Le français comme condition d’immigration : la nouvelle réforme de la CAQ

Useful overview (English below):

Le gouvernement québécois a récemment présenté ses nouvelles orientations en matière d’immigration. Le message est clair : la langue devient une condition sine qua non pour s’installer de façon permanente au Québec.

Ce resserrement des règles aura des impacts importants sur les futurs immigrants, mais aussi sur ceux vivant déjà au Québec. Il marque aussi la consolidation de l’approche prônée par la CAQ en matière d’immigration permanente : d’abord assurer la protection du français, avant la croissance démographique ou économique liée à l’immigration. D’ailleurs, si le Québec devait accueillir plus d’immigrants, ce sera uniquement en raison de la croissance du nombre d’immigrants économiques francophones.

La nouvelle approche inclut une réforme du programme de sélection des travailleurs qualifiés, une refonte du Programme de l’expérience Québécoise (PEQ), des changements aux conditions du programme de regroupement familial, à celui des investisseurs et à celui des travailleurs autonomes.

De plus grandes exigences pour les immigrants économiques

Bien que la connaissance de la langue ait toujours été centrale dans les orientations du Québec en matière d’immigration (qui furent mises en œuvre par le biais des pouvoirs dévolus à la province dans le cadre de l’Accord Canada-Québec de 1991), l’approche prônée par la CAQ augmente les exigences linguistiques pour tous les programmes d’immigration économique.

Un nouveau Programme de sélection des travailleurs qualifiés (PSTQ) sera mis en place. Alors que dans le programme actuel, la connaissance du français pouvait augmenter les scores globaux des candidats à l’immigration dans grille de sélection, le PSTQ fait de la connaissance du français une condition nécessaire à l’immigration.

Pour les volets 1 à 3 du programme, la connaissance minimale exigée sera modulée en fonction du niveau de qualification requise. Les travailleurs visant un poste de gestion ou qui demande généralement une formation postsecondaire devront posséder une compétence en français de niveau 7 (intermédiaire avancé) à l’oral et 5 à l’écrit, sur une échelle qui en compte 12. Les autres emplois seront soumis à un niveau 5 à l’oral, soit le début de l’échelle intermédiaire. Le gouvernement s’est donné une petite marge de manœuvre pour le volet 4 « talents d’exception ». Pour cette petite partie du programme qui vise des compétences « exceptionnelles », aucune connaissance du français n’est exigée pour l’instant.

Le PSTQ crée aussi une obligation linguistique pour les conjoints des demandeurs principaux à l’immigration au Québec, soit un niveau minimum de 4 à l’oral, le dernier échelon pour une compétence de base. La vaste majorité des candidats à l’immigration permanente devront donc avoir une connaissance intermédiaire du français.

Un nouveau PEQ

En parallèle, le PEQ (Programme de l’expérience québécoise) renaît de ses cendres. Le PEQ est une passerelle vers la résidence permanente pour les immigrants temporaires, à travers deux volets : les diplômés du Québec et les travailleurs étrangers temporaires. En 2020, le gouvernement de la CAQ avait limité dans la controverse l’accès à ce programme très populaire auprès des étudiants internationaux ayant acquis un diplôme d’une institution québécoise et une expérience de travail conséquente dans la province.

Dans la nouvelle mouture du PEQ, l’exigence d’emploi disparaît du volet des diplômés, mais la langue devient centrale : seuls les programmes d’études en français seront admissibles. Le programme reste ouvert aux travailleurs temporaires et devient accessible à de nouvelles professions, autrefois exclues du PEQ, par exemple les camionneurs ou les préposés aux bénéficiaires. Pour les deux volets (diplômés et travailleurs temporaires), un niveau 7 ou plus est exigé à l’oral. Les conjoints, eux, devront encore avoir un français oral de niveau 4, comme c’était le cas depuis juillet 2021.

La version 2023 du PEQ est donc, dans les faits, limitée aux personnes avec des connaissances avancées du français et ayant interagi fortement avec des institutions francophones dans le cadre de leur expérience préalable au Québec.

Les gens d’affaires et les regroupements familiaux

Une même tendance est annoncée pour les gens d’affaires : les programmes dédiés aux investisseurs et aux travailleurs autonomes exigeront dorénavant un français oral de niveau 7.

Les nouvelles orientations affectent aussi le parrainage dans le cadre des regroupements familiaux. Cela reflète les revendications du gouvernement actuel, qui a exigé le transfert de pouvoirs d’Ottawa afin de pouvoir soumettre les réunifications familiales à des critères linguistiques. À défaut de ces pouvoirs supplémentaires, la réforme ajoute une composante linguistique aux exigences des personnes garantes – les parrains –, en plus des conditions financières. Le gouvernement souhaite maintenant qu’un plan d’accueil et d’intégration soit soumis au ministère de l’Immigration, de la Francisation et de l’Intégration par la personne garante, dans lequel elle « s’engagera notamment à soutenir l’apprentissage du français par les personnes parrainées ».

Vers une nouvelle ère en immigration au Québec ?

Bien que ces changements restent encore à être mis en œuvre, le message envoyé par la CAQ, alors que Québec s’apprête à revoir ses seuils d’immigration, est clair : il faut parler français pour immigrer de façon permanente au Québec. À cet égard, il convient d’apporter une nuance importante. Depuis 1991, la province met en place des programmes d’immigration visant à s’assurer qu’une part importante des immigrants connaissent et utilisent le français au moment d’être reçus. À titre indicatif, la proportion de personnes immigrantes déclarant connaître le français au moment de leur admission se situait à près de 70 %en 2021.

Les nouvelles orientations intensifient donc l’approche historique du Québec en plus de renforcer les privilèges accordés aux francophones et francotropes dans la sélection. Elles créent aussi des exigences administratives supplémentaires pour les candidats à l’immigration et ceux qui les soutiennent.

Ces changements auront des conséquences marquées sur l’origine des immigrants que le Québec va accueillir, en donnant des avantages encore plus importants aux bassins de la francophonie, tels que la France, la Belgique, le Maroc, la Tunisie, le Sénégal ou le Bénin. Pour les personnes déjà installées au Québec dans le cadre d’un processus d’immigration temporaire pour des études ou pour le travail – et souvent issus de pays non-francophones, comme la Chine, l’Inde, les Philippines, ou l’Iran – la réforme envoie aussi le signal que l’accès à la résidence permanente ne pourra se faire que par un apprentissage soutenu du français.

Ces nouvelles réalités pourraient donc non seulement changer le visage de l’immigration permanente, mais aussi celui de l’immigration temporaire.

Source: Le français comme condition d’immigration : la nouvelle réforme de la CAQ

French as a condition of immigration: the CAQ’s new reform

Ottawa to rectify issue with massively revised temporary foreign workers data

Good quick response. And kudos to the Globe for uncovering the change. Hopefully the lesson learned is that any significant change must be openly and transparently communicated, preferably with advance consultations:

The federal government says it will publish a full accounting of temporary foreign work permit holders in Canada after The Globe and Mail discovered that more than two decades of data had been altered without explanation.

More than one million people held work permits through the International Mobility Program at the end of last year, according to figures that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada published in February.

However, the federal immigration department recently made significant downward revisions to those numbers, indicating there are now around 675,000 permit holders. The figures for all previous years, dating back to 2000, had also been reduced.

Several immigration researchers told The Globe that IRCC removed work permit holders whose primary reason for being in Canada may not be related to the labour market, such as students and refugee claimants.

The department said the revised numbers were not properly labelled. “When this new data set was published, the incorrect title/description was mistakenly published to accompany it,” spokesperson Matthew Krupovich said in a statement.

IRCC said it intends to publish figures on both the narrower and broader groups of work permit holders, but did not indicate when that will happen.

Some economists were frustrated with how IRCC handled the data revision and expressed concern that lowering the numbers would obscure how many temporary foreign workers are in the country.

“The data is just a mess,” said Mikal Skuterud, a professor of labour economics at the University of Waterloo.

By not counting international students with work permits, for example, “one would understate the growth of the IMP,” Feng Hou, principal researcher at Statistics Canada, said by e-mail.

The International Mobility Program accounts for a large share of temporary foreign workers in the country. Within the program are several categories of permit holders, including postgraduate workers and spouses of skilled workers.

Canada’s population is growing rapidly, in large part because of the influx of temporary residents, including workers and students. Many of those people are accruing postsecondary degrees and Canadian work experience in hopes of getting permanent residency.

The use of temporary foreign labour by Canadian employers has soared in recent years. The trend has been criticized by many economists for helping companies minimize their labour costs, among other reasons.

Source: Ottawa to rectify issue with massively revised temporary foreign workers data

Canada’s public service is stuck in ‘analog’ and the world ‘has moved on’: Former clerk

All too true but she was understandably more cautious when DM at ESDC and the initial vision of Service Canada was to move to digital and give greater priority to service delivery considerations and simplification centred around citizens, not programs:

The public service is not keeping pace with Canadians’ needs in a digital world, says the woman who used to lead it.

“The public service is still working in what I would describe as kind of analog ways and the world has moved on,” former clerk of the Privy Council Janice Charette, told Rosemary Barton Live in an interview airing Sunday.

“You can make a dinner reservation, you can book a cruise, you can move money in and out of your bank account, transfer between the two of us — it’s remarkable the things you can do in a digital world and the public service, and our service delivery infrastructure has not kept up with that.”

It’s a gap that Charette said was on display when the public service couldn’t deliver services such as passports once COVID-19 restrictions were lifted.

“In all humility, we know we have to do a better job there,” she said.

Proud of initial pandemic response

Charette, who refers to her job as being “steward of one of the most important institutions in our democracy,” retired Friday after nearly 40 years in the service, including stints as clerk for prime ministers Stephen Harper and Justin Trudeau.

Reflecting on her tenure, Charette said she’s proud of the way the public service jumped into action during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, spending billions to support people and businesses.

“One of the things I completely believe about public service is that in a crisis we can be magnificent,” she said.

“Decisions had to move quickly, benefits had to move quickly … and the challenge is, how do you maintain that going forward?”

As the lockdowns lifted, services lagged and frustrations grew.

The government was put on the defensive last year when passport offices were overwhelmed by a surge of applications.

The immigration department was also caught on its back foot by demand. At one point last year more than 2.4 million applications were stuck waiting for processing.

“I think in the public service maybe we underestimated how quickly people were going to want to return to their lives, how quickly they were gonna want to travel and have their passports, and how quickly we were gonna start the immigration system, how much people were going to want to move,” Charette said.

“This was not the best of times for the public service because we underestimated that ramp-up.”

Charette defends outside contracts

Another issue for her successor, John Hannaford, will be how to handle procuring outside consultations.

The auditor general is reviewing the millions of dollars worth of contracts the federal government awarded to management consulting firm McKinsey & Company following news reports.

Charette said she believes there are times when it makes sense to bring in outside experts.

“The public service is not and never should be seen as a source of all knowledge,” she said.

“There are many cases where, whether it’s something which is a temporary need or a specialized kind of need, that we don’t want to build it inside the public service. It’s actually more economical and more efficient and maybe better for the public that we actually go out and get external expertise.”

Besides being the head of the public service, the clerk acts as the deputy minister to the prime minister and secretary to the cabinet.

“I have had the honour of sitting in the cabinet room for some of the most fascinating conversations about issues that really matter to Canadians,” Charette told Barton.

That would have included the tense discussions in February 2022 around whether or not the government should invoke the Emergencies Act.

Didn’t want to be ‘intimidated’ by Emergencies Act decision

As clerk, Charette recommended the government use the never-before-used law to clear anti-public health measure protests that had gridlocked downtown Ottawa for nearly a month.

That decision thrust her into the spotlight when she was later called to testify at the Public Order Emergency Commission last fall and defended her rationale.

While Commissioner Paul Rouleau ultimately ruled that the federal government met the threshold needed to invoke the Emergencies Act, the government’s decision remains polarizing for many across the country.

Charette said she couldn’t let the unprecedented use of the act scare her and other decision-makers away from using it if it was needed.

“I remember very much thinking we have never used this piece of legislation, so implicit in that is you’re going to make history, but you also don’t want to be intimidated by that either,” she said.

“The public service is known for being risk-averse. You don’t want to bring a bias, ‘Oh my gosh, it’s such a big thing. Oh, maybe we shouldn’t do it.’ Is it the right instrument at the right time with all the right protections around it?”

Charette said many protesters had “totally legitimate questions.”

“There’s only so long you can kind of hold people back. Then there’s like, OK, well, what about me? What about my interest in my family’s interest?” she said.

“The concern for me was this other element that we saw creeping into it and it almost felt like there some taking advantage of what was a widespread protest, a widespread debate going on, by people who had a different point to make.”

Source: Canada’s public service is stuck in ‘analog’ and the world ‘has moved on’: Former clerk

We Muslims Used to Be the Culture War Scapegoats. Why Are Some of Us Joining the L.G.B.T.Q. Pile-On?

Good question:

The political right’s exhausting and cruel war on “wokeness” is now aligning with the efforts of some Muslim Americans to attack the L.G.B.T.Q. community under the guise of protecting religious freedoms and parental rights.

After enduring a gantlet of scapegoating after 9/11, you’d think we Muslims would have learned.

As a practicing Muslim American raising three children, I don’t find it in conflict with my faith to recognize that in a pluralistic, democratic society, all our communities must be able to live with security, dignity and freedom, even when there are profound differences on certain issues.

Last month a group of Muslim scholars and preachers published a joint statement titled “Navigating Differences: Clarifying Sexual and Gender Ethics in Islam.” In the name of helping families, the statement reiterates what is considered by many scholars to be traditional Islamic views on homosexuality but trades compassion, political foresight and pastoral care in favor of fear, panic and legalistic double talk.

It says that “there is an increasing push to promote L.G.B.T.Q.-centric values among children through legislation and regulations, disregarding parental consent and denying both parents and children the opportunity to express conscientious objection.” It appears to uncritically accept the zero-sum notion, pushed by right-wing politicians, that acceptance of the L.G.B.T.Q. community comes at the expense of giving up religious freedoms. It seems oblivious to the reality that if you replaced “L.G.B.T.Q.-centric” with “Shariah,” it would mimic the sentiments that have often been directed at devout Muslims in our country.

It’s also remarkable that so many religious leaders came together to speak with one voice on this particular issue, which one could falsely assume from the current political hysteria is the leading threat facing children. But as anyone who’s been part of recent debates within broader Muslim American communities knows, you’d probably never get this kind of concerted public statement from Muslim leaders on the issue of gun violence — the leading cause of death for American children — or climate change, which ultimately threatens all life. Somehow, though, this issue has managed to rally an array of Muslim scholars.

In Montgomery County, Md., outside Washington, D.C., the group Moms for Liberty, which has been designated an extremist organization by the Southern Poverty Law Center, has united with some Muslim parents who are protesting that the public school system no longer allows their children to opt out of reading books with L.G.B.T.Q. stories. “It’s not bigoted to want a safe space for all children, nor is it bigoted to provide reasonable accommodations to those with sincerely held religious beliefs,” says Raef Haggag, a Montgomery County public school parent and former high school teacher. When we exchanged emails, he told me that Muslim parents in Montgomery County had never called for a book ban, but that he believed an opt-out option would reflect parental rights and also be a reflection of “genuine tolerance, inclusivity and religious freedom.”

But is it truly inclusive and tolerant to signal to L.G.B.T.Q. kids or L.G.B.T.Q. parents that simply reading a book or learning about their existence might be so threatening and offensive that it requires an opt-out option in schools? How would Muslim parents feel if this was applied to children’s books about Ramadan or hajj?

Kareem Monib, a Muslim parent and a founder of the opt-out group Coalition of Virtue, recently appeared on Fox News and bonded with the host Laura Ingraham over what they saw as their fight for religious freedoms, apparently forgiving Ingraham for her past anti-Muslim bigotry: “Five years ago, Laura was saying we shouldn’t have Muslims in this country,” Mr. Monib told Semafor, “Now she’s saying: Thank God, the Muslims are here!” He seems to be referring to comments Ms. Ingraham made eight years ago, but either way, the irony is lost on him.

Muslims have also joined this campaign in Hamtramck, Mich., which has an all-Muslim City Council. Last week the council voted unanimously to bar Pride flags from being displayed on city properties — apparently forgetting that their Muslim immigrant forebears faced discrimination when they arrived in the city.

The increasing political demonization of L.G.B.T.Q. Americans is following the same script that has been used to marginalize Muslims and drum up fears about the supposed dangers of Shariah finding its way into the American legal system, all to pander to a constituency that is terrified of pluralism.

Let’s take a DeLorean back to the post-9/11 years, during which Islam, especially the specter of Shariah, was frequently made the villain.

Much like the recent deliberate efforts to mischaracterize critical race theory, Shariah was deliberately misdefined as a legal-political-military doctrine and the pre-eminent totalitarian threat of our timeThanks to a well-funded right-wing machine, Shariah became a litmus test for Muslim American citizens to prove their moderation and loyalty.

In 2011 the presidential aspirant Herman Cain said he wouldn’t appoint a Muslim to his potential administration or the federal courts because he feared they would “force their Shariah law onto the rest of us.” In 2015, Ben Carson echoed those talking points, saying he wouldn’t support a Muslim American for president unless he or she renounced Shariah. Ultimately, Donald Trump ran on a Muslim ban and put in place a modified travel ban with the help of the Supreme Court. By 2017, according to one report, over 200 anti-Shariah bills had popped up in 43 states over nearly a decade, based on trumped-up claims that Islamic law was infiltrating the U.S. judicial system.

Compare all that with now: Before the 2024 elections, the L.G.B.T.Q. community has emerged as the boogeyman du jour. Right-wing media and G.O.P. elected officials are routinely accusing liberals of being groomers. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene recently said that transgender people are “sexual predators,” and the Texas G.O.P.’s new platform explicitly rejects trans identity and refers to homosexuality as an “abnormal lifestyle choice.” In Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis defended his “Don’t Say Gay” law by saying his critics support “sexualizing kids in kindergarten.

Meanwhile, Mr. Trump, who remains the Republican front-runner for 2024, said that providing gender-affirming care to minors was equal to “child abuse.” As a result of this ginned-up hate, there are over 520 anti-L.G.B.T.Q. bills that have been introduced in state legislatures, according to the Human Rights Campaign.

Now that queer Americans are being singled out, why are some Muslims so willing to go along?

We often forget that there are people whose lives are directly affected by these hateful words, statements and policies. I reached out to several L.G.B.T.Q. Muslims to ask them if they had any words for fellow Muslims who are supporting the right wing’s political attacks on L.G.B.T.Q. literature, rights and identities. “Don’t let Islamophobes and evangelical Christians vying for political power dictate the contours of your Islam,” Ramish Nadeem and Hanan Jabril, young Muslim activists, wrote in an emailed statement. “Is learning about L.G.B.T.Q.+ people, who do exist in the world we live in and even in our Muslim traditions, really gonna harm your kids’ faith? Is your Islam really that fragile that it must lead with exclusion, isolation and hate instead of mercy, openness and community?”

As Muslims in America, we have the capacity to be true to our faith and to embrace our neighbors — including members of the L.G.B.T.Q. community who may not share all our beliefs. And as citizens aware of how we’ve been treated, we should have better recognition of how the scapegoating of people for their sexual orientation or gender identity is a play from an old divide-and-conquer playbook. As the Times columnist Michelle Goldberg recently wrote, “Nothing drives conservatives to reach out to groups they once feared as much as another group that they fear even more.”

As a Muslim parent, I understand how difficult it is to raise our children in a political environment that still views them as perpetual suspects because of their religion and, in many cases, their skin color. However, we still have religious freedoms in this country that allow us to live our lives according to our values, even if they aren’t shared by the majority.

Ultimately, living in a pluralistic society requires reciprocity and respect, even if we occasionally make one another uncomfortable. It’s hypocritical, shortsighted and cruel for Muslims to align with hateful forces targeting vulnerable communities that, like us, are still fighting against bigotry and for acceptance. The way forward is to opt into a country where all our kids have a chance to be the heroes of their own stories.

Source: We Muslims Used to Be the Culture War Scapegoats. Why Are Some of Us Joining the L.G.B.T.Q. Pile-On?

Common Issues With Citizenship By Investment Program

Interesting that this appeared in CEOWorld with other articles providing general advice on how to apply:

You don’t have to be an expert to realize the fundamental problems with citizenship through investment programs or ‘golden visas.’ A standard golden visa scheme or citizenship by investment program provides for permanent residence and, ultimately, citizenship in consideration of investments in the economy. These schemes provide for a fast-track application process and quicker resolution of issues. These schemes were uncommon during the 1980s when they were first introduced but are presently an attractive way to draw in investors.

However, as they say, all glitters are not gold. Such is also the case with these programs. These programs have been formally structured and are monitored under the necessary rules and regulations. Yet, they have attracted a lot of problems that are making it difficult for countries to back them up. The substantive operation (even procedural at times) of these programs remains in question, and we will explore what they are in today’s discussion. Let us see what problems these programs commonly face.

Is it ethical?

The most common allegations thrown in the way of these programs concern their ultimate outcome: they grant citizenship in exchange for money. If I were to argue from the side of the opponents, you are basically telling people that they can show their true allegiance to the country simply upon investing. Many hardened arguments come from those with very strong, conventional notions of citizenship and its role in maintaining and encouraging national pride and integrity. To them, these programs sell citizenship. Hence, there are many ethical concerns about these programs.

Poorly undertaken due diligence

Generally, these programs do not restrict applications from any foreign national. A country may place a few oversight measures on those coming from select countries. However, these restrictions are limited to very few countries. Even so, due diligence is nevertheless in place. That is, of course, not the problem. The problem lies in the way due diligence is carried out. High-risk profiles need to be filtered out, but many countries fail to do so. While documentary proofs have been mandated, they are not assessed as a standard procedure. To gain as much investment as possible, countries maintain opaque due diligence systems to bypass regular procedural requirements.

Encouraging corrupt activities

Approving high-risk profiles, providing channels to launder money across the globe, and encouraging corruption are major negative impacts of these programs. If we keep aside the arguments on the ‘sale of citizenship’, these programs can operate smoothly and properly, provided their implementation is done right.

For example, Hungary suspended its Golden Visa program after allegations that certain dubious companies were granted the right to sell residence bonds without a transparent procurement process. These companies reportedly amassed over $600 million during the course of 4 years. Why does this happen? There can be several reasons. For instance, lack of verification of the source of funds or limited information on how the investments are contributing to the economy.

Too lax requirements

Many Caribbean countries operate some of the world’s easy-to-access citizenship by investment. Dominica, Saint Lucia, and Antigua and Barbuda, for example, do not impose minimum residence requirements, require very low levels of investment, and offer ultra-fast processing time. While the idea behind these programs is indeed to grant citizenship through a faster and easier route of investment, these requirements invite more suspicion than approval. Why? The answer is obvious: these programs offer safe havens to criminals who run away to these countries to evade the criminal justice system. The evasion of tax is another example.

Source: Common Issues With Citizenship By Investment Program

Civil society team heading to Syria, but Ottawa won’t support repatriation efforts

Bit naive to assert that “if any of the Canadians being held in Syria pose a security concern, those issues can be dealt with through the justice system” given the difficulty in obtaining evidence and the like.

And of course hard to find any sympathy for these men or “to see what human rights concerns they may be facing” after they were part of a group that violated all or virtually all human rights:

The federal government has rebuffed an offer from a civil society delegation to travel to northeastern Syria on Ottawa’s behalf to repatriate detained Canadians.

Instead, a scaled-down group, including Sen. Kim Pate, intends to head to the region in late August to gather information about Canadians held in squalid camps and prisons.

The delegation is also to include Alex Neve, former secretary general of Amnesty International Canada, and Scott Heatherington, a former Canadian diplomat.

Participants plan to discuss details of the initiative at a news conference in Ottawa this morning.

Late last month, the Federal Court of Appeal overturned a judge’s declaration that four Canadian men being held in Syrian camps are entitled to Ottawa’s help to return home.

The May ruling set aside a January decision by Federal Court Justice Henry Brown, who directed Ottawa to request repatriation of the men as soon as reasonably possible and provide them with passports or emergency travel documents.

The Canadians are among the many foreign nationals in Syrian camps and jails run by Kurdish forces that reclaimed the strife-torn region from the extremist group Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

On April 19, Sally Lane — mother of Jack Letts, one of the four Canadian men — wrote to Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly requesting that she promptly authorize a seven-member delegation to Syria in late May.

“I am convinced that in the current circumstances, authorizing this delegation is essential to saving Jack’s life and protecting the rights of all Canadian detainees,” Lane wrote. “As such, I will be a member of this delegation.”

In an interview, Lane said the government declined to provide support to the delegation. “They didn’t actually give a reason. All they said was that repatriation will be done by government members only.”

Given that the revamped mission set for August will be more of a fact-finding trip, Lane does not plan to go.

“It’s not actually going to be a repatriation trip,” she said. “I mean, it’s going to be preparatory to repatriation, but there won’t actually be any people coming back. And I just thought, I can’t face the idea of seeing Jack and leaving him there. I just think it would kind of break me, and I believe it would break him. So I’m not going on this trip.”

Asked why the government would not support the proposed delegation, Global Affairs Canada spokesman Jean-Pierre Godbout said Ottawa advises against all travel to Syria.

“Due to privacy and operational security considerations, we cannot comment on specific cases or potential future actions,” he added.

The identities and circumstances of the other three Canadian men are not publicly known.

Amid the court proceedings, lawyer Lawrence Greenspon reached an agreement with the federal government earlier this year to bring home six Canadian women and 13 children from Syria who had initially been part of the legal action.

Neve said in an interview that the government’s “seemingly implacable refusal” to assist the return of the men to Canada “is in our view, frankly, disgraceful.”

The three-member delegation plans to fly to Mosul, in northern Iraq, then travel overland to northeastern Syria.

The members hope to speak with as many of the Canadians — men, women and children — in the camps and detention centres as possible, said Neve, a senior fellow with the graduate school of public and international affairs at the University of Ottawa.

“We want to see about their welfare, we want to see what human rights concerns they may be facing,” he said. “So from that side of things, it’s a welfare and humanitarian mission, really.”

But the delegation also wants to meet with local officials to see if steps can be taken to help facilitate release of Canadians, Neve added.

Canadian government officials should be playing that role, as they have with some of the women and children brought home from Syria, he said.

“Many other countries have much more actively been involved in facilitating and carrying out the repatriation of their nationals, so Canada continues to very notably be a laggard in the international community,” Neve said.

“And I think that’s disappointing, especially for a country like Canada that that proudly asserts that we believe in human rights.”

Neve said if any of the Canadians being held in Syria pose a security concern, those issues can be dealt with through the justice system. But leaving citizens to languish overseas for years on end “is simply not acceptable.”

Source: Civil society team heading to Syria, but Ottawa won’t support repatriation efforts

McWhorter: Reparations Should Be an End, Not a Beginning

Thoughtful discussion of the issues and approaches, and the need to shift the focus to class and class-based orientation to race:

For a long while, reparations for Black Americans has been more a debate topic than a reality. But of late, the reality may be catching up with the debate. Since last year, Evanston, Ill., has been granting $25,000 payments to be applied to housing to Black people and their descendants who were discriminated against during the redlining era. This year, the program has been extended to enable grantees to take simple cash payments. In San Francisco, a task force has suggested that eligible Black people receive onetime payments of $5,000,000 each; a statewide task force has proposed a somewhat more modest plan with a sliding scale of payments topping out at $1.2 million. The New York State Legislature has passed a bill that would create its own commission to consider reparations, and there will doubtless be more such proposals nationwide.

I’ve never been a fan of the idea of reparations. I know that various groups of Americans have been granted reparations in the past, such as the descendants of Japanese Americans placed in internment camps during World War II. And I certainly believe that Black Americans have deserved reparations. It’s more that I have questioned the idea of what I would regard as newreparations. I see us as having already been granted reparations on multiple occasions.

Affirmative action can be seen as an enormous reparations policy, although the term is rarely used in that context. In the late 1960s, welfare payments were made easier to receive and maintain at the behest of organizations such as the National Welfare Rights Organization, in what we would now call reparation for past injustices. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, if we rolled the dice again, could well have been called a “Reparation Act,” linking banks’ requests for mergers and new branches to their assisting the credit eligibility of people in lower-income neighborhoods.

And there are, of course, thorny questions that prevail in any discussion of reparations: If payments are to be made to individuals, what would qualify a person as Black and discriminated against? (William Darity Jr. and A. Kirsten Mullen’s “From Here to Equality” has a proposal for this.) If payments are to organizations, which ones could we designate as best for Black people and on what basis? (The pioneer analyst of the subject, Boris Bittker, raised this question decades ago.)

But one does not wish to ossify. I’m not interested in contrarianism for its own sake; I seek what is good for Black people. And if 77 percent of Black people approve of something — as a recent Pew poll suggested — I had better have solid grounds to oppose it.

If your opinions never evolve, you’re either not paying attention or not genuinely interested. One example: School vouchers looked very promising for Black kids 20 years ago, and I used to speak up for them despite it making me seem as though I were a Republican. But they do not seem to have had much effect on achievement in the long run, and my enthusiasm has decreased. There’s a reason I haven’t devoted a newsletter to vouchers lately.

Opposition to reparations would make sense if they were actively harmful — for instance, by encouraging a sense of dependence or entitlement — but that seems unlikely of a one-time dispersal. It would also make sense to oppose reparations if the funds seemed likely to go to waste, such as those given with insufficient directives as to what they were to be used for. But the most common idea now, largely sparked by Ta-Nehisi Coates’s landmark 2014 article in The Atlantic, is to focus on housing assistance specifically to compensate for the redlining era, decades in which residents of “Black” neighborhoods were denied mortgages, insurance and other benefits that lead to homeownership.

This newer focus is different from simply sending a check in the mail for racial injustices writ large that were suffered in a distant past. Redlining was not all that long ago. It played a major role in the wealth gap that exists between white and Black people today. And being able to afford better-quality housing would be of concrete and immediate benefit to Black people, enabling them to escape many of the manifestations of inequity based on race.

So I am open to experiments with this new conception of reparations. I could imagine supporting them with articles, talks, podcast appearances and the like. But I would do so only under an impression of a general consensus that these reparations would also offer a form of closure, a signature turning of the corner in American race relations.

Brilliant work by Black intellectuals such as Barbara Fields and Adolph and Touré Reed has long argued that fixing today’s America will require a focus on class rather than race. After reparations, it would be time to stop sidelining this work. Racism and inequity would not disappear. Policies that address those issues and help Black people succeed would of course continue, but they would focus less on race than on specific economic needs, such as fostering jobs that don’t require a college degree, giving preferences in admissions and hiring based on socioeconomics, rethinking the War on Drugs and teaching reading via the phonics method that science has demonstrated to be the strongest tool.

In a scenario such as this one, reparations would serve not only as a compensation for past injustice but also as the start of a new, class-based orientation toward the nation’s progress on race. Is such a compromise possible, as opposed to a continuation of the mantra that “America doesn’t want to talk about race”? I have my doubts. But I would be happy to be proved wrong.

Source: Reparations Should Be an End, Not a Beginning

Germany to ease immigration law to attract skilled workers

Of note:

From healthcare to IT, carpenters to technicians, Germany’s “help wanted” sign is blinking red. At a German industry event in mid-June, Chancellor Olaf Scholz promised business leaders that change was coming, and with less red tape.

Germany needs 400,000 foreign workers to make up the shortfall every year, according to the Federal Employment Office. And when the baby boomers retire en masse, the problem will only get worse.

Lawmakers from the parties in government — the center-left Social Democrats, the Greens, and the neoliberal Free Democrats — have worked out the final details of a skilled labor immigration law.

The bill heads for a vote this Friday (23.6.) in the Bundestag, Germany’s federal parliament.

Three options

The bill, initially drawn up by the labor and interior ministries, seeks to open up new opportunities for people from countries outside the European Union.

They could come to Germany either thanks to qualifications and degrees that regulators here will recognize in a faster and more streamlined process; or based on their work experience; or through a point system for job seekers with potential but without an existing employment contract.

Blue Card

Germany introduced what is known as the EU Blue Card, for highly qualified specialists, a decade ago. Now, it will also become easier to get, thanks to a lower income requirement.

In the future, they will need to make an annual minimum salary of €43,800 ($48,000), according to the news agency Reuters. And for IT specialists professional experience can take the place of a university degree.

Incoming workers will also be less restricted in their line of work. Until now, it has been difficult to change industries, based on the existing visa rules.

The ‘opportunity card’

With a point system under a new “opportunity card,” foreigners who don’t yet have a job lined up will be permitted to come to Germany and given a year to find employment. A prerequisite is holding a vocational qualification or university degree.

Points will be awarded for example for German and/or English language skills, existing ties to Germany, and the potential of accompanying life partners or spouses on the German labor market. The new reforms also seek to make it easier for prospective employers to bring their dependents with them.

An opportunity card permits casual work for up to 20 hours a week while looking for a qualified job, and probationary employment is also permitted.

Those who are awaiting asylum approval, and got their application in by March 29, 2023, have the appropriate qualifications, and a job offer and will also be permitted to join the labor market. This would also allow them to enter vocational training.

A similar change holds for those here on a tourist visa. They will not be required to first leave the country, before returning in an employment context.

Fewer hurdles in the recognition of degrees

A major obstacle to immigration has long been the requirement to have degrees recognized in Germany. This is a long, bureaucratic, and often frustrating process.

In the future, skilled immigrants will no longer have to have their degrees recognized in Germany if they can show they have at least two years of professional experience and a degree that is state-recognized in their country of origin.

However, this is only aimed at skilled workers above a certain salary threshold.

The Skilled Workers Act also provides for a new arrangement: Someone who already has a job offer can already come to Germany and start working while their degree is still being recognized.

Skeptics don’t expect improvement

Not everyone is happy with the proposed changes, which first came up for debate in March. Some in the opposition see a problem that legislation alone can’t fix.

“When thousands of skilled workers willing to immigrate are waiting for months for a visa or a recognition of skills, there finally needs to be enough staff, for example, at consulates — not new point system,” Hermann Gröhe, a lawmaker with the conservative CDU-CSU block, said.

Others are mindful of shortcomings in Germany’s digital infrastructure, which hamper visa processing and put off potential foreign labor.

“If a computer scientist from Pakistan or India has to wait months to get an appointment at the consulate for a visa, the doubt that sets in will have him choosing another destination country,” Gerd Landsberg, the managing director of the German Association of Cities and Municipalities, told the regional newspaper, Rheinische Post. He pointed out that all industrialized countries are competing for skilled work

In a recent interview with the Berlin daily, Tagesspiegel, the director of Berlin’s immigration office, Engelhard Mazanke, said his office alone already has a three-month backlog and needs at least 50 additional staff to process the influx of thousands of foreign workers and their families. He pointed out that they will come on top of refugees from Ukraine, Middle Eastern, and African countries, along with the regular flow of students and other kinds of migrants from around the world.

Meanwhile, a reform of the citizenship law is on the cards, too. To give immigrants an incentive to integrate and stick around for the long term.

Source: Germany to ease immigration law to attract skilled workers

Ottawa makes massive data change on temporary foreign worker numbers 

Hopefully the government will be fully transparent on how this happened and what changes are being made. This can further undermine general confidence in government management and administration given how fundamental accurate data to government programs:

The federal government has revised more than two decades of immigration data, saying that “technical difficulties” led to bloated figures for a subset of temporary foreign workers.

Slightly more than one million people held work permits through the International Mobility Program at the end of last year, an increase of 48 per cent from 2021, according to figures that were published by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada in February.

But recently, IRCC updated those numbers – and they are significantly different. Now, the federal government says that roughly 675,000 people held IMP work permits at the end of 2022, a decline of about 340,000 from the earlier dataset. The figures for all previous years, dating back to 2000, were also reduced.

Globe and Mail journalists recently discovered the revisions. The federal immigration department did not publish the new figures with an explanation for why they had changed so much.

IRCC spokesperson Matthew Krupovich said in a statement that the department experienced “technical difficulties” when producing the figures. The current numbers, he said, are “accurate.”

The Globe and Mail asked IRCC for a deeper explanation of these issues, but has yet to receive a response.

“It’s extremely frustrating,” said Mikal Skuterud, a professor of economics at the University of Waterloo, who uses these numbers in his research. “At a minimum, when you’re working with government data, you want to trust that they’re accurate.”

Canada’s population is growing at the fastest rate in decades, in large part because of temporary migration, including students and workers. The country grew by more than one million people in 2022, and just last week, the population surpassed 40 million.

The International Mobility Program plays a large role in population growth, accounting for the majority of temporary work permit holders. Within IMP, there are several streams of migration, including post-graduate workers and spouses of skilled workers.

The presence of temporary foreign workers has grown dramatically over the past two decades. Based on the updated numbers, the volume of IMP permits has grown by 1,434 per cent since 2000.

Canada’s growing reliance on temporary foreign labour has drawn criticism on several grounds, including that it shields employers from making more competitive wage offers to domestic workers or investing in new technologies.

Canada is increasingly moving to a two-step immigration process that sees people come here first as students or workers, who vie for the opportunity of securing permanent residency.

The federal government is ramping up targets for the admission of permanent residents to 500,000 annually by 2025.

Source: Ottawa makes massive data change on temporary foreign worker numbers

AI Makes Its Way to Immigration With New Tool to Aid Attorneys

Perhaps this may make some immigration lawyers less instinctively hostile to the use of AI by the government:

The makers of a new software platform are turning to artificial intelligence to boost immigration attorneys’ research and drafting efforts.

The American Immigration Lawyers Association is partnering with Visalaw.Ai, a platform built to aid attorneys with research and summarizing and drafting documents, to launch a product similar to OpenAI’s ChatGPT that will specialize in immigration-focused administrative and case law. AILA will allow its 16,000 members to beta test a tool—dubbed Gen—focused on research and summarization beginning this week at its annual conference outside of Orlando, Fla.

Additional tools are planned for subsequent roll outs that will aid in drafting legal documents and engaging clients.

“We think this will be a tremendous time saver for lawyers conducting research on a regular basis,” said Greg Siskind, a co-founder of Visalaw.Ai and partner at immigration firm Siskind Susser PC.

Attorneys’ use of AI tools like ChatGPT—a chatbot that searches vast tracts of information online based on human-like exchanges—can come with legal pitfalls.

One lawyer landed in hot water in federal district court in New York after filing a brief full of fictitious citations generated by the platform. And use of the open source software potentially could expose confidential client information because users submit information to train the AI platforms.

Siskind said the Visalaw platform will include a private feature, allowing members to draw on information from the platform without sending client information back. Partnering with AILA will also address quality issues by feeding the tool specific information related to immigration law that’s drawn from a huge legal library of regulations and secondary sources, he said.

“It’s set to be conservative in how it answers,” Siskind said of the platform.

Expanding use of technology could help close the gap in immigrants’ access to legal representation, said AILA Executive Director Benjamin Johnson. It’s also important for the organization to get involved in shaping new technology platforms for the immigration bar while they’re being developed, instead of reacting afterward, he said.

Much of the work of immigration law involves submitting forms and documents, rather than practicing in court. But the risks of technology being improperly used mean AILA has a responsibility to make sure any tools offered to its members are accurate and effective, Johnson said.

“We can stand on the sidelines and let somebody else shape the future for us. Or we can get engaged and determine how this should affect the immigration bar and the practice of immigration law,” he said. “In this environment, nobody can afford to stand on the sidelines.”

Access to the platform will be subscription-based, although Siskind said final pricing is still being worked out. AILA’s long-term relationship with the platform will be determined by members’ interactions with it, Johnson said.

To contact the reporter on this story: Andrew Kreighbaum in Washington at akreighbaum@bloombergindustry.com

Source: AI Makes Its Way to Immigration With New Tool to Aid Attorneys