Begum: UK Minority ethnic politicians are pushing harsh immigration policies – why representation doesn’t always mean racial justice

2023/07/15 Leave a comment

Always surprised that so many make these kinds of assumptions about minorities and minority politicians, given that political and ideological differences are normal in most groups:

There’s no question that British politics is becoming more diverse. From only four minority ethnic MPs elected in 1987, now 67 MPs are from a minority ethnic background.

The Scottish first minister, Humza Yousaf, recently became the first minority ethnic leader of a devolved government and the first Muslim to lead a major UK party. Yousaf follows a number of historic firsts: a Muslim mayor of London (Sadiq Khan), the first British Asian UK prime minister (Rishi Sunak), and the first female minority ethnic home secretary (Priti Patel) succeeded by another minority ethnic woman, (Suella Braverman).

People often assume that if a person in power is an ethnic minority, they will advocate more strongly for minority ethniccommunities. But, as our research shows, ethnic diversity in government is not a guarantee of racial justice.

Some minority ethnic politicians align themselves with a “model minority” archetype, attributing their success to quintessentially British, conservative values of hard work and entrepreneurship. This was an oft-repeated message in the 2022 Conservative leadership campaign, the most racially diverse in history.

Minority ethnic politicians’ presence in the senior echelons of UK politics is a symbol of diversity and social progressiveness. This, ironically, allows these government ministers to justify policies that are cruel to immigrants, and ignore legitimate concerns of minority ethnic citizens.

Badenoch has rebuffed calls for more teaching of black history in schools. A 2020 report from the race equality thinktank the Runnymede Trust said that more diversity in what children are taught is key to addressing the racism that is “deeply embedded” in Britain’s schools.

Speaking about perpetrators of child sexual exploitation, Braverman claimed grooming gangs are “almost all British Pakistani men”. This was despite the government’s own evidence to the contrary. She was flanked by Sunak suggesting that “political correctness” and “cultural sensitivities” were getting in the way of stamping grooming gangs out.

As home secretary, Priti Patel criticised Black Lives Matter protesters in 2020, and described England’s footballers taking the knee – a widely-supported symbol of anti-racist activism – as “gesture politics”.

Patel has implied that as a victim of racism herself, she – and the government – understand racial inequality. Her sidelining of others’ very real experiences of racism is seemingly permissible, given Patel’s minority ethnic identity.

Anti-immigration sentiment

There are also examples of minority ethnic ministers pushing policies that actively stigmatise and target vulnerable minority groups.

The illegal migration bill is the latest example of this. As post-racial gatekeepers, politicians like Braverman give legitimacy to hard-right views on race and immigration. At the same time, they prop up the line that immigration is no longer about race.

At the Conservative Conference in 2022, Braverman said, “It’s not racist for anyone, ethnic minority or otherwise, to want to control our borders.” And yet she has likened refugee flows to an “invasion” and said that immigration threatens the UK’s “national character”.

Notably, the government’s immigration policies of recent years are being formulated and championed by politicians who are themselves the children or grandchildren of immigrants. Sunak’s grandparents were among the Hindu and Sikh refugees who fled Punjab following the partition of India. Patel admitted that her own parents would not have been allowed into the UK under her immigration laws.

The illegal migration bill comes just a year after Patel led the passage of the Nationality and Borders Act. Both policies are designed to keep out outsiders, many of whom are black or brown. It is contradictory that the ministers responsible for these policies are descendants of immigrants themselves.

Immigration is still about race

Despite comments like Braverman’s, evidence shows that immigration is still very much linked to race and racism.

Many minority ethnic people – even those who are British-born or naturalised citizens – feel they are still targets of the immigration debate. Ethnic minorities are the worst affected by stringent immigration policies and stigmatised by anti-immigration language.

Perceptions of migrants in relation to worth and value continue to be influenced by class and race. The current system, which depends on a hierarchy of immigrants by “skill”, means mostly white, university-educated and English-speaking migrants are consistently viewed more favourably than black, Asian and Muslim migrants.

And public opinion is far warmer towards Ukrainian refugeescompared with those also fleeing war in Afghanistan, Syria, Sudan and Somalia.

Minority ethnic voters also perceived racial undertones in the anti-immigrant language used by the Leave campaign during Brexit. But while most voted Remain, some minority ethnic Brexit voters supported Leave in opposition to immigration from eastern Europe.

As with minority ethnic politicians calling for harsh border policies, immigrant status or family history is no guarantee of liberal attitudes to immigration or asylum.

Of course, this analysis does not apply to every minority ethnic politician. It is heartening to see other Conservatives speaking out about the inflammatory anti-migrant climate. Mohammed Amin, a former chair of the Conservative Muslim Forum, described Braverman’s rhetoric as “disgusting”.

But it is important to remember that ethnic diversity is not racial justice, nor can it protect the government from challenges to its harmful policies. As Baroness Sayeeda Warsi noted: “Braverman’s own ethnic origin has shielded her from criticism for too long.”

Source: Minority ethnic politicians are pushing harsh immigration policies …

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Lavoie: What’s the good of immigration?

2023/07/14 Leave a comment

Bit of a ramble but largely captures some of the nuances:

For some, immigration is a problem: the rise of human trafficking, the perceived pressures on employment, culture, values, the French language in Quebec, and so on. For others, it’s a solution to labour shortages and an aging population. This debate has only just begun, as growing global inequalities and climate change will continue to increase migratory pressures around the world.

Why welcome immigrants? What’s in it for citizens, apart from increasing their culinary offerings? The Immigration Canada website talks about “growing the economy through immigration,” the most oft-cited benefit, which is stating the obvious. But for us to benefit from immigration, it must increase the size of the economy per person – commonly measured by gross domestic product per capita. Here, the answer is less positive, and varies according to the type of immigrants and their ability to integrate our society.

Neither positive nor negative

There are three main types of immigrants. Economic immigrants, chosen for their human capital and representing 25 per cent of all immigrants to Canada, integrate well. It takes them less than five years after arrival, on average, to do as well or better economically than someone born in Canada. Their impact on the average Canadian’s standard of living is therefore negative in the early years, but positive thereafter.

The family members who accompany them or join them later, representing 60 per cent of immigrants, have more difficulty and take one to two decades to do as well as someone born here. And, of course, those who have the most difficulty are refugees (15 per cent of immigrants). Most of them will never reach the standard of living of the average Canadian. Although this suggests that the economic contribution of immigrants to per capita income is rather negative, that only concerns the first cohort of immigrants. The wonderful thing is that the children and grandchildren of these immigrants will, on average, do as well as the children and grandchildren of native-born Canadians.

Some studies also suggest immigration and diversity have positive induced effects on society’s innovative capacity. But more studies are needed to validate these impacts more precisely. Greater population density also brings economies of scale. And, no, immigration does not increase crime, nor does it have a significant negative impact on wages, but it does negatively impact the wages of previous cohorts of immigrants.

It’s also true that immigrants help fill certain short-term labor shortages. However, they eventually create others, by increasing demand for education, health care, housing and so on. It’s the same with aging: immigrants age too, and are often joined by their parents. In the long term, therefore, immigration has little effect on the age of the population.

So, is immigration good or bad for our standard of living? Basically, immigration seems to have a slight negative effect on our standard of living in the short term (ignoring the wealth that diversity can bring) and a slightly positive impact in the long term. This conclusion is not dissimilar to those reached in the research paper by economist Pierre Fortin for the Ministère de l’Immigration, de la Francisation et de l’Intégration du Québec, or in the article by W. Craig Riddell, Christopher Worswick and David A. Green, published in Policy Options.

The social network effect

We can thank our support systems – including the education system – for these results which are, all in all, quite good. It is thanks to these structures that immigrants succeed relatively well in integrating economically. Successful integration and gradual acculturation also ensure that the social cohesion necessary for the integration of future cohorts of immigrants is maintained.

Research shows that people have little trust in people who are different from them, but that this trust increases as they get to know them. To get to know them, however, they need to speak the same language. Learning the common language, a particularly important topic in Quebec, is essential for acculturation and economic integration. It’s the lack of resources for teaching French, not the unwillingness of new immigrants, that often explains the difficulties in communicating in French.

It is therefore essential that any increase in the number of immigrants be accompanied by an exponential rise in the resources allocated to their integration. Since the federal government wants to increase the number of immigrants by more than 10 per cent by 2025, the resources allocated to their integration must increase by much more than 10 per cent.

The first reason is that these resources already seem insufficient. The second is that the increase in the number of immigrants will necessarily involve accepting immigrants who, under current criteria, would not have been admitted. In other words, additional immigrants have profiles that make their integration more difficult, which means that their integration – all other things being equal – will require more resources. Failure to do so will tip the balance of impacts towards the negative.

It’s not about the money

Given these integration costs and relatively mixed or uncertain economic benefits, even when integration goes well, why then accept immigrants? Indeed, all the evidence suggests that the greatest beneficiaries are the immigrants themselves, and less so the society that welcomes them.

We must therefore welcome immigrants simply for humanitarian reasons, and stop thinking that immigration is the solution or the cause of our problems. Consequently, Ottawa must change the way it presents immigration to Canadians.

But before we praise our humanitarianism too highly, we must remember that immigration impoverishes the countries of origin of immigrants, often robbing them of their best and brightest. These people would surely have preferred to stay in their own countries if conditions had been better. The solution to really helping them, and slowing the flow of migration, is to limit climate change and help these countries develop better institutions.

But we don’t really know how to do that. The disastrous experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan are striking examples of our inability to build institutions. Yet this is where we should be focusing our research and international cooperation, because it’s here that the real solution to migration problems lies.

Claude Lavoie is an economist. He was director general of economic studies and policy analysis at the Department of Finance from 2008 to 2023.

Source: What’s the good of immigration?

Filed under Immigration Tagged with

Tech sector praises Ottawa’s immigration policy | The Star

2023/07/14 Leave a comment

Of note. Interesting, despite all the talk about Canada being more attractive than the USA, the USA is not among the top source countries:

More than 32,000 tech workers moved to Canada during the past year and their top three destinations were Mississauga, Montreal and Kitchener-Waterloo.

That’s from a report released Wednesday by Canada’s Tech Network and the Technology Councils of North America about the migration of tech workers and tech jobs between April 2022 and March 2023.

During that period, 1,900 tech workers moved to Mississauga, 959 to Montreal, 633 to Waterloo and 467 to Kitchener. The combined numbers for Kitchener and Waterloo push the region into second place, nationwide.

The rest scattered to every province and territory, working in cities big and small including Windsor, Ottawa, Vancouver, London, Hamilton and Calgary.

The report says 32,115 new tech workers came to Canada during the 12-month period, mostly from India (15,097), Nigeria (1,808), Brazil (1,675) Ukraine (1,207), Philippines (1,129), Iran (1,046), France (935) the United Arab Emirates (744), Hong Kong (715) and Pakistan (588).

“Canada is pulling in tech workers in droves from all over the world,” said Jennifer Young, CEO of the Technology Councils. “The Canadian policy is really impressive, and I think the world should take note.”

Ottawa’s immigration policies should be held up as an example to other countries with shortages of tech workers, said Young during a telephone interview Wednesday from the Technology Councils’ headquarters in Pittsburgh.

“The U.S. is vastly behind Canadian policy,” said Young.

Canada also has a cost advantage over the U.S., says the report. The average compensation for U.S. tech workers in the report is C$175,600. The average compensation for the same tech occupations in Canada is C$100,400, says the report, called “Tech Workforce Trends: The Migration of Tech Workers and Tech Jobs Since the Pandemic.”

The numbers of tech workers in smaller centres such as Timmins, Windsor and Cape Breton increased thanks to the rise of remote work during the pandemic.

“This shift is reflective of broader workforce trends, with largely remote tech workers moving away from major metropolitan areas toward more rural locations,” says the report.

Canada’s Tech Network used to be called the Canadian Digital Media Network. It is based at Communitech in Kitchener. The Technology Councils of North America represents regional tech hubs such as Communitech.

“It is global thinking, your immigration policy, and really addresses the needs of the economy,” said Young. “Keep doing what you are doing, it is working.”

During the past 18 months the U.S. tech sector was hit with massive layoffs, and thousands of foreign workers in the U.S. on H1B visas are looking for new jobs. For months, Communitech and its members have called on Ottawa to welcome them here. Last month, Federal Immigration Minister Sean Fraser announced a program to speed up work permits for them and their families.

Communitech CEO Chris Albinson welcomes the move, saying: “This groundbreaking program is set to bring 10,000 highly skilled professionals to our country, fortifying our position as a leading destination for tech talent.

Source: Tech sector praises Ottawa’s immigration policy | The Star

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

‘Wild West’: Amid foreign meddling headlines, lawyers fear unfair immigration rulings

2023/07/14 Leave a comment

Always a risk, as is not going far enough:

Even as the conversation around foreign interference continues to centre on efforts to disrupt Canadian elections, the federal government is routinely deporting people suspected of engaging in espionage or terrorism — or barring them entry to Canada.

Lawyers who work within the immigration system say they expect security officials to ramp up those efforts amid the heightened attention on other countries’ meddling attempts. Some fear they could go too far.

Athena Portokalidis, an immigration lawyer based in Markham, Ont., said there seems to be a growing number of such cases.

“What I’m kind of starting to notice is that … whether it’s explicit or not, they can be politically motivated,” she said. “There might be a trend here. It may be too early to tell, but that’s … something that I’ve noticed and something that I’ve heard.”

The federal government was unable to provide data on the number of related cases in time for publication.

The Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Canada Border Services Agency and the Immigration Department are all involved in the security screening process. None of them provided comment in time for publication, including data on the number of related cases.

The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act allows officials to bar permanent residents or foreign nationals from entering Canada if they are engaged in terrorism or in espionage contrary to Canada’s interests. The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada is the independent administrative tribunal that hears applications.

When people submit apply for visas, they are subject to background and security checks before being admitted to the country. If there are red flags, CSIS and CBSA can make reports to the board, which then decides what to do with an application.

“It is next to impossible to challenge the advice that security intelligence agents offer to the department,” said Sharry Aiken, a professor of law at Queen’s University.

Many people are screened out based on secret evidence that can’t be reviewed, which “often leads to egregious injustices,” she said.

“It’s really about how we interpret what constitutes a risk, and what sort of association actually renders someone inadmissible,” Aiken added. “What I would say is that in the immigration domain, it is pretty much a Wild West.”

People deemed inadmissible have the right to appeal their cases in Federal Court.

Earlier this year, Portokalidis successfully fought for a former Canadian citizen who had been denied permanent residency and deemed inadmissible on the basis that he allegedly taught English to Chinese spies and might be involved in espionage himself.

The allegations against Liping Geng, a 68-year-old Chinese citizen, were contained in a report prepared by the CBSA’s National Security Screening Division, which cited information from a CSIS report.

Court records show that as a young man, Geng was a member of China’s People’s Liberation Army. After completing school, he worked as an English teacher at an army-operated department that trained students in foreign languages.

Canadian officials argued that everyone who attended the school was “in or was linked to Chinese military intelligence,” and that the teachers were actively engaging in espionage.

Geng spent nine years completing master’s and doctoral degrees at the University of Toronto, where he went on to teach, documents say. His family was approved for permanent residence status in Canada and became citizens in 1995.

When Geng returned to China in 2007, he renounced his Canadian citizenship because China doesn’t recognize dual citizenship. Still, the court documents say, Geng regularly visited family in Canada in the years that followed. He chose to return permanently in 2019 after his retirement.

Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley found that the CSIS and CBSA reports used to accuse Geng of espionage were never disclosed to him, and that this was problematic because the documents “drove the decision-making process.”

Moreover, security officials were criticized for drawing upon newspapers and other open sources to build their case, rather than hard evidence.

Mosley wrote in a ruling quashing the Immigration and Refugee Board’s decision that the security assessments amounted to an “overzealous effort” to establish Geng as a member of the Chinese military.

Portokalidis said many people who find themselves in a similar position don’t have the means to fight it in court.

“Our client was fortunate enough that he had the resources and the means to hire a lawyer to assist him this process, but if you weren’t so fortunate, I mean, he might be facing a lifetime ban,” she said.

It wasn’t the first time that Portokalidis said she had seen a failure to disclose information.

“Mr. Geng’s not the only person, unfortunately, who’s been subjected to this,” she said. “It’s unfortunate, because we could have avoided the time and expense for everyone involved if he had just been properly advised of what the concerns were from the get-go.”

The matter has been punted back to the board for further review, which Portokalidis said could take months.

The push-and-pull between maintaining an open immigration system and prioritizing security can put people’s lives and futures on hold. But the law only vaguely defines what constitute security threats, and clearer definitions could prevent injustice, Aiken suggested.

“I would, in my view, assert that it has unfortunately been an invitation, all too often, for overreach,” she said.

Evidence that would otherwise not be admissible in a criminal or civil courtroom can be used in immigration proceedings. And unlike in a criminal courtroom, there aren’t parameters specifically detailing what constitutes guilt.

“Basically, little more than suspicion is enough to render you inadmissible,” said Aiken.

In 2020, the Federal Court overturned a 2019 decision to deport a 34-year-old Ethiopian citizen who had arrived in Canada in 2017 to seek asylum.

The reasons used to determine that Medhanie Aregawi Weldemariam should be rendered inadmissible were not relevant to Canada’s national security interests, the court found.

Weldemariam was a former employee of Ethiopia’s state security and intelligence agency. That line on his resume was enough to kick him out of Canada, officials argued.

Security officials made the assessment that the Information Network Security Agency had committed cyberespionage on Canada’s allies and targeted journalists outside of Ethiopia who worked for an outlet critical of its government.

But they did not establish why such surveillance was contrary to Canadian interests and made “too tenuous” a jump in finding that Weldemariam was involved in activities against Canada, Federal Court Justice John Norris found.

He ordered a new admissibility hearing, but the federal government challenged that decision.

The matter is currently waiting to be argued at the Federal Court of Appeal, pending the decision in a separate Supreme Court matter challenging how the federal government applies its “national security” provisions.

The case involved two people who were charged, but not convicted, of separate and unrelated violent crimes.

The federal government could not remove either one of them from Canada based on the charges because of the lack of conviction, but it tried using national security provisions in immigration law as a reason to deport the two men.

Their lawyers maintain that the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act should not be used as a catch-all for using criminal conduct to kick someone out of the country.

There are legitimate concerns about foreign interference in Canada, Aiken said. People who represent genuine threats are being screened out.

“But you know, there’s a line there,” she said.

“Not any and all tenuous connections to foreign interference should render somebody’s security inevitable.”

Source: ‘Wild West’: Amid foreign meddling headlines, lawyers fear unfair immigration rulings

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , ,

Americans Still Value Immigration, but Have Concerns

2023/07/14 Leave a comment

Of note:

Americans remain largely supportive of U.S. immigration, with the majority saying it is good for the country and preferring to see immigration kept at its present level or increased rather than decreased. At the same time, they harbor concerns about the effect immigrants have on the country in some areas, especially on the crime and drug problems and, to a lesser extent, taxes.

The June 1-22 poll asks Americans about immigration and immigrants, generally, but likely reflects their views on both legal and illegal immigration. Prior Gallup research found Americans slightly more supportive of increased immigration and positive about the effect of immigration on the country when asked specifically about legal immigrationthan immigration generally.

Immigration Still Seen as Beneficial

Two-thirds of Americans consider immigration a good thing for the country, while 27% consider it a bad thing. The percentage calling it a good thing is down from its peak of 77% in 2020 and is the lowest Gallup has recorded since 2014 (when it was 63%).

However, the 68% currently saying immigration is a good thing is generally higher than was the case in the first decade of the trend, from 2001 through 2012.

While barely a quarter of Americans consider immigration a bad thing for the country, that view is far more prevalent among Republicans (43%) than Democrats (10%), with independents roughly matching the nation as a whole (28%). Still, half of Republicans consider it a good thing, as do 67% of independents and 87% of Democrats.

The poll was conducted after the Biden administration lifted emergency regulations employed during the pandemic, known as Title 42, that had allowed border control officers to immediately deport people caught entering the U.S. illegally rather than give them an asylum hearing.

Since Title 42 was suspended in mid-May, the number of illegal border crossings has declined sharply, partly because aspiring migrants are being encouraged to book appointments for asylum hearings through a mobile phone system called the CBP One App. Additionally, the risk of being charged with a felony if deported under current policies may be discouraging people from attempting illegal crossings.

The sharp decline in illegal border crossings in June, after record-high numbers were registered in 2022 and much of 2021, may have lessened Americans’ concern about the issue this past month. In the June survey, 8% named immigration as the most important problem facing the country, down from 13% in May.

Growing Minority Wants Immigration Curtailed

Gallup takes the public’s temperature on the volume of immigration by asking if immigration should be kept at its present level, increased or decreased. This was first measured in 1965, when Congress passed the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965that reformed federal immigration policy. That poll found few in favor of increasing immigration (7%), while the rest were split between wanting it kept the same (39%), wanting it decreased (33%) or unsure (20%).

The next measures, from 1977 through the early 1990s, found the public even less supportive, with more wanting immigration decreased than kept the same or increased. However, attitudes softened by 2000, and the desire for less immigration continued to trend downward thereafter, reaching a low of 28% in 2020. At the same time, those favoring an increase more than doubled, rising from 13% in 2000 to the trend high of 34% in 2020.

Given the major increase in the number of migrants seeking to enter the U.S. at the Southern border in recent years, Americans’ desire for less immigration has ticked upward, now reaching 41%. This exceeds the 26% who now want more immigration and is the highest since 2014.

Partisans Growing Further Apart on Immigration

Currently, 73% of Republicans, matching the prior high from 1995, want immigration decreased, while 10% want it increased, meaning their net preference for more immigration is -63. By contrast, 40% of Democrats want it increased, while just 18% want it decreased — a +22 net preference score. Independents still tilt negative, with 27% wanting it increased and 39% increased, or -12.

Today’s differences in immigration views by party are markedly different from the 1990s, when large proportions of both Republicans and Democrats favored a decrease in immigration. Since then, Republicans have maintained their preference for curtailing immigration. By contrast, even with dips in their support this year, Democrats and independents have grown more supportive than they were a decade or more ago.

Immigrants Seen as Asset to Culture but Some Downsides

A different question provides more detail on how Americans perceive the impact immigrants have on the U.S., asking if they make the situation better or worse in each of seven areas.

More than half of Americans, 54%, think immigrants make the country better rather than worse when it comes to “food, music and the arts.” More also say immigrants make social and moral values better (32%) rather than worse (25%). At the same time, the majority say they make the drug problem worse (55%), and far more — though less than majorities — think immigrants worsen the nation’s crime situation and taxes than say they improve these things.

The public is split on whether immigrants help (39%) or hurt (38%) the country economically. And while the majority say immigrants have no effect on job opportunities for themselves and their families, more see immigrants as a detriment in this area (26%) than an asset (18%).

Gallup has previously measured public perceptions of immigrants’ effect on all of these areas except the drug problem, finding them viewed in roughly the same rank order as today.

Americans’ net-positive views of immigrants’ effect (the percentage saying they make the situation better minus the percentage saying worse) are slightly lower today than in the most recent prior measurements, in 2017 and 2019. This decline is seen particularly for the perceived effect immigrants have on culture, the economy, taxes and crime, while views haven’t changed much with respect to immigrants’ effect on social values and job opportunities.

On the other hand, the average net-positive rating today is higher than the average Gallup found from 2004 to 2007, when far fewer valued immigrants’ influence on culture, social and moral values, the economy, job opportunities, and taxes. Current perceptions about immigrants’ effect on social and moral values, job opportunities and taxes are also a bit higher than in 2001-2002.

Again, sizable partisan differences exist in views about immigrants, with far more Republicans than Democrats saying they make the country worse in each respect. Independents’ views fall in between, although slightly closer to Democrats’ than Republicans’ in all areas except crime and taxes, where they are right in the middle.

And mirroring the widening gap in partisans’ views about the level of immigration, Democrats’ views of immigrants’ effect on the country in each area have grown increasingly positive, while Republicans’ have soured further.

The change has been particularly stark with respect to the economy. Whereas the three party groups were similarly split from 2001 through 2004 over whether immigrants made the economy better or worse, Democrats have since become solidly positive (62% now say they make the economy better versus 17% worse), while Republicans have gone in the other direction (14% better and 64% worse). After becoming slightly more positive about immigrants’ effect on the economy in 2017 and 2018, independents’ views are back to what they were in 2001.

Bottom Line

Americans are a bit less supportive of immigration now than in the past few years. However, largely because of a major pro-immigrant shift in Democrats’ views, the country as a whole is more positive toward immigration than it was in the 1990s and early 2000s. This is seen in national preferences for the level of immigration as well as views of whether immigrants help or hurt the country overall and in several specific areas.

Source: Americans Still Value Immigration, but Have Concerns

Filed under Immigration Tagged with ,

Petition e-4511: Opposing self-administration of the citizenship oath (“citizenship on a click”)

2023/07/13 Leave a comment

As readers are aware, the Government has proposed allowing the oath of citizenship to be self-administered rather than in front of other new and existing Canadians as it currently the practice. 

In my view, this seriously diminishes the meaning and impact of citizenship and the ceremonies, a rare positive celebratory moment in the immigration journey. 

Opposition to the change has been voiced by former governor general Adrienne Clarkson, former minister of immigration Sergio Marchi, former Calgary mayor Naheed Nenshi and a number of former citizenship judges. The Conservatives opposed the change in Parliament. 

And of the nearly 700 comments on the notice during the consultation period. Of them, two-thirds disapproved (A one-click citizenship oath isn’t the way to go provides the details).

Most new Canadians find the ceremony to be a major moment for them and their families, marking an end to their immigration journey and strengthening their sense of belonging to Canada.

I initiated this petition to ensure that this weakening of the citizenship ceremony and meaning does not pass unnoticed and hopefully, with enough signatures, will prompt the government to reconsider.

Please consider signing the petition and encouraging family, friends, colleagues and social networks to sign the petition. We need at least 500 signatures in order for the petition to be presented to the House.

Link: https://petitions.ourcommons.ca/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-4511 

Thanks, Andrew

Text of petition below:

Petition to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

Whereas:

  • The government has published a notice in the Canada Gazette permitting self-administration of the citizenship oath;
  • Affirming the Oath of Citizenship in the presence of other new Canadians was the will of Parliament when the original Citizenship Act was approved by Parliament in 1947 and has been central to citizenship since Canadian citizenship ever since;
  • One of the fundamental objectives of the citizenship program is “to enhance the meaning of citizenship as a unifying bond for Canadians;”
  • Citizenship ceremonies mark the end of an often lengthy and difficult immigration journey and provide a unique celebratory moment for new and existing Canadians;
  • Most citizenship ceremonies should be in-person rather than virtual given their greater impact on new Canadians;
  • The stated cost and time savings in the notice are unlikely to be realized and are minimal in relation to total processing time and overall cost of the citizenship program; and
  • Two-thirds of submissions opposed the proposed change.

We, the undersigned, citizens and residents of Canada, call upon the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship to: 

1. Abandon plans to permit self-administration of the citizenship oath;

2. Revert to in-person ceremonies as the default, with virtual ceremonies limited to 10 percent of all ceremonies;

3. Focus on administration and processing efficiencies prior to citizenship ceremonies, where most frustrations are; and

4. Explore evening and weekend ceremonies to improve accessibility along with more flexible scheduling management.

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with ,

The Global Immigration Backlash

2023/07/13 Leave a comment

Of note. Canada still the exception in terms of public support:

The global migration wave of the 21st century has little precedent. In much of North America, Europe and Oceania, the share of population that is foreign-born is at or near its highest level on record.

In the U.S., that share is approaching the previous high of 15 percent, reached in 1890. In some other countries, the immigration increases have been even steeper in the past two decades:

Foreign-born population share by country from 1960 to 2020

Charts showing the increase in the share of each country’s ­­— Australia, the U.S., Spain, United Kingdom, Netherlands and France — population that is foreign-born.

This scale of immigration tends to be unpopular with residents of the arrival countries. Illegal immigration is especially unpopular because it feeds a sense that a country’s laws don’t matter. But large amounts of legal immigration also bother many voters. Lower-income and blue-collar workers often worry that their wages will decline because employers suddenly have a larger, cheaper labor pool from which to hire.

As Tom Fairless, a Wall Street Journal reporter, wrote a few days ago:

Record immigration to affluent countries is sparking bigger backlashes across the world, boosting populist parties and putting pressure on governments to tighten policies to stem the migration wave. …

The backlashes repeat a long cycle in immigration policy, experts say. Businesses constantly lobby for more liberal immigration laws because that reduces their labor costs and boosts profits. They draw support from pro-business politicians on the right and pro-integration leaders on the left, leading to immigration policies that are more liberal than the average voter wants.

The political left in both Europe and the U.S. has struggled to come up with a response to these developments. Instead, many progressives have dismissed immigration concerns as merely a reflection of bigotry that needs to be defeated. And opposition to immigration is frequently infused with racism: Right-wing leaders like Marine Le Pen in France traffic in hateful stereotypes about immigrants. Some, like Donald Trump, tell outright lies.

But favoring lower levels of immigration is not inherently bigoted or always right-wing. The most prosperous large countries in Africa, Asia and South America tend to have much smaller foreign-born shares of their population. Japan and South Korea make it particularly difficult for foreigners to enter.

Foreign-born population share in 2020

Chart showing the foreign-born population share in 2020 for select countries in Africa, South America and Asia, compared with the U.S., Europe and global shares.

In earlier eras, the political left in the U.S. included many figures who worried about the effects of large-scale immigration. Both labor leaders and civil-rights leaders, for example, argued for moderate levels of immigration to protect the interests of vulnerable workers.

“There is a reason why Wall Street and all of corporate America likes immigration reform, and it is not, in my view, that they’re staying up nights worrying about undocumented workers in this country,” Bernie Sanders said in 2015. “What I think they are interested in is seeing a process by which we can bring low-wage labor of all levels into this country to depress wages for Americans, and I strongly disagree with that.”

Today, though, many progressives are uncomfortable with any immigration-skeptical argument. They have become passionate advocates of more migration and global integration, arguing — correctly — that immigrants usually benefit by moving from a lower-wage country to a higher-wage country. But immigration is not a free lunch any more than free trade is. It also has costs, including its burden on social services, as some local leaders, like Mayor Eric Adams of New York and officials in South Texas, have recently emphasized.

With today’s left-leaning and centrist parties largely accepting of high levels of immigration, right-wing parties have become attractive to many voters who favor less immigration. The issue has fueled the rise of far-right nationalist parties in France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Finland and elsewhere, as Jason Horowitz of The Times explained in a recent article. Jason focuses on Spain, another country where the anti-immigration party is growing.

The latest case study is the Netherlands. The governing coalition there collapsed on Friday after centrist parties refused to accept part of the conservative prime minister’s plan to reduce migration. Rather than alter his plan, the prime minister, Mark Rutte, dissolved the government, setting up an election this fall.

Rutte, notably, is not a member of the far right. He is a mainstream Dutch conservative who has tried to marginalize the country’s extremist anti-immigrant party. Yet he came to believe that reducing immigration was “a matter of political survival” for his party, my colleagues Matina Stevis-Gridneff and Claire Moses reported.

Although the details are different, President Biden has also recently taken steps to reduce unauthorized immigration. So far, his new policy — which includes both more border enforcement and an expansion of legal pathways to apply for entry — appears to have reduced the surge of migration at the U.S.-Mexico border. Still, the issue clearly divides Biden’s party. Many liberal Democrats have criticized his policy as heartless and said the U.S. should admit more migrants, not fewer.

Democrats frequently like to point out the many ways in which Republicans are out of step with public opinion, including on abortion bans, the minimum wage, taxes on the wealthy and background checks for gun owners. Immigration cuts the other way, polls show. It is a subject on which much of the Democratic Party, like the political left in Europe, is in a different place than many voters.

Source: The Global Immigration Backlash

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , ,

Legislation changes to address discrimination in the public service ‘a good start’, union says

2023/07/13 Leave a comment

Of note, relatively positive commentary on the planned changes. Some of the accommodations may result in challenges further down the road, however:

The federal government recently put into effect the last set of amendments to the Public Service Employment Act, which the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) said is “a good start” to addressing barriers faced by equity-seeking groups.

The Public Service Commission of Canada (PSC) said last week that the newest updates to the legislation aim to tackle biases in the hiring and staffing of public servants, with the ultimate goal of creating a more inclusive and diverse public service. Roughly 80 departments across the federal government are subject to the act.

Under the new legislation, federal departments and agencies are now required to evaluate how staffing processes, such as interviews and written exams, could disadvantage people belonging to equity-seeking groups, including women, people with a disability, or those who identify as Black, Indigenous or LGBTQ+, and take steps to remove or mitigate any biases or barriers within their practices.

Michael Morin, PSC’s acting vice-president of the Policy and Communications Sector, said the agency has been developing a guidance workshop tool over the past year to help hiring managers and human resources staff identify potential biases and barriers in staffing methods, such as screening, written tests, exams, interviews, reference checks and performance reviews, and see what strategies can be implemented to make them more inclusive.

For example, Morin said that some assessment strategies could be found to offer insufficient preparation time, which could be a detriment to people with disabilities, people who talk or type slowly, or people with little experience with the government’s hiring practices. If that was the case, PSC’s tools, he said, would encourage managers to provide applicants with more time to prepare and deliver their response, and might suggest departments provide questions in advance.

“The key part is that the evaluation has to take place before an assessment method is conducted,” Morin said, adding that the evaluation tool can be used more broadly by a department’s human resources team or by individuals like a hiring manager. “A hiring manager, if they’re conducting an interview, can sort of review that guide to consider how they are conducting the interview and do some sort of course-correction along the way.”

The updates will also expand the capability of PSC and departments’ deputy heads to investigate “errors, omissions or improper conduct” resulting from biases or barriers in staffing processes.

“Anyone can submit a request for investigation regarding irregularities or issues in a hiring process, and this now includes any concerns related to biases and barriers,” Morin said. “What we’re looking at is an added emphasis on minimizing trauma for investigations participants, and also really looking at how can we increase transparency and flexibility as the investigation process unfolds.”

The updates are building on previous amendments made to the act first introduced in the 2021 budget implementation process.

Other updates included revising job qualifications for members of equity-seeking groups, expanding the PSC’s authority to audit for biases or barriers in appointment processes that disadvantage members of those groups and providing permanent residents with the same preference as Canadian citizens when appointments are made through external advertised hiring processes, which Morin said has already led to a shift in the number of permanent residents applying and getting hired.

Morin said changes to the act were made with consultation with employee diversity networks, bargaining agents and federal departments.

In an emailed statement, PSAC said the latest amendments are “a good start”, arguing that more support, resources and legislative changes are needed to address systemic barriers in the public service.

In the past couple of years, PSAC and other unions representing federal workers made several recommendations to update the act, with the union calling for increasing centralized staffing oversight and for the government to address the “use and abuse” of discretion powers in hiring.

PSAC said the union continues to maintain its recommendations, noting that the commission should have the authority to ensure transparency and make changes to hiring practices within departments, and that it must ensure that investigators have the necessary experience and knowledge to identify bias and barriers in hiring.

“Ultimately, our members file staffing complaints with the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board,” the statement read. “This bill’s proposed amendments do not address the barriers in the Board complaint process which has become more legalistic, cumbersome, ineffective, and intimidating with limited remedies.”

Morin said “a lot of departments” have already taken measures to implement the changes, adding that the PSC will oversee government hiring practices through audits, surveys and continued engagement with employee diversity networks.

“It’s not sort of the full suite of work that’s underway across the public service or through the PSC in terms of supporting diversity and inclusion and equity,” Morin said, noting the Clerk of the Privy Council’s Call to Action on Anti-Racism, Equity, and Inclusion and the federal accessibility strategy. “We see it as a foundational piece to really support a lot of those initiatives.”

Source: Legislation changes to address discrimination in the public service ‘a good start’, union says

Filed under Government Tagged with , ,

Bernadet: À qui la diversité profite-t-elle le plus?

2023/07/13 Leave a comment

Another column noting the intersectionality of class:

Le 29 juin dernier, la Cour suprême des États-Unis a mis fin aux programmes d’action positive (affirmative action) dans les universités, s’attaquant aux procédures d’admission dans les campus qui prennent en compte la couleur de peau ou les origines ethniques des candidats. Cette décision a relancé la controverse autour des politiques d’embauche dans les établissements québécois, notamment en raison des plans équité, diversité, inclusion (EDI) mis en place par Ottawa depuis 2017 dans le cadre des chaires de recherche du Canada (CRC). Des mesures, il importe de le rappeler, qui trouvent leur origine dans une tradition de l’État fédéral, depuis la commission royale de la juge Rosalie Abella en 1984 et la Loi sur l’équité en matière d’emploi de 1986.

Dans le camp conservateur, des voix soutiennent ouvertement l’avis des juges américains, y voyant un heureux retour au statu quo comme si les inégalités allaient disparaître par miracle, et qu’il était possible de se dispenser de moyens de correction. D’autres s’inquiètent au contraire des possibles retombées de cette décision de ce côté-ci de la frontière. Dans un contexte de racisme et de colonialisme nourri par le « privilège masculin blanc », certains, comme la professeure de philosophie à l’Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières Naïma Hamrouni, dans Le Devoir du samedi 8 juillet, n’hésitent pas à dire que l’action positive est « l’un des instruments possibles d’une déségrégation sexuelle et raciale progressive de notre société ».

Un tel point de vue accrédite évidemment l’idée que le Québec subirait un modèle de ségrégation, une notion au maniement délicat, qui mériterait d’être rigoureusement définie et documentée tant son emploi est inséparable de l’histoire de certaines sociétés, à commencer par les États-Unis et l’Afrique du Sud. Mais on s’étonne surtout de l’efficacité que ce genre de propos prête aux fameux plans EDI. Car un examen un peu attentif de leurs critères en montre aussitôt les limites.

Il importe de souligner que le gouvernement fédéral a introduit les plans EDI par l’intermédiaire du programme CRC, c’est-à-dire en utilisant une fenêtre très étroite, la seule dont il bénéficiait à vrai dire, pour interférer dans les compétences en matière d’éducation des provinces. On peut bien sûr espérer que ces plans corrigent les inégalités du milieu universitaire, ce qui, à ce jour, reste à démontrer. En revanche, on peut douter qu’ils conduisent à des changements plus larges et profonds, d’autant plus qu’ils ne tiennent pas compte des particularités migratoires et démographiques, économiques ou sociales de chaque province.

Des failles

Cette politique de la diversité a été pensée par le haut et non à partir de la base. La justice dont il est question ici concerne avant tout le corps professoral et plus encore un segment limité de ce corps, les titulaires de chaires de recherche. De plus, les plans EDI sont pour l’essentiel centrés sur le genre et la race. Ils passent complètement sous silence les disparités socio-économiques. Leur but avoué est de favoriser le recrutement de personnes issues de groupes discriminés au cours de leur histoire, des mesures provisoires qui doivent être atteintes par les universités d’ici 2029.

Dans l’usage établi depuis le rapport de la juge Abella, il s’agit des femmes, des Autochtones, des personnes en situation de handicap et issues des minorités visibles, auxquels s’ajoute dans la pratique le cas des communautés LGBTQ. Or, aucune de ces catégories ne se situe sur le même plan. « Autochtones » et « femmes » peuvent difficilement être comparés. Bien qu’elle soit très utile, l’idée de « groupe » en particulier ne cesse pas de poser problème.

Par exemple, les femmes forment-elles vraiment un groupe ? Rappelons d’abord, contre les idées reçues, que certaines femmes peuvent être socialement plus avantagées par rapport à des hommes. Ensuite et surtout, les femmes entre elles ne sont pas égales. Elles n’ont pas les mêmes chances d’accéder à un emploi en raison du capital scolaire, culturel ou économique dont chacune dispose.

Un raisonnement similaire peut être appliqué aux minorités visibles. Il est fréquent de dire qu’elles sont sous-représentées au sein des universités, qui ont les outils pour chiffrer correctement ce phénomène. L’argument est même devenu un lieu commun au sein des élites. Il est repris par la classe politique ou dans l’entreprise, spécialement pour les cadres managériaux, les emplois visibles ou à haute responsabilité. On l’entend encore dans les médias et le monde de la culture.

Or, l’économiste Thomas Piketty l’a bien montré, la sous-représentation des minorités visibles dissimule proportionnellement leur surreprésentation au sein des classes populaires. Il n’est donc pas assuré que les politiques d’action positive soient capables de corriger un tel écart dans la mesure où elles ne touchent souvent qu’un pourcentage réduit de personnes au sein des populations visées. Non seulement les injustices raciales ne peuvent être séparées des injustices sociales, mais les unes et les autres exigent une politique égalitaire plus ambitieuse : une politique pour tous et non une justice d’élite.

À qui profitent donc les mesures EDI ? Est-ce aux groupes cibles, ou n’est-ce pas plutôt aux institutions qui promeuvent la diversité ? La question mérite d’être posée et débattue.

Source: À qui la diversité profite-t-elle le plus?

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Why Trudeau got tough on immigration

2023/07/13 Leave a comment

One interpretation (although I always thought the impact of the tweet, in comparison to other more substantial factors, was overstated):

“To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength #WelcomeToCanada.” In hindsight, this tweet by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in 2017 was ill-advised. It was written in response to Trump’s executive order banning refugees and visitors from seven Muslim-majority countries. Critics point to it as the trigger for a surge of asylum-seekers at the Canadian border.

If it were true that people were escaping to Canada from the US because they feared being deported under Trump’s harsh immigration policies, then the flow of immigrants heading north would have slowed when President Biden took office. According to government data, in the period between the tweet going out and the pandemic, which slowed crossings to a trickle, almost 60,000 people made “irregular border crossings” into Canada. But afterwards, the influx returned, reaching over 20,000 in 2022, Biden’s first year in office. By February of this year, more than 10,000 people had already crossed over into Canada.

Nor were refugees put off America by President Trump. Since 2020, the number of migrants going the other way — crossing into the US from Canada — has also shot up. Last year, Homeland Security apprehended more than 100,000 migrants crossing from Canada. (For context, in 2018 US authorities arrested only 558 people on the northern border.) There is no end in sight to these “irregular crossings”, and the public has been expressing its dissatisfaction with lax immigration controls on both sides of the border.

According to the two nations’ Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA), which has been in effect since 2004, refugees have to apply for status in the first “safe country” they reach. So, they cannot apply for asylum in Canada at official border crossings with the US. However, a loophole in the agreement enables migrants crossing at unofficial border points to claim asylum after they cross. And along the 9,000km-long border, there are many places to do so, the most infamous being Roxham Road, where New York state meets Quebec.

That is, until March 25, when Roxham Road was shut down by the Canadian government. Trudeau made the announcement on the afternoon of March 24, and the policy took effect at 12:01am the next day: “To address irregular migration, we are expanding the Safe Third Country Agreement to apply not only at designated ports of entry, but across the entire land border, including internal waterways, ensuring fairness and more orderly migration between our two countries.” Biden was in Canada at the time, on his first official visit since winning the presidency. It later transpired that the neighbouring countries had signed an amendment to the STCA a year earlier, but hadn’t made the news public because officials feared untold numbers of migrants might rush to cross the border before the changes could be enacted. Now, both countries can turn away asylum seekers, no matter where they cross.

This was a shock to Canada’s reputation as an immigrant-friendly country. Here, eligible refugees receiving generous welfare benefits including government-assisted housing, healthcare, work permits, and financial support. A path to citizenship is available to anyone who can secure permanent residency in the country. But there is a feeling, among some Canadians, that migrants have started exploiting vulnerabilities in the system. Almost 70% of Quebec residents — the province that Roxham Road leads into — said they wanted this irregular entry point closed. With social services in the province overwhelmed by asylum-seekers, the federal government started transferring migrants to Niagara Falls in Ontario, which saw welfare services pushed to the brink as well. Since 2021, the Immigration Department has paid $94 million to book out entire hotels for months, in order to accommodate asylum-seekers.

The ease with which people could illegally enter through Roxham Road, according to analysts, was “almost an invitation for undocumented migrants to try their chances at obtaining asylum in Canada”. Specifically, migrants from Nigeria, who make up a big chunk of all those who cross over from Roxham Road. The majority actually possess a valid US tourist visa, flying into New York before making their way to Canada. “I went to search Google and I figured out this is what everybody is doing,” one Nigerian migrant said while crossing the border. A “disproportionate” number of Nigerians claiming asylum are doing so on the grounds of LGBT persecution, which is met with more sympathy in Canada than in the US. But concerns have been raised about the similarities in such applications, and one investigation by a Nigeria-based publication revealed how some Nigerians make up stories in an attempt to secure asylum. This has left some aid organisations worrying that legitimate claims are now more likely to be doubted.

Some migrants still have their hearts set on America, however. Those from Mexico and India make up the bulk of illegal crossings from Canada to the States, with many flying into Canada for the sole purpose of getting across the world’s longest international border without detection. Mexicans, who since 2016 can fly visa-free to Canada, often spend thousands of dollars flying into Toronto and paying smugglers to get to the US — hence Biden’s motivation to renegotiate the STCA.

And this phenomenon burst into the public consciousness when, in January 2022, the bodies of four Indian nationals (two of them minors) were found frozen to death in Manitoba, near the American border. The Patel family had come to Canada on a tourist visa, but hoped to reach family in Chicago. A documentary last year suggested that, in Gujarat, the Patels had been a comfortable, upper-middle class family with no financial troubles or experiences of racial or religious persecution. Why, then, would they risk crossing illegally into the US in the middle of winter with two young children?

Migrant rights groups almost always lay the blame for tragedies at the feet of unscrupulous smugglers and harsh government policy. Few acknowledge that the people who decide to illegally cross an international border almost always have agency. And for middle-class migrants, it’s usually not about security; it’s about status. In developing countries, attaining the “American Dream” — or another Western nation’s equivalent — is still highly aspirational. And while everyone has the right to build a good life for themselves, migrants who can pay their way into one North American nation in order to cross over into the other, depending on their preference, undermine faith in the immigration system.

Which is a problem for Trudeau. His Liberal government plans to welcome half a million new immigrants into Canada every year till 2025. (Like most developed nations, Canada has an aging population, a low birth rate, and is facing a labour shortage.) Almost 50% of Canadians already think this target is too high. If Trudeau doesn’t want public opinion turning against his plans, he needs to reassure the electorate that his government has a strong handle on who is being welcomed across our borders.

Amending the STCA is meant to signal that the government is aware of the growing unpopularity of irregular border crossers, who are seen as jumping the queue, leaving those without financial means further down the list — not to mention those waiting in refugee camps around the world. John Manley, one of the architects of the original STCA, supports the new changes, claiming that most migrants around the world are in much greater danger than those who have already found their way to the US. But there has been backlash from refugee rights advocates, with the Canadian Council for Refugees, among others, arguing that the STCA is unconstitutional. But last month, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously ruled otherwise.

The closure of Roxham Road sent a message to all those who want to migrate to Canada that the way to do so is through official channels. Two days later, the Government of Canada launched a survey to poll Canadians’ opinions. Trudeau was, apparently, ready to listen to how Canadians feel about this issue. While some advocates have been arguing that closing the loophole will have pushed people into the hands of smugglers, it’s still too early to tell what the effects of the new changes will be, though data on the past three months’ of irregular border crossings should be imminent. But whatever the outcome: the Prime Minister won’t be promoting Canada’s immigration policies on Twitter any time soon.

Source: Why Trudeau got tough on immigration

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →