congress can sort out the confusion of half-built border walls, seesawing presidential decrees and contradictory state regimes. Immigration reform, with an orderly path to legal residency for those who pay taxes and do not commit crimes, was once a bipartisan pursuit. It has been forgotten amid the Trumpian takeover of the Republican Party. Some Democratic senators, like Bob Menendez and Catherine Cortez Masto, remain committed to the idea of trading a route to citizenship for stronger border security and faster immigration courts, which today are overwhelmed. The party’s left has turned instead to daydreaming about abolishing America’s immigration authority. The pity is that a labour shortage makes this an especially propitious time for mending the system.

Source: America’s states are drifting apart over illegal immigration

Canada should rethink relationship with U.S. as democratic ‘backsliding’ worsens: security experts

Not my area of expertise but significant and needed. Hopefully, government and opposition will listen:

Canada’s intelligence community will have to grapple with the growing influence of anti-democratic forces in the United States — including the threat posed by conservative media outlets like Fox News — says a new report from a task force of intelligence experts.

“The United States is and will remain our closest ally, but it could also become a source of threat and instability,” says a newly published report written by a task force of former national security advisers, former Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) directors, ex-deputy ministers, former ambassadors and academics.

Now is the time for the federal government to rethink how it approaches national security, the report concludes.

The authors — some of whom had access to Canada’s most prized secrets and briefed cabinet on emerging threats — say Canada has become complacent in its national security strategies and is not prepared to tackle threats like Russian and Chinese espionage, the “democratic backsliding” in the United States, a rise in cyberattacks and climate change.

Thomas Juneau, co-director of the task force and associate professor at the School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa, said that while Canada’s right-wing extremism is homegrown, cross-border connections between extremist groups are alarming.

“There are growing transnational ties between right-wing extremists here and in the U.S., the movement of funds, the movement of people, the movement of ideas, the encouragement, the support by media, such as Fox News and other conservative media,” he said.

Convoy was a ‘wakeup call,’ says adviser

“We believe that the threats are quite serious at the moment, that they do impact Canada,” said report co-author Vincent Rigby, who until a few months ago served as the national security adviser to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

“We don’t want it to take a crisis for [the] government of Canada to wake up.”

The report he helped write says that one area in need of a policy pivot is Canada’s relationship with the United States.

He pointed to state Sen. Doug Mastriano’s recent win in the Republican primary for governor of Pennsylvania. Mastriano is a well-known proponent of the lie that election fraud caused former president Donald Trump’s loss in 2020.

“There are serious risks of democratic backsliding in the U.S. and at this point, that is not a theoretical risk,” Juneau said.

“So all of that is a serious threat to our sovereignty, to our security, and in some cases, to our democratic institutions … We need to rethink our relationship with the United States.”

The report points to the convoy protest that occupied downtown Ottawa in February and associated blockades in a handful of border towns earlier this winter. What started as a broad protest against COVID-19 restrictions morphed into a even broader rally against government authority itself, with some protesters calling for the overthrow of the elected government.

RCMP said that at the protest site near Coutts, Alta., they seized a cache of weapons; four people now face a charge of conspiracy to murder.

It “should be a wakeup call,” said Rigby.

“We potentially dodged a bullet there. We really did. And we’re hoping that the government and … other levels of government have learned lessons.”

The Canadian protests drew support from politicians in the U.S. and from conservative media outlets, including Fox News, says the report.

“This may not have represented foreign interference in the conventional sense, since it was not the result of actions of a foreign government. But it did represent, arguably, a greater threat to Canadian democracy than the actions of any state other than the United States,” the report says.

“It will be a significant challenge for our national security and intelligence agencies to monitor this threat, since it emanates from the same country that is by far our greatest source of intelligence.”

During the convoy protest, Fox host Tucker Carlson — whose show draws in millions of viewers every night — called Trudeau a “Stalinist dictator” on air and accused him of having “suspended democracy and declared Canada a dictatorship.”

Carlson himself has been under attack recently for pushing the concept of replacement theory — a racist concept that claims white Americans are being deliberately replaced through immigration.

The theory was cited in the manifesto of the 18-year-old man accused in the mass shooting in a predominately Black neighbourhood in Buffalo, N.Y. earlier this month.

The conspiracy theory also has been linked to previous mass shootings, including the 2019 mosque shootings in Christchurch, New Zealand.

Calls for new national security strategy

“When we think about threats to Canada, we think about the Soviet military threat, we think about al-Qaeda, we think about the rise of China, we think about the war in Ukraine. All of these are true. But so is the rising threat to Canada that the U.S. poses,” said Juneau.

“That’s completely new. That calls for a new way of thinking and new way of managing our relationship with the U.S.”

The conversation with the U.S. doesn’t have be uncomfortable but it does need to happen, said Rigby.

“It certainly would not be couched in a way of, ‘You’re the source of our problems.’ That would not be the conversation. The conversation would be, ‘How can we help each other?'” he said.

“We had those conversations during President Trump’s tenure and business continues. Does it become a little bit more challenging when you have a president like Mr. Trump? Absolutely, without a doubt. But we are still close, close allies.”

It’s why both Rigby and Juneau are hoping the report will spur the government to launch a new national security strategy review — something that hasn’t happened since 2004.

“I know there’s a certain cynicism around producing these strategies … another bulky report that’s going to end up on a shelf and gather dust,” said Rigby.

“But if they’re done properly, they’re done fast and they’re done efficiently and effectively — and our allies have done them — they can work and they’re important.”

The report makes a number of recommendations. It wants a review of CSIS’s enabling legislation, more use of open-source intelligence and efforts to strengthen cyber security. It also urges normally secretive intelligence agencies to be more open with the public by disclosing more intelligence and publishing annual threat assessments.

“There’s a new expanded definition of national security. It’s not your grandparents’ national security,” said Rigby.

“It’s time to step out of the shadows and step up and confront these challenges.”

Source: Canada should rethink relationship with U.S. as democratic ‘backsliding’ worsens: security experts

Meggs: Le système d’immigration n’est plus maîtrisé

Good and valid critique, highlighting some of the inconsistencies and incoherence of immigration policy:

Tous les drapeaux rouges signalent que le système d’immigration au Canada et au Québec n’est plus maîtrisé. Il y a d’abord le nombre de dossiers en attente de traitement au fédéral. Selon un reportage de CBC du 1er février 2022, plus de 1,8 million de dossiers d’immigration permanente, temporaire et de citoyenneté étaient en attente de traitement ! Au rythme noté dans le reportage, si on n’en ajoute pas à la pile, il faudra presque cinq ans pour les traiter.

Mais on persiste à en ajouter à la pile ! Le 11 avril, il y en avait plus de 2 millions, dont 1,1 million de demandes de permis temporaires, une hausse de 230 000 depuis la mi-mars.

Ces personnes à statut temporaire généreront une bonne proportion des nouvelles admissions parce que les gouvernements font tout pour encourager et faciliter le passage de statut temporaire à permanent. Au Québec, au moins 86 % des personnes sélectionnées en 2019 avaient un statut temporaire.

Plus on augmente le nombre de personnes à statut temporaire, plus il faudra augmenter les cibles d’immigration permanente parce que les demandes dépasseront les seuils établis. Il serait politiquement téméraire de refuser de recevoir leurs demandes. Ces personnes sont installées et intégrées au pays depuis des années. Planifier des seuils d’immigration permanente devient redondant dans un contexte d’immigration temporaire non maîtrisée.

Davantage de demandes entraînent une augmentation des coûts. Le gouvernement fédéral a budgété 85 millions de dollars l’automne dernier pour faire baisser le nombre de dossiers à traiter. Dans son dernier budget, il prévoit 2,673 milliards sur cinq ans et 441,3 millions annuellement par la suite en nouveau financement, ainsi que 43,5  millions, en 2022-2023, pour « maintenir le soutien fédéral aux services d’aide juridique à l’immigration et aux réfugiés ».

Outre les hausses de volumes, de délais et de ressources, il y a la multiplication des « politiques d’intérêt public », un mécanisme utilisé par le ministre fédéral pour changer unilatéralement les règles d’octroi de la résidence permanente et de permis temporaires, s’il « estime que l’intérêt public le justifie ».

Utilisées quatre fois entre 2005 et 2013, elles ont pris un envol extraordinaire récemment avec 11 recours en 2020 et 19 en 2021.

Elles touchent des situations tant ponctuelles (les personnes à statut temporaire résultant des incendies en Colombie-Britannique ; le parrainage des personnes réfugiées syriennes et irakiennes) que générales (une forme d’exemption des exigences linguistiques pour les personnes avec un handicap physique ou mental).

Il y a des exemples d’utilisation discriminatoire et manifestement politique. Par exemple, en 2020, l’une d’elles visait « à attirer au Canada des jeunes instruits de Hong Kong, dont on s’attend à ce que leur capital humain et leur expérience internationale contribuent au tissu économique, social et culturel du pays ». Elle témoignerait de la solidarité du Canada « avec d’autres alliés aux vues similaires, de son appui solide à l’égard des valeurs démocratiques et de sa défense de celles-ci ». Il y a sûrement de jeunes diplômés ailleurs dans le monde qui aimeraient être sauvés des régimes autoritaires et répressifs.

Le gouvernement fédéral modifie aussi allègrement les règles d’immigration temporaire. Il a annoncé le 1er avril des assouplissements au Programme des travailleurs étrangers temporaires qui vont sensiblement plus loin que l’entente négociée avec le Québec. En 2016, il a créé un nouveau permis ouvert pour les employeurs hors Québec qui embauchent des francophones de l’étranger. Pourquoi exclure les employeurs québécois de cet avantage ?

Il y a des exemples d’incohérences presque inexplicables. Depuis plusieurs années, le fédéral vante sa politique de rétention des étudiantes et étudiants étrangers sans avoir modifié le Règlement de l’immigration exigeant que la personne faisant une demande de permis d’études au Canada démontre qu’elle quittera le pays à la fin de son séjour.

Les 40 000 Afghans annoncés arriveront avec un statut de réfugié, mais les Ukrainiens auront un permis de travail spécial de trois ans, sans plafond sur le nombre.

Il n’y a aucune consultation systématique avec les gouvernements provinciaux avant la prise de ces décisions. Aucune considération de l’effet de cette augmentation rapide de la population sur des besoins en logement ou en services de garde, ni sur les écoles, les systèmes de santé et de services sociaux, le transport en commun. Il y a très peu d’arrimage possible entre l’expertise et l’expérience de travail des personnes qui arrivent et les besoins locaux du marché de travail.

Le Québec est à la remorque du fédéral à bien des égards. N’ayant aucun moyen d’agir sur les délais de traitement fédéraux, il encourage l’immigration temporaire, ce qui fait augmenter le nombre de demandes d’immigration, et improvise avec de nouveaux programmes qui ne donnent pas les résultats escomptés.

L’immigration est un projet foncièrement humain. Comment penser le réussir sans une vision claire soutenue par une infrastructure législative et administrative efficace ?

Tous les drapeaux rouges signalent que le système d’immigration au Canada et au Québec n’est plus maîtrisé. Il y a d’abord le nombre de dossiers en attente de traitement au fédéral. Selon un reportage de CBC du 1er février 2022, plus de 1,8 million de dossiers d’immigration permanente, temporaire et de citoyenneté étaient en attente de traitement ! Au rythme noté dans le reportage, si on n’en ajoute pas à la pile, il faudra presque cinq ans pour les traiter.

Mais on persiste à en ajouter à la pile ! Le 11 avril, il y en avait plus de 2 millions, dont 1,1 million de demandes de permis temporaires, une hausse de 230 000 depuis la mi-mars.

Ces personnes à statut temporaire généreront une bonne proportion des nouvelles admissions parce que les gouvernements font tout pour encourager et faciliter le passage de statut temporaire à permanent. Au Québec, au moins 86 % des personnes sélectionnées en 2019 avaient un statut temporaire.

Plus on augmente le nombre de personnes à statut temporaire, plus il faudra augmenter les cibles d’immigration permanente parce que les demandes dépasseront les seuils établis. Il serait politiquement téméraire de refuser de recevoir leurs demandes. Ces personnes sont installées et intégrées au pays depuis des années. Planifier des seuils d’immigration permanente devient redondant dans un contexte d’immigration temporaire non maîtrisée.

Davantage de demandes entraînent une augmentation des coûts. Le gouvernement fédéral a budgété 85 millions de dollars l’automne dernier pour faire baisser le nombre de dossiers à traiter. Dans son dernier budget, il prévoit 2,673 milliards sur cinq ans et 441,3 millions annuellement par la suite en nouveau financement, ainsi que 43,5  millions, en 2022-2023, pour « maintenir le soutien fédéral aux services d’aide juridique à l’immigration et aux réfugiés ».

Outre les hausses de volumes, de délais et de ressources, il y a la multiplication des « politiques d’intérêt public », un mécanisme utilisé par le ministre fédéral pour changer unilatéralement les règles d’octroi de la résidence permanente et de permis temporaires, s’il « estime que l’intérêt public le justifie ».

Utilisées quatre fois entre 2005 et 2013, elles ont pris un envol extraordinaire récemment avec 11 recours en 2020 et 19 en 2021.

Elles touchent des situations tant ponctuelles (les personnes à statut temporaire résultant des incendies en Colombie-Britannique ; le parrainage des personnes réfugiées syriennes et irakiennes) que générales (une forme d’exemption des exigences linguistiques pour les personnes avec un handicap physique ou mental).

Il y a des exemples d’utilisation discriminatoire et manifestement politique. Par exemple, en 2020, l’une d’elles visait « à attirer au Canada des jeunes instruits de Hong Kong, dont on s’attend à ce que leur capital humain et leur expérience internationale contribuent au tissu économique, social et culturel du pays ». Elle témoignerait de la solidarité du Canada « avec d’autres alliés aux vues similaires, de son appui solide à l’égard des valeurs démocratiques et de sa défense de celles-ci ». Il y a sûrement de jeunes diplômés ailleurs dans le monde qui aimeraient être sauvés des régimes autoritaires et répressifs.

Le gouvernement fédéral modifie aussi allègrement les règles d’immigration temporaire. Il a annoncé le 1er avril des assouplissements au Programme des travailleurs étrangers temporaires qui vont sensiblement plus loin que l’entente négociée avec le Québec. En 2016, il a créé un nouveau permis ouvert pour les employeurs hors Québec qui embauchent des francophones de l’étranger. Pourquoi exclure les employeurs québécois de cet avantage ?

Il y a des exemples d’incohérences presque inexplicables. Depuis plusieurs années, le fédéral vante sa politique de rétention des étudiantes et étudiants étrangers sans avoir modifié le Règlement de l’immigration exigeant que la personne faisant une demande de permis d’études au Canada démontre qu’elle quittera le pays à la fin de son séjour.

Les 40 000 Afghans annoncés arriveront avec un statut de réfugié, mais les Ukrainiens auront un permis de travail spécial de trois ans, sans plafond sur le nombre.

Il n’y a aucune consultation systématique avec les gouvernements provinciaux avant la prise de ces décisions. Aucune considération de l’effet de cette augmentation rapide de la population sur des besoins en logement ou en services de garde, ni sur les écoles, les systèmes de santé et de services sociaux, le transport en commun. Il y a très peu d’arrimage possible entre l’expertise et l’expérience de travail des personnes qui arrivent et les besoins locaux du marché de travail.

Le Québec est à la remorque du fédéral à bien des égards. N’ayant aucun moyen d’agir sur les délais de traitement fédéraux, il encourage l’immigration temporaire, ce qui fait augmenter le nombre de demandes d’immigration, et improvise avec de nouveaux programmes qui ne donnent pas les résultats escomptés.

L’immigration est un projet foncièrement humain. Comment penser le réussir sans une vision claire soutenue par une infrastructure législative et administrative efficace ?

Anne Michèle Meggs Ancienne directrice de la planification et de la reddition de comptes du ministère de l’Immigration, de la Francisation et de l’Intégration

Source: Le système d’immigration n’est plus maîtrisé

Pap Ndiaye on BLM and the antiracist movement in France

Good background on France’s new education minister and the debates over racism and “wokeism”.

Arun's avatarArun with a View

I’ve been in Berlin for the past week and generally away from the laptop, thus the absence of AWAV’s take on Emmanuel Macron’s appointment of Élisabeth Borne to Matignon and the subsequent announcement of her government—all the picks being Macron’s, of course. The most noteworthy, indeed astonishing, one—I let out a loud “wow!” when I learned of it—was that of Pap Ndiaye as Minister of Education, which is a pretty important ministry in the French government—the minister having a million or so (heavily unionized) fonctionnaires under her/his tutelary authority, plus responsibility for some 13 million schoolchildren and students. Pap Ndiaye is well known to all those of a social scientific/humanities academic and/or left-wing bent, as a brilliant academic specialist of race in France, but also in the United States, and as director since March 2021 of the Museum of the History of Immigration (for which he was profiled in The…

View original post 689 more words

Historic levels of hate crimes are a threat to U.S. democracy, Lipstadt says

Of note:

The historic levels of hate crimes in the U.S. were devastatingly illustrated with a racist mass shooting last weekend at a supermarket that took 10 lives in a mostly Black neighborhood in Buffalo, N.Y. At the forefront of a global fight against hatred and racism is a special U.S. envoy, Ambassador Deborah Lipstadt. Her mandate at the State Department is to monitor and combat antisemitism.

DEBORAH LIPSTADT: But anti-Semitism morphs into other hatred.

FADEL: And when she and I spoke, we discussed how ugly prejudices in one community can feed and grow hate in another.

LIPSTADT: The rising threat of anti-Semitism, the rising threat of racism, the rising degree of conspiratorial thinking, it’s not just a threat to the welfare of specific groups in this country – we saw it against the African American community in a tragic, tragic way this past week – but it’s a national security threat. It’s a threat to our communal welfare. And the need is immediate. And the need is great.

FADEL: Since the attack in Buffalo, we’ve been hearing a lot about this racist conspiracy, the replacement theory. And when I hear that, I think back to Charlottesville, nearly five years ago, when we watched neo-Nazis and white supremacists march with torches and chant, Jews will not replace us. Can you just explain this debunked and racist conspiracy and its danger?

LIPSTADT: Sure. There is a belief amongst people such as the killer in Buffalo and too many others like him. And what they argue is that there is a concerted effort, a plan, a scheme to replace, to destroy white Christian culture, to turn white Christians into a minority by flooding their countries with either people from Africa, Muslims – in this country, people from, quote-unquote, “south of the border” – and to render white Christians a minority. But there’s something else that motivates them or that is part of that theory. They look upon people of color as inferior to white Christians. There has to be someone behind them making this happen. They are the puppets. But who is the puppeteer? And some of them will immediately say, it is the Jew, because in their eyes, Jews are not white. Or they will look for someone whom they believe has the financial resources, the malicious smarts, the ability to be – though small in number, to do this thing, to make this thing happen and to do it secretly. And they will come upon the Jews.

FADEL: And this idea, this conspiracy that has no truth to it, it’s not fringe anymore. It doesn’t feel fringe anymore.

LIPSTADT: You’re absolutely correct. There is an increasing percentage of the American population who believe this is really happening and who think that America’s identity is under threat. And whether they read it online, whether they hear it in the media, whether they hear it from certain politicians – but they believe it. This young man who committed this horrendous, horrendous act in Buffalo, he was radicalized online. Now, maybe in his home, you know, he heard certain things that made him amenable to these ideas. But it’s out there. And people have to recognize that it’s this panoply of hatreds that constitute this threat to our democracy and threat to our country and to national security and foreign countries as well.

FADEL: Your mandate is global, and we’re talking about the danger here in the U.S. But when you look at the world, how prevalent is this right now in 2022?

LIPSTADT: It’s extremely prevalent. And my mandate, of course, is global. I’m based in the State Department. But it becomes increasingly difficult to draw a strict dividing line. Or take Buffalo – the killer in Buffalo, the murderer in Buffalo, looked at, as a model, the Christchurch shooter who murdered people in the mosques. He plagiarized what he had written. He also said he had been inspired by the shooter in Halle, Germany, who, two years ago, on Yom Kippur – the Day of Atonement, the holiest day of the Jewish year – tried to attack a synagogue in which there were 70 or 80 worshippers. And but for a lock on the door, we would have had the largest massacre of Jews on German soil since the Holocaust. So it is a global threat, including in our own country.

FADEL: But I guess I struggle with – how do you combat an idea, whether true or not? – because you can’t imprison an idea out of existence. You can’t kill an idea out of existence. I mean, what do you do practically?

LIPSTADT: I’m a teacher. And I hope I can reach people. I’m not going to be able to change the minds of people who would pick up a gun, put themselves in full body armor and go to a supermarket on a weekend afternoon, where people are buying groceries and buying snacks to watch their nighttime movies or taking their kids for ice cream, and murder them. Those people I can’t reach. But I want to reach the people who don’t really understand this threat, the nature, the danger of these ideas and get them to understand and get them to understand something else as well. And this comes from my years of study and teaching and research about the Holocaust. The Nazis in Germany didn’t come into office in January, 1933, with a plan to murder Jews and saying, OK, we’re going to have gas chambers. Maybe some of them had that in the back of their mind, but that wasn’t what they were planning. They tested. They started first by burning books in May. Then they threw Jews out of civil service positions. And then, in 1935, they deprived them of their citizenship. And slowly but surely, in 1938, they had a nationwide destruction of Jewish property and killing of Jews. And they tested how far they can go. When can we be stopped? So you can’t wait until a Buffalo to try to stop it. You’ve got to stop it before.

FADEL: Ambassador Deborah Lipstadt is the special envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism. Thank you so much for your time.

Source: Historic levels of hate crimes are a threat to U.S. democracy, Lipstadt says

El-Assal: How can Canada avoid major immigration backlogs in the future?

Reasonable and practical recommendations. We share belief in need for independent review but I would argue for a broader focus than just IRCC’s ability to deliver and implement.

A more fundamental review of the government’s approach, priorities and levels across the whole suite of immigration programs is needed, more on the why than the how:

Earlier this month the Canadian Parliament’s Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration (CIMM) began a study on IRCC’s application processing times and backlogs.

The purpose of CIMM is to provide oversight of the immigration system and release studies that contain recommendations for improvement. CIMM invited me to Ottawa to participate in this study, which I did on May 5th. I would like to use this article as an opportunity to elaborate on my recommendations.

The backlog has doubled since the start of the pandemic to 2.1 million people. This includes applicants for permanent residence, temporary residence, and citizenship. Needless to say, the backlog is hurting Canada’s economy, keeping families apart, and undermining Canada’s ability to provide humanitarian assistance to those in need.

There is no doubt the pandemic has been a major contributor to the backlog. At the start of the pandemic, Canadian government employees needed to work remotely which limited their ability to process applications. However, the pandemic is not the only reason for the backlog, and at the very least, the pandemic cannot explain why Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) has delivered such poor customer service for over two years now.

The following are six steps I feel can help improve the state of Canadian immigration operations.

1) Treat applicants with greater respect

The first step Canada needs to take to avoid backlogs from getting out of control again in the future is by treating all of its immigration applicants with far more respect. When we discuss backlogs, we often think about the number of files in the queue, and sometimes we forget about the number of human lives that are being negatively affected.

Taking a more human-centric approach to our immigration system is a necessary step towards progress. There is no justification for IRCC going months or even years on end without responding to enquiries from its clients. The lack of urgency to provide updates also explains why there has been a lack of urgency to process applications.

For some reason, we do not see immigration applicants as worthy enough of getting quality customer service, even though IRCC has a legal mandate to process applications. It is only fair that applicants get quality service given they are required to pay IRCC a fee for their papers to be processed. Imagine how upset you would be if you paid a postal company to deliver a parcel, only to discover they have yet to ship it and are not responding to any of your calls or emails.

Just like companies putting customers front and center of everything they do, so too should IRCC. Every decision the department makes should be through the lens of providing the best customer experience possible.

2) Align intake with processing capacity

The second step is for Canada to do a better job of aligning its intake with its processing capacity. We already do this with various programs such as IRCC’s economic class pilots, the Parents and Grandparents Program (PGP), the Provincial Nominee Program (PNP), among others. Federal and provincial governments work within the confines of the allocation for a given program and ensure they do not solicit more applications than they are capable of processing within the allocation. This is not a perfect model and often leads to disappointment, as is the case with the PGP, but at the same time it helps us limit the potential for excessive processing times.

IRCC made several major mistakes at the start of the pandemic which has made the backlog much worse. It continued to solicit applications even when its processing capacity was slowed, meaning that it had a huge mountain to climb once its processing capacity began to return to normal.

For instance, Express Entry was launched in 2015 to help avoid backlogs by only inviting candidates that IRCC wanted to process. Nonetheless, we saw our Express Entry backlog skyrocket since IRCC continued to invite candidates throughout 2020, before realizing it needed to implement two major pauses in December 2020 and then in September 2021 to manage its Express Entry inventory. This could have been avoided altogether if IRCC simply reduced its Express Entry invitations in 2020 until its operations got back on track.

Unfortunately, IRCC made the same mistake in 2021 by first, continuing to issue very high levels of Express Entry invitations, and then second, by welcoming 90,000 additional applications under the Temporary Residence to Permanent Residence (“TR2PR”) Program. According to the Immigration Levels Plan 2022-2024, it will now take IRCC two more years to catch up on all those applications before it can bring its economic class programming back to normal by 2024. Moving forward, IRCC should be more careful and ensure it has the capacity to process incoming applications within a timely manner.

3) Expedite technological transformation

The third step is for Canada to expedite the badly-needed technological transformation of its immigration system. Much of the immigration system remains paper-based, which slows things down. Moreover, it makes it difficult for staff to process applications remotely and to transfer files to other offices. IRCC should strive for all applications to be online within the near future, while at the same time providing accommodations for those who have disabilities, the elderly, among others who may need to submit paper-based applications. Technology is a major asset to the immigration system, and can expedite many processes. At some point we should strive to complete as many immigration processes online, such as changing visas status for those in Canada, and citizenship ceremonies.

4) Be more transparent

The fourth is for Canada to be more transparent on the state of immigration policies and operations. IRCC has kept us in the dark for much of the pandemic rather than fulfilling its obligation to inform the public on its policy priorities and state of operations. For instance, it went between December 2020 and April 2022 before telling Federal Skilled Worker Program (FSWP) candidates when they would be invited under Express Entry again. It did the same for Canadian Experience Class (CEC) candidates between September 2021 and April 2022. Moving forward, IRCC should provide regular public updates, preferably on a monthly basis, outlining what its current policy priorities are, and the state of its backlogs. This will allow all stakeholders including applicants themselves, employers, post-secondary institutions, and more, to be able to plan accordingly.

5) Conduct an independent study

The fifth step is for Canada to be more accountable about its immigration system shortcomings during the pandemic. An independent study should be commissioned to evaluate what IRCC did right, what it did wrong, and what it can do better. While the pandemic is a valid excuse, it is not the only explanation why the backlog has ballooned over the past two years.

An independent study can shed light on the policy and operational causes of the backlog and provide recommendations so the mistakes do not happen again. Being more accountable will also help to restore trust in Canada’s immigration system. Many stakeholders have had a bad experience during the pandemic which has hurt the reputation of our immigration system. Showing the public that the Canadian government is capable of acknowledging its mistakes and rectifying them will likely result in more applicants viewing Canada in a positive light.

6) Form a National Advisory Council on Immigration

Sixth, the Canadian government needs to collaborate more with Canadian immigration experts. Canada has a large immigration ecosystem full of experts from many different industries such as law, business, the settlement sector, research, academia, governments, post-secondary institutions, and more. Yet, there have been few meaningful immigration consultations during the pandemic, leading to avoidable consequences.

Forming a National Advisory Council on Immigration (NACI) would be a positive step towards harnessing all this expertise so Canada can make the best immigration decisions possible. These sorts of expert councils exist among other Canadian government departments. Forming one on immigration would be a major asset for IRCC.

Looking ahead

Looking ahead, we should feel optimistic that Canada’s immigration system will eventually get back on track. Immigration is far too important to Canada’s prosperity for the system to remain disrupted for much longer.

The technological investments Canada is making, plus the hiring of more IRCC staff, and increased public scrutiny from the likes of the media, CIMM, employers, post-secondary institutions, and applicants themselves will hopefully lead to Canada delivering a much better experience to immigration applicants in the years ahead.

Source: How can Canada avoid major immigration backlogs in the future?

USA: Haaland seeks healing for Native American boarding school survivors

Of note:

The Interior Department found that the U.S. operated or actively supported more than 400 American Indian boarding schools between 1819 and 1969 – a history that affects the agency’s own leader.

Secretary Deb Haaland, the first Native American to serve as a Cabinet secretary, tells NPR’s All Things Considered that she had grandparents who were taken from their homes and placed in these schools.

“[Those are] formidable years in a child’s life,” she says. “It’s devastating. It’s important that our country realizes and understands this history because I think it’s important for every single American to know what happened.”

The department’s findings came after an investigation into these schools and the role the federal government played in sustaining them.

Much like in Canada, Native children who attended these schools were forcibly taken from their families to be “assimilated,” as it was described at the time.

Many children reported brutal conditions. Others never returned home.

U.S. officials identified at least 53 schools with marked or unmarked burial sites with the remains of children who died there.

In an effort to confront this history, Haaland says she plans to meet with boarding school survivors across the country in a tour called “The Road to Healing.”

“I always enjoy visiting with people in Indian Country. We’re all relatives,” she says. “Above all, I just need to hear those stories myself.”

This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.

On why this is the first documentation by the U.S. government on the prevalence of Indian boarding schools:

Perhaps part of it stems from the fact that we haven’t had a lot of Native American leadership in our country. Representation matters. And that’s one of the reasons why I felt it was important for me to raise this issue.

On the lingering effects of these boarding schools on Indigenous communities:

There are current impacts in drug addiction and poverty and the lack of economic development, and health disparities. When people are invisible, you don’t have to pay attention. We should care about every single community in this country. So bringing all of these things to light; it will make us become a better country.

On the idea that bringing up painful history is divisive:

These are real people, and these are their lives. I think it’s important that we heal as a country. Everyone’s experience in the boarding school system, whether they’re a survivor or a descendant, that pain is real. And it’s incumbent on me to ensure that I am paying attention to that and that I am doing all I can to make sure that we can heal and get people past that pain.

Source: Haaland seeks healing for Native American boarding school survivors

Opening the ‘Black Box’ of Japan’s immigration system

Fascinating and disturbing read:
Japan’s immigration agency has been accused of operating in an untransparent manner, largely because there is no way for the public to find out what is happening inside its detention facilities. Authorities have pledged to improve the situation, but some people believe greater public involvement will be needed before meaningful change can take place. Among them is an American documentary filmmaker and a former Japanese immigration officer.

A memorial service for a Sri Lankan woman, Wishma Sandamari, was held at a temple in Aichi Prefecture on March 6. It was attended by her younger sister, Purnima, and other supporters. The day marked the first anniversary of Wishma’s death at an immigration detention facility. During the six months the 33-year-old was detained, she repeatedly complained of ill health, but did not receive the care she asked for. The Justice Ministry admits that in Wishma’s case, the facility’s medical system was insufficient. But her death has not been the only tragedy to occur within the walls of Japan’s detention centers in recent years. Since 2007, there have been 17 deaths, including suicides.

Mano Akemi, a volunteer who makes regular visits to detainees, met with Wishma and became friends. She was devastated by her death and is advocating for greater transparency in detention centers. “The biggest problem is the immigration system in ,” she says. “It really is a black box. I think speaking up has been essential, and I am trying to make more people aware of this problem.”

In response to the criticism surrounding Wishma’s death, Japan’s immigration agency has announced 12 improvement measures, including raising awareness among staff members, strengthening the facilities’ medical responses, and setting clear guidelines for granting provisional release to detainees who are suffering ill health.

But the agency is also calling for controversial changes to Japan’s immigration law. It says the current legislation creates a situation where there are more people in detention than there otherwise would be. The reason, they say, is that it allows people with no legitimate asylum claim to repeatedly apply for it to avoid deportation. Under international law, asylum seekers cannot be deported.

Thomas Ash, an American filmmaker living in , recently made a documentary named “Ushiku” that urges people in to face the reality of how their country’s immigration system works. He says he “started filming with the strong belief that it is imperative to leave evidence so that if an incident occurs there will be no denying it in the future.”

In October 2019, Ash began visiting an immigration detention center in Ushiku City, Ibaraki Prefecture — one of the largest facilities of its type in — and met with detainees on a volunteer basis. At the time, around 265 detainees were being held there. There are 17 such facilities in the country with a total capacity of nearly 3,400 detainees.

In the winter of that year, Ash began secretly filming his interviews with detainees using a small camera, despite that recording is strictly prohibited. Visitors are allowed to meet with detainees, but only with the understanding that journalistic research is barred. The documentary was shot over the course of about a year.

In one scene captured in the Ushiku facility’s visiting room, an asylum seeker tells Ash he is refusing to comply with his deportation order because he fears persecution if he returns to his home country.

Another scene shows a young detainee who has gone on a hunger strike.

The detainee was one of several at the center who went on a hunger strike around the time that Ash began filming his documentary. The protest spread from spring 2019 to other facilities across the country, with a total of 235 detainees involved between June 2019 and January 2020. In June 2019 one Nigerian detainee died while on hunger strike at a Nagasaki Prefecture facility.

The film also contains footage that was submitted as evidence in a lawsuit filed by a former detainee who spent a total of five years in detention and was diagnosed with depression. Immigration officials explained that he became violent while asking for tranquilizers so they forcibly restrained him. They say the practice, known as “seiatsu” or suppression, is in accordance with facility regulations.

But Ash says, “Why did they go that far? It’s a detention center, not a prison, right? They should not be considered as criminals. Even if they are illegal residents, they have human rights.”

There has been criticism about Ash’s decision to film in secret among support groups and some lawyers providing aid to detainees. The documentary is controversial not only because it was made covertly, breaking the agency’s rules, but also because of the possible repercussions for the detainees it features.

The Immigration Agency told NHK it “considers filming while knowing that recording is prohibited inside the facilities to be an unforgivable act, no matter how much it is based on personal conviction.”

The director explains, “I myself believe that rules or laws should be respected, but by respecting laws or rules, someone can also become a perpetrator.” He says he felt compelled to make the film: “This person in front of me may die. He will probably die. I had to document that reality.”

Ash says it’s essential that people know what is really going on inside Japan’s detention centers. “I think there are some people who are trying to sweep immigration and refugee issues under the carpet,” he says, “as if we don’t have to think about them because they are problems of distant countries or only of non-Japanese.

“They are people suffering here. This is something that is actually happening. I want to ask. It’s happening in your country. Are you okay with that?”

The film has caught many viewers by surprise. One woman in her twenties says she was shocked by how little she knew about the issue. Another man said he felt ashamed that he didn’t know about the reality of what is happening in and that Japanese people need to make this their problem.

Others have also been speaking out. Kinoshita Yoichi is a former immigration officer who leads a research group that advocates for immigration reform from the outside.

“I think the Immigration Services Agency has now realized that the days of handing out punishments without regard to the public interest or concern have passed,” Kinoshita says. “The public can play a very important role in monitoring what the agency is doing so it’s very important that people take an interest in the issue.”

People in are starting to make their voices heard on refugee causes. Local charity events and donation boxes are opening to help people displaced by the Ukrainian crisis. But is the government truly considering changes to its immigration policies?

The justice minister, Furukawa Yoshihisa, announced in April that he wants to create a new policy called ‘subsidiary protection’ to support people, including Ukrainians, who are escaping war in their homelands but do not meet the requirements to be recognized as refugees in .

But he also indicated the ministry would continue to support government policies proposed last year that would strengthen the agency’s power to deport people, including asylum seekers, as a way to deal with long-term detention. The government had withdrawn the proposal amid strong public opposition in the wake of Wishma’s death.

“At present, ‘fleeing conflict’ is not a sufficient reason to be recognized as a refugee in , which has one of the strictest screening processes in the world,” says Takahashi Wataru, a human rights lawyer and researcher on immigration laws for the Federation of Bar Association. “Less than 1 percent of applicants are granted refugee status. The government appears to be using what looks like a positive move as a cover to pass its former plan, which aims to strengthen its deportation policy and continues to evade discussing the core of the issue. The government needs to reform its strict screening process to recognize the refugee status of people fleeing war, including Ukrainians, and end long-term detention of asylum seekers.”

The UNHCR has said that measures for subsidiary protection should not replace or undermine the refugee protection system of asylum seekers.

The opposition parties proposed their own plan in early May. It recommends setting up an independent expert committee to examine refugee applications, make a court order necessary for detention, and limit detention-period extensions to six months.

The system of indefinite detention has drawn criticism from the UN’s Human Rights Council for being inhumane. At the same time, Japanese politicians and businesses have said they are willing to embrace a more diverse society — partly due to the country’s severe labor shortage. But the confusion over immigration has only sown anxiety among non-Japanese residents.

Public awareness is on the rise, in part because of Wishma’s death, Ash’s documentary and the invasion of . Any changes that take place are likely to happen slowly, but these factors may add momentum for reform.

Source: Opening the ‘Black Box’ of Japan’s immigration system