He spoke no English, had no lawyer. An Afghan man’s case offers a glimpse into US immigration court – Miami Herald

Always a mistake to represent oneself:

The Afghan man speaks only Farsi, but he wasn’t worried about representing himself in U.S. immigration court. He believed the details of his asylum claim spoke for themselves.

Mohammad was a university professor, teaching human rights courses in Afghanistan before he fled for the United States. Mohammad is also Hazara, an ethnic minority long persecuted in his country, and he said he was receiving death threats under the Taliban, who reimposed their harsh interpretation of Sunni Islam after taking power in 2021.

He crossed the Texas border in April 2022, surrendered to Border Patrol agents and was detained. A year later, a hearing was held via video conference. His words were translated by a court interpreter in another location, and he said he struggled to express himself — including fear for his life since he was injured in a 2016 suicide bombing.

At the conclusion of the nearly three-hour hearing, the judge denied him asylum. Mohammad said he was later shocked to learn that he had waived his right to appeal the decision.

“I feel alone and that the law wasn’t applied,” said Mohammad, who spoke to The Associated Press on condition that only his first name be used, over fears for the safety of his wife and children, who are still in Afghanistan.

Mohammad’s case offers a rare look inside an opaque and overwhelmed immigration court system where hearings are often closed, transcripts are not available to the public and judges are under pressure to move quickly with ample discretion. Amid a major influx of migrants at the border with Mexico, the courts — with a backlog of 2 million cases -– may be the most overwhelmed and least understood link in the system.

AP reviewed a hearing transcript provided by Mona Iman, an attorney with Human Rights First now representing Mohammad. Iman also translated Mohammad’s comments to AP in a phone interview from Prairieland Detention Center in Alvarado, Texas.

The case reflects an asylum seeker who was ill-equipped to represent himself and clearly didn’t understand what was happening, according to experts who reviewed the transcript. But at least one former judge disagreed and said the ruling was fair.

Now Mohammad’s attorney has won him a new hearing, before a different judge — a rare second chance for asylum cases. Also giving Iman hope is a decision this week by the Biden administration to give temporary legal status to Afghan migrants living in the country for more than a year. Iman believes he qualifies and said he will apply.

But Mohammed has been in detention for about 18 months, and he fears he could remain in custody and still be considered for deportation.

AP sought details and comment from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The agency didn’t address questions on Mohammad’s case but said noncitizens can pursue all due process and appeals and, once that’s exhausted, judges’ orders must be carried out.

For his April 27 hearing, Mohammad submitted photos of his injuries from the 2016 suicide bombing that killed hundreds at a peaceful demonstration of mostly Hazaras. He also gave the court threatening letters from the Taliban and medical documents from treatment for head wounds in 2021. He said militants beat him with sticks as he left the university and shot at him but missed.

In court, the government argued that Mohammad encouraged migration to the U.S. on social media, changed dates and details related to his history, and had relatives in Europe, South America and other places where he could have settled.

In ruling, Judge Allan John-Baptiste said the threats didn’t indicate Mohammad would still be at risk, and that his wife and children hadn’t been harmed since he left.

Mohammad tried to keep arguing his case, but the judge told him the evidentiary period was closed. He asked Mohammad whether he planned to appeal or would waive his right to do so.

Mohammad kept describing his claim, but John-Baptiste reminded him he’d already ruled. Mohammad said if the judge was going to ignore the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan, he wouldn’t ask for an appeal. John-Baptiste indicated he had considered it.

“You were not hit by the gunshot or the suicide bomber,” John-Baptiste said. “The harm that you received does not rise to the level of persecution.”

Mohammad continued, explaining how his family lives in hiding, his wife concealing her identity with a burqa.

“OK, are you going to appeal my decision or not?” John-Baptiste ultimately asked.

“No, I don’t,” Mohammad said.

“And we don’t want you to make the decision now that you can’t come back later and say you want to appeal. This is final, OK, sir?” John-Baptiste said.

“Yes. OK, I accept that,” Mohammad said.

He later asked whether he could try to come back legally. The judge started to explain voluntary departure, which would allow him to return in less than a decade, but corrected himself and said Mohammad didn’t qualify.

“I’m sorry about that, but, you know, I’m just going to have to order you removed,” John-Baptiste said. “I wish you the best of luck.”

Mohammad later told AP he couldn’t comprehend what was happening in court. He’d heard from others in detention that he had a month to appeal.

“I didn’t understand in that moment that the right would be taken from me if I said no,” he said.

Former immigration judge Jeffrey Chase, who reviewed the transcript, said he was surprised John-Baptiste waived Mohammad’s right to appeal and that the Board of Immigration Appeals upheld that decision. Case law supports granting protection for people who belong to a group long persecuted in their homelands even if an individual cannot prove specific threats, said Chase, an adviser to the appeals board.

But Andrew Arthur, another former immigration judge, said John-Baptiste ruled properly.

“The respondent knew what he was filing, understood all of the questions that were asked of him at the hearing, understood the decision, and freely waived his right to appeal,” Arthur, a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for immigration restrictions, said via email.

Chase said the hearing appeared rushed, and he believes the case backlog played a role.

“Immigration judges hear death-penalty cases in traffic-court conditions,” said Chase, quoting a colleague. “This is a perfect example.”

Overall, the 600 immigration judges nationwide denied 63% of asylum cases last year, according to Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse.Individual rates vary wildly, from a Houston judge who denied all 105 asylum requests to a San Francisco one denying only 1% of 108 cases. John-Baptiste, a career prosecutor appointed during the Trump administration’s final months, denied 72% of his 114 cases.

Before Mohammad decided to flee, his wife applied for a special immigrant visa, which grants permanent residency to Afghans who worked for the U.S. government or military, along with their families. But that and other legal pathways can take years.

While they waited, Mohammad said, the Taliban came looking for him but instead detained and beat his nephew. Mohammad described making the devastating decision to leave his family, who had no passports.

He opted for a treacherous route through multiple countries to cross the U.S.-Mexico border, which has seen the number of Afghans jump from 300 to 5,000 in a year. Mohammad said he crossed into Pakistan, flew to Brazil and headed north. He slept on buses and trekked through Panama’s notorious Darien Gap jungle, where he said he saw bodies of migrants who didn’t make it. Mohammad planned to live with a niece in North Carolina. Now he fears if he’s sent home and his wife gets her visa, they’ll be separated again.

Deportations to Afghanistan are extremely rare, with a handful each year. Attorney Iman said they’re grateful Mohammad’s case has been reopened, with a hearing scheduled for Oct. 4.

She is fighting for his immediate release. “I have no doubt that his case would have turned out differently had he been represented,” Iman said. “This is exactly the type of vulnerable individual that the U.S. government has promised, has committed to protect, since it withdrew from the country.”

Source: He spoke no English, had no lawyer. An Afghan man’s case offers a glimpse into US immigration court – Miami Herald

New immigration minister says one-click citizenship oath still worth considering [No, it’s not]

Latest public statement by the Minister:

The new immigration minister is still considering a controversial option to allow new Canadians to take their oath of citizenship with the click of a button, but there are no immediate plans to implement it, he said Monday.

The government asked for public feedback in February about the idea to allow new Canadians to skip a virtual or in-person ceremony and opt instead to take the oath with the click of a mouse.

Consultation documents posted online say the new regulations were expected to come into force in June 2023, but the government has been mum about its plans since then.

The department is still mulling it over, Immigration Minister Marc Miller said Monday, and he thinks it’s a good idea.

“You don’t want to take these moments lightly, but we do need technological options,” Miller said on his way into Question Period. 

“The department has been criticized, rightly, for not being adjusted to the 21st century and that option is one I think that we should preserve.”

It’s particularly important for people who live in remote or rural communities, who shouldn’t have to drive long distances to swear their oath, he said. 

Earlier this year, then-immigration minister Sean Fraser pitched the idea as a temporary option to help work through backlogs of people waiting for their citizenship. 

The change is expected to save people up to three months of processing time, the government consultation documents said. 

The responses to that consultation offered mixed views on the idea: some called it a forward thinking approach, while others thought it would degrade the value of in-person ceremonies. 

The department said in a statement Monday that the comments will “inform the next steps and the development of implementation plans.”

“I’ve heard from Canadians and advocates of the importance of actually being in person. I’ve also seen the importance of virtually, when there’s no question about someone’s loyalty or citizenship or oath or the seriousness he should take the Canadian citizenship,” Miller said Monday. 

“It’s about keeping the options open in the 21st century.”

Miller said he’s administered the oath three times since taking over the immigration file during the summer cabinet shuffle, and recognizes that preserving an in-person option is “paramount.”

“We have to we have to obviously preserve those.”

The government expects in-person participation will drop even more once the one-click option is introduced, and there would likely be fewer ceremonies overall.

Conservatives have vowed to oppose the measure over concerns it would “cheapen” the citizenship oath.

The government wants to “reduce it all to a click on a website or an app as if citizenship were no more than consenting to terms in a contract,” Conservative immigration critic Tom Kmiec said in a statement Monday.

“The Trudeau Liberals are abandoning this special tradition and reducing our citizens to a bureaucratic number.”

During the pandemic, the government added the option to allow people to pledge their allegiance to Canada in a virtual ceremony, and the practice has continued. 

“We saw a firefighter in B.C. that was able to do it on the fly,” Miller said, and suggested the option should remain. 

“I think we need to maintain those.”

Even with the virtual ceremonies, there were still 68,287 people in the backlog as of July 23, waiting to take their oaths and enjoy all the benefits of Canadian citizenship.

Source: New immigration minister says one-click citizenship oath still worth considering

Link to petition opposing the change: https://petitions.ourcommons.ca/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-4511

Perez: Canada’s welcoming attitude toward immigrants is at risk of fraying

Part of the “denialist” narratives that state or imply that any questioning of immigration levels, permanent or temporary, is xenophobic or worse, and that the only solution is to build more housing, improve healthcare and infrastructure. Supply side narrative that willingly disregards or discounts the demand side of an increase in population, driven by immigration. 

I haven’t seen any credible commentary comparing the very different dynamics in France with the Canadian reality.

But fundamentally, current and planned high levels are far more risky to public consensus on immigration, by immigrants and non-immigrants alike, than fretting about discussing these issues. The vast majority of commentary has been thoughtful, respective and by no means xenophobic.

If “Our decision makers must confront the stark domestic policy challenges we face today to ensure we remain the envy of the world when it comes to welcoming immigration policies,” discussing more reasonable levels of permanent and temporary migration is essential to maintaining public confidence and support:

In June, violent riots overtook more than a dozen French cities after a police officer shot and killed Nahel Merzouk, a French teen of Algerian and Moroccan descent who had driven through a red light while escaping police.

The reaction in Canada was as predictable as it was self-assured. Many commentators said the destructive events unfolding in France could never take place in a country like Canada.

But could they?

What transpired in France is a reflection of that country’s unwillingness to integrate its substantial North African population into broader French society more than 60 years after its colonial era came to a grinding halt in the North African Maghreb.

Unlike France, Canada is arguably the most welcoming country to new citizens globally. In 1971, prime minister Pierre Trudeau announced a first-of-its kind official government policy – multiculturalism – designed to recognize the contribution of cultural diversity and multicultural citizenship to Canada’s greater social fabric.

Multiculturalism has become a cornerstone of Canadian identity and has been accompanied by an equally popular policy: that of high immigration.

I’m the beneficiary of these dual policies. My father left France for Canada 50 years ago, arriving in Quebec’s Eastern Townships to start a new life just two years after Pierre Trudeau made official multiculturalism a reality.

But an Abacus Data poll released in July reveals a marked shift in public opinion on Canadian immigration policy. The poll found 61 per cent of Canadians believe the federal government’s target to welcome 500,000 planned permanent residents in 2025 is “too high,” including 37 per cent who feel it’s “way too high.”

While Conservative Party supporters are most likely to feel the immigration target of 500,000 is too high (with 52 per cent feeling it’s way too high), half of Liberal Party and NDP supporters feel the target is too high as well.

These numbers demonstrate a growing gap between how Canada’s economic and political leaders view immigration when compared with the broader public. If we don’t address the sentiments underlying this poll, what happened in France in June might not be so unimaginable in our own backyard.

Until now, immigration policy has been the third rail of Canadian politics. No mainstream politician has dared touch the issue for fear of public backlash. Maxime Bernier’s upstart People’s Party of Canada briefly flirted with anti-immigration rhetoric during the 2019 federal election only to receive a pitiful 1.6-per-cent support on election day.

The leaders of Canada’s three largest parties continue to speak out strongly in favour of generous immigration levels – and I believe they mean it.

At the political level, we continue to benefit from a consensus on immigration policy in this country – a consensus that cuts across parties, levels of government and regions. For example, Pierre Poilievre won the Conservative Party’s leadership one year ago this month, in part by appealing to ethnocultural communities and new Canadians. Canadian conservatism has never been synonymous with nativism, unlike in many other Western countries.

Meanwhile, NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh is the first non-white, turban-wearing national political leader in Canada. Since assuming the party’s leadership in 2017, Mr. Singh has used his platform to speak candidly about his experience as a racialized Canadian and major party leader.

To its credit, the Trudeau government continues to double down on economic immigration as a means to addressing Canada’s declining birth rate and widening labour shortage. In June, the government announced a “digital nomad strategy” that will empower workers with a foreign employer to stay and work in Canada for up to six months. Another recently announced program will introduce an immigration stream specifically targeted at technology workers, allowing them to enter the country whether they have a job or not.

Despite our cross-party consensus on economic immigration, we’re not immune to a scenario that could see some political leaders peddle anti-immigration rhetoric in exchange for votes. In fact, this is the norm in most of the Western world where nativist parties enjoy sizable support.

If we are to remain the most welcoming country in the world, our political leaders must do a much better job securing the social license needed to maintain high immigration levels, including addressing the housing affordability and health care crises.

The Abacus poll found that 63 per cent of Canadians feel high immigration levels are having a harmful impact on housing, while 49 per cent feel our immigration policies are negatively affecting the country’s stretched health care system.

Research shows that Canada must build 5.3 million homes over the next decade if we’re to credibly address the housing affordability crisis. But recent figures show Canada is on track to build less than half that number. Our most populous province, Ontario, built just 72,000 new units of housing last year while welcoming more than 184,000 permanent residents.

Part of securing social license for generous immigration policies requires our leaders to address the deplorable conditions experienced by refugees and asylum seekers in many parts of the country. Earlier this summer, news reports revealed that large numbers of asylum seekers were left to sleep on the streets of Toronto because of an overburdened shelter system.

Meanwhile, Canada’s public health care system is still reeling from the ravages of COVID-19 and is suffering from a shortage of doctors, nurses and hospital beds. Canadians of all backgrounds increasingly face lengthy wait times for elective surgeries, procedures, appointments, tests and imaging. Finding a family physician has become a herculean task; emergency rooms are at a breaking point.

The blunt reality is that our current health care system isn’t equipped to adequately serve the existing population, let alone vulnerable newcomers.

High immigration levels and official multiculturalism are inextricably linked to Canada’s immense economic and social success over the past 50 years. They’re the reason my father chose Canada in 1973. They’re also the reason he was successful building an extremely rewarding life here.

But the decidedly pro-immigration sentiments that marked my father’s formative years in this country are now at risk of disappearing. This ought to be a siren call for our political leaders at every level of government. Now isn’t the time for Canada to rest on its laurels from a bygone era. Our decision makers must confront the stark domestic policy challenges we face today to ensure we remain the envy of the world when it comes to welcoming immigration policies.

Andrew Perez is a Toronto-based freelance writer, media commentator and political activist.

Source: Opinion: Canada’s welcoming attitude toward immigrants is at risk of fraying

Clerk of the Privy Council John Hannaford relaunches ethics and values discussion in the public service

Count me among the sceptics despite the need and I share the concerns and questions raised by others. The Tait report was written by one deputy working full time on the report rather than having a committee of deputies, likely accounting in part for its clarity and sense of purpose:

Canada’s top bureaucrat is making values and ethics a top priority, striking a task force of deputy ministers to lead a “broad conversation” on reaffirming the core values of a non-partisan public service in a changing world where crises never stop.

John Hannaford, named clerk of the Privy Council Office three months ago, put together the five-member task force with marching orders to “bring our collective values and ethics to life within a dynamic and increasingly complex environment.” He sent notice of the new task force to all departments last week and outlined the plan in a keynote speech at recent conference that was closed to the media.

“As head of the public service, fostering a renewed conversation on values and ethics will serve as one of my priority areas of focus over the next year and will support the effective management and renewal of our public service,” he wrote in a letter to public servants.

Hannaford said the task force will spend the next several months conducting outreach with public servants, networks and communities — both inside and outside the public service. He expects a “milestone report” by the end of the year.

Meanwhile, he wants every department, branch and division to come up with activities and ways to discuss public service values and ethics and what they mean in today’s world.

The task force will be chaired by Catherine Blewett, a former top bureaucrat in Nova Scotia who is now deputy minister of Economic Development and president of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.

Other members include: Stephen Lucas, deputy minister at Health Canada, Christiane Fox at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, and Caroline Xavier, the chief of the electronic spy agency Communications Security Establishment (CSE). Donnalyn McClymont, PCO deputy secretary for senior personnel and public-service renewal, will support the task force as an ex-officio member.

A first in 30 years

This marks the first major values and ethics review since the groundbreaking report A Strong Foundation, by former deputy minister John Tait nearly 30 years ago.

That report was also built on a conversation with public servants. It laid the groundwork for values-and-ethics code that came into effect in 2003 to govern how public servants work, behave and their relationship with Parliament, ministers and Canadians.

Tait’s report also grew out of a task force of deputy ministers appointed by then-PCO clerk Jocelyne Bourgon at a time of huge flux. She created nine task forces to study the big challenges for public servants in the aftermath of the  Chrétien government’s historic program review. That review completely rethought the role of government and wiped out more than 50,000 federal jobs to beat a crushing deficit.

Times have changed, but Hannaford said the core values outlined in Tait’s report — respect for democracy, respect for people, integrity, stewardship and excellence — are enduring and are still the compass to guide public servants’ behaviour.

“Our world is increasingly dynamic, complex, and ever-changing,” Hannaford wrote in a letter to departments.

“As public servants, we play an important role in the Canadian democratic system. We continue to rise to the occasion to serve Canada and Canadians. Our public-service values and ethics serve as an important compass to guide our actions and behaviours, particularly as we adapt and evolve in times of change.”

He said the task force’s work will complement other ongoing priorities to improve workplace wellness, accessibility, anti-racism, equity and inclusion and reconciliation. 

Public servants work in much different circumstances today, but like 30 years ago they face challenging questions about what they do and how they do it.

Public servants feel besieged these days by everything from workload to hyper-partisan politics. Federal executives report high levels of stress and burnout with rising levels of cynicism and mental-health problems. A Top of Mind report found public servants at all levels of government worry they can’t speak truth to power and have to toe the party line in giving advice

They’ve come through a pandemic, the convoy protest, service-delivery fiascos, the biggest strike in 30 years, working remotely and are now in the throes of a $15.4-billion spending review. The public service, at 350,000 people, has never been so big, so diverse, and millennials now dominate the workforce with very different attitudes than their baby-boomer predecessors.

Then there’s climate and geopolitical crises after crises. There is war and floods and fires, soaring inflation and housing shortages compounded by the day-to-day distractions of social media, hyper-partisan politics, and the 24-hour news cycle.

Questioning “moral fibre”

Stephen Van Dine, who led the Top of Mind study, asks why the clerk is focusing on values and ethics when public servants are worried about basics like giving fearless advice, eroding policy capacity and the impact on governance. He said this is sure to raise alarms among public servants who will be asking, “What did we do wrong?”

“Why in heaven’s name would you start with values and ethics unless you believe the root problem is the moral fibre of the public service at this stage,” he said. “Why not examine what public-service leadership looks like in the 21st century?”

Senior officials say Hannaford isn’t re-opening the code or picking between new and traditional values. Hannaford also isn’t sounding the alarm about the public servants’ integrity. They say it is about adaptability: he wants public servants to better understand how to apply long-held  values in a rapidly changing world.

Alasdair Roberts, a professor of public policy at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and former visiting scholar at the Canada School of Public Service, studies how countries can adapt and thrive in this turbulent century.

Roberts point to a number of threats to Canada’s adaptability, but the health of the public service and its ability to execute quickly is a key one.

The mountain of controls, rules and new parliamentary watchdogs built up over the decades – all in the name of accountability – stifles innovation and makes publics servants risk averse, he said. On top of that, they face a new layer of political control – which he calls the “political service” of ministerial staffers.

And then there’s the shift to remote work, which raises big questions for leaders on how to build common purpose and values when people are rarely working together in-person.

Although Hannaford is tying the exercise to a renewal of the public service, the preliminary plan falls short of the kind of major reform critics have called for over the years.

Donald Savoie, considered the éminence grise of public administration in Canada, argues the public service has so lost its way that only an independent body like a royal commission could fix it.

Roberts, who supports the call for a royal commission, called Hannaford’s task force worthwhile and well-timed, but five busy deputy ministers, under-the-gun in their day-jobs, will be constrained in what they can do.

They can’t really tackle legislative barriers, the morass of controls, rules and structures and outdated processes that need to be fixed. They also can’t grapple with the vexing question about the role of the public service, especially its strained relationship with ministers, Parliament and political staff.

Many argue the clerk simply doesn’t have time for the kind of review needed. With an election two years away, if not sooner, he has to be deep in transition planning. And if polls hold out, a Conservative government could come to power with a very different view of the public service and the role of the state.

Others, like Alasdair Roberts, question whether values and ethics can be discussed without sorting out the role of the public service: “I don’t want to diminish the significance of doing this, but it can’t be a substitute for a broader, bigger and independent review about the role and structure of the public service.”

Source: Clerk of the Privy Council John Hannaford relaunches ethics and values discussion in the public service

How to Argue Against Identity Politics Without Turning Into a Reactionary

Of interest. Alternatively, how to engage and not isolate:

In the spring of 2017, a senior administrator at Evergreen State College in Washington announced that she expected white students and faculty members to stay off campus for a day. The so-called Day of Absence, she explained, was intended to build community “around identity.”

One professor publicly pushed back against this idea. As he wrote to the administrator, “on a college campus, one’s right to speak — or to be — must never be based on skin color.” He would, he announced, remain on campus.

What followed was a bizarre gantlet. Though the Day of Absence was officially voluntary, the professor’s refusal to take part painted a target on his back. Protesters disrupted one of his classes, intimidating his students and accusing him of being a racist. The campus police, he said, encouraged him to keep away for his own safety. Within a few months, he quit his job, reinventing himself as a public intellectual for the internet age.

In his early media appearances, the professor, Bret Weinstein, described himself as a leftist. But over time, he drifted away from his political roots, embracing ever more outlandish conspiracy theories. Of late, he has insinuated that the Sept. 11 attacks were an inside job and called for health officials who recommended that children be vaccinated against Covid to face prosecution modeled on the Nuremberg Trials.

Mr. Weinstein, in short, has fallen into the reactionary trap.

He is not alone. Other key members of what’s been called the “intellectual dark web” also started out opposing the real excesses of supposedly progressive ideas and practices, only to morph into cranks.

These dynamics have left a lot of Americans, including many of my friends and colleagues, deeply torn. On the one hand, they have serious concerns regarding the new ideas and norms about race, gender and sexual orientation that have quickly been adopted by universities and nonprofit organizations, corporations and even some religious communities. Like Mr. Weinstein, they believe that practices like separating people into different groups according to race are deeply counterproductive.

On the other hand, these Americans are deeply conscious that real injustices against minority groups persist; are understandably fearful of making common cause with reactionaries like Mr. Weinstein; rightly oppose the legislative restrictions on the expression of progressive ideas in schools and universities that are now being adopted in many red states; and recognize that authoritarian populists like Donald Trump remain a very serious danger to our democratic institutions.

Mr. Trump and others on the right deride the new norms as “woke,” a term with strongly pejorative connotations. I prefer a more neutral phrase, which emphasizes that this ideology focuses on the role that groups play in society and draws on a variety of intellectual influences such as postmodernism, postcolonialism and critical race theory: the “identity synthesis.”

Does it make sense to speak out against the well-intentioned, if wrongheaded, ideas that are circulating in progressive circles at a time when Mr. Trump retains a serious chance of winning back the White House? Is there a way to oppose such practices without turning a blind eye to genuine discrimination or falling for conspiracy theories? In short: Is it possible to argue against the identity synthesis without falling into the reactionary trap?

Yes, yes and yes.

There is a way to warn about these views on identity that is thoughtful yet firm, principled yet unapologetic. The first step is to recognize that they constitute a novel ideology — one that, though it has wide appeal for serious reasons, is profoundly misguided.

In recent years, parts of the right have started to denounce any concern about racism as being “woke” or an example of “critical race theory.” This right-wing hyperbole has, in turn, persuaded many reasonable people that critical race theory amounts to little more than a commendable determination to teach children about the history of slavery or to recognize that contemporary America still suffers from serious forms of discrimination. Critical race theory, they think, is simply a commitment to think critically about the terrible role that race continues to play in our society.

This soft-pedaled depiction of their ideas would come as a shock to the founders of critical race theory. Derrick Bell, widely seen as the father of the tradition, cut his teeth as a civil rights lawyer who helped to desegregate hundreds of schools. But when many integrated schools failed to provide Black students with a better education, he came to think of his previous efforts as a dead end. Arguing that American racism would never subside, he rejectedthe “defunct racial equality ideology” of the civil rights movement,

According to Mr. Bell, the Constitution — and even key Supreme Court rulings like Brown v. Board of Education — cloaked the reality of racial discrimination. The only remedy, he claimed, is to create a society in which the way that the state treats citizens would, whether it comes to the benefits they can access or the school they might attend, explicitly turn on the identity groups to which they belong.

To take critical race theory — and the wider ideological tradition it helped to inspire — seriously is to recognize that it explicitly stands in conflict with the views of some of the country’s most storied historical figures. Political leaders from Frederick Douglass to Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr. recognized that the Constitution was not enough to protect Black Americans from horrific injustices. But instead of rejecting those documents as irredeemable, they fought to turn their promises into reality.

Critical race theory is far more than a determination to think critically about race; similarly, the identity synthesis as a whole goes well beyond the recognition that many people will, for good reason, take pride in their identity. It claims that categories like race, gender and sexual orientation are the primary prism through which to understand everything about our society, from major historical events to trivial personal interactions. And it encourages us to see one another — and ourselves — as being defined, above anything else, by the identities into which we are born.

This helps to explain why it’s increasingly common these days to see schools seek to ensure that their students conceive of themselves as “racial beings,” as one advocate puts it. Some of them even split students into racially segregated affinity groups as early as the first grade. These kinds of practices encourage complex people to see themselves as defined by external characteristics whose combinations and permutations, however numerous, will never amount to a satisfactory depiction of their innermost selves; it is also a recipe for zero-sum conflict between different groups. For example, when teachers at a private school in Manhattan tell white middle schoolers to “own” their “European ancestry,” they are more likely to create racists than anti-racists.

There is even growing evidence that the rapid adoption of these progressive norms is strengthening the very extremists who pose the most serious threat to democratic institutions. According to a recent analysis by The New York Times, Mr. Trump has attracted a new group of supporters who are disproportionately nonwhite and comparatively progressive on cultural issues such as immigration reform and trans acceptance, but also perturbed by the influence that the identity synthesis has in mainstream institutions, like the corporate sector.

It is naïve to think that we face a choice between speaking out against wrongheaded progressive ideas or fighting against the threat from the far right. To breathe new life into the values on which American democracy is founded and build the broad majorities that are needed to inflict a lasting defeat on dangerous demagogues, principled critics of the identity synthesis need to do both at the same time.

Many people who were initially sympathetic to its goals have since recognized that the identity synthesis presents a real danger. They want to speak out against these ideas, but they are nervous about doing so. It’s not just that they don’t want to risk alienating their friends or sabotaging their careers. They fear that opposing the identity synthesis will, inevitably, force them to make common cause with people who don’t recognize the dangers of racism and bigotry, push them onto the “wrong side of history,” or even lead them down the same path as Mr. Weinstein.

I understand these apprehensions. But there is a way to argue against the misguided ideas and practices that are now taking over mainstream institutions without ignoring the more sobering realities of American life or embracing wild conspiracy theories. And the first part of that is to recognize that you can be a proud liberal — and an effective opponent of racism — while pushing back against the identity synthesis.

Many people who argue against the identity synthesis are so fearful of the reactions they might elicit that, like the schoolchild who flunks a test on purpose because he’s scared of what it’ll say about him if he does badly, they preemptively play the part of the unlikable jerk. But doing so is a self-fulfilling prophecy: When you expect to upset people, it is easy to act so passive-aggressively that you do.

But nor should you go all the way to the other extreme. Some who argue against the identity synthesis are so embarrassed to disagree with a progressive position that they go out of their way to offer endless concessions before expressing their own thoughts. When somebody does push back, they apologize profusely — whether or not they’ve done anything wrong. That kind of behavior succeeds only in making them look guilty.

Instead, critics of the identity synthesis should claim the moral high ground and recognize that their opposition to the identity synthesis is of a piece with a noble tradition that was passed down through the generations from Douglass to Lincoln to King — one that has helped America make enormous, if inevitably incomplete, progress toward becoming a more just society. This makes it a little easier to speak from a position of calm confidence.

In the same vein, it is usually best to engage the reasonable middle rather than the loud extremes. Even at a time of deep political polarization, most Americans hold nuanced views about divisive subjects from how to honor historical figures like George Washington to whether we should avoid the forms of artistic exchange that have come to be condemned as “cultural appropriation.” Instead of trying to “own” the most intransigent loudmouths, critics of the identity synthesis should seek to sway the members of this reasonable majority.

Even when you do find yourself debating somebody with more extreme views, it is important to remember that today’s adversaries can become tomorrow’s allies. Ideologues of all stripes like to claim that the people with whom they disagree suffer from some kind of moral or intellectual defect and conclude that they are a lost cause. But though few people acknowledge defeat in the middle of an argument, most do shift their worldview over time. Our job is to persuade, not to vilify, those who genuinely believe in the identity synthesis.

Sometimes, outspoken critics of the identity synthesis used to be its fervent proponents. Maurice Mitchell, a progressive activist who is now the national director of the Working Families Party, once believed that the core precepts of the identity synthesis could help him combat injustice. Today he worries about how its ideas are reshaping America, including some of the progressive organizations he knows intimately. As he writes in a recent article, “Identity is too broad a container to predict one’s politics or the validity of a particular position.”

To avoid following the path charted by Mr. Weinstein, opponents of the identity synthesis need to be guided by a clear moral compass of their own. In my case, this compass consists of liberal values like political equality, individual freedom and collective self-determination. For others, it could consist of socialist conviction or Christian faith, of conservative principles or the precepts of Buddhism. But what all of us must share is a determination to build a better world.

The identity synthesis is a trap. If we collectively fall into it, there will be more, not less, zero-sum competition between different groups. But it is possible to oppose the identity trap without becoming a reactionary.

To build a better society, we must overcome the prejudices and enmities that have for so much of human history boxed us into the roles seemingly foreordained by our gender, our sexual orientation, or the color of our skin. It is time to fight, without shame or hesitation, for a future in which what we have in common truly comes to be more important than what divides us.

Yascha Mounk is the author of the forthcoming book “The Identity Trap: A Story of Ideas and Power in Our Time,” from which this essay is adapted.

Source: How to Argue Against Identity Politics Without Turning Into a Reactionary

Siddiqui: Despite decades of adversity, Muslims have become an integral part of the West

Interesting and relevant reflections:

Last week marked the 22nd anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks when nearly 3,000 innocent people were killed by 19 Muslim terrorists. In the ensuing American-led war on terror waged overtly and covertly in more than 80 countries, nearly 900,000 Muslims have been killed and at least 37 million have been displaced, according to Brown University’s Cost of War Project.

We also know about the parallel cultural warfare on Muslims. The Green Scare turned out to be worse than the Red Scare of the 1950s – it has had a bigger footprint, lasted longer and affected, besides the Muslim world, Muslim minorities across the West, estimated at more than 30 million.

What we know little or nothing about is this:

Muslims in the West are emerging as an integral part of the mainstream, despite or because of the heavy odds they’ve encountered.

This is particularly true of Canada’s 1.8 million Muslims and the estimated 3.5 million Muslims in the United States, that hotbed of Islamophobia.

Muslims are assuming prominent roles in a range of fields, from politics to business to culture to sports

Not only is this good news for this beleaguered minority but also our democracies, which, despite bouts of abominable bigotry, do provide the legal and political mechanisms for victims to reassert their rights, eventually.

Post-9/11, Muslims became defensive: “I am a Muslim but not a bin Laden Muslim,” “ … not a fundamentalist Muslim,” “ … not a Wahhabi Muslim,” but rather, “a moderate Muslim,” or “a Sufi Muslim.” Not that many knew who or what a Sufi was, only that the designation signalled you were Muslim Lite and unlikely to blow up planes and buildings.

But as Islamophobia intensified, many Muslims gravitated to their faith. Their ethnic, linguistic, racial, cultural, nationalist and doctrinal affiliations began to take a back seat to their pan-Islamic identity. Or, pan-Muslim identity, in the case of the non-observant.

While 48 per cent of Canadian Muslims consider their ethnic or cultural identity as important, more than 80 per cent cite being Muslim and being Canadian as markers of their identity.

Muslim and Canadian. Muslim and American. Muslim and British.

It used to be that demonized minorities in North America kept their heads down and played down their identities. During and after the Second World War, for example, Mennonites in southern Ontario nearly disappeared from the census. But Muslims announced themselves in the 2011 and 2021 censuses when the decennial religion question was asked.

Mosques are overflowing, in part due to increased immigration but not just because of it. Politicians were the first to sniff this out and troll for votes there. On the Friday sabbath, most mosques are holding two or three services. In Ramadan, the late-evening prayers when the entire Quran is recited in the month, congregations are spilling into corridors, classrooms, gyms – in an orderly Canadian manner.

An unprecedented number of women in Canada – and the United States, Britain and parts of Europe – are wearing the hijab. Most were born or bred in the West, and the first in their families to do so, often defying parents. They’ve marched proudly and fearlessly into the front lines of battling both religious and gender discrimination. They are also carving out new paths: Playing hockey and basketball, acing postsecondary education, and being professors, doctors, lawyers, engineers, entrepreneurs, business partners, authors, TV producers, news anchors and stand-up comedians. In my books, they are the real Muslim heroes of the post-9/11 period.

Even the Halal industry is booming, said to be worth around $1.5-billion in Canada alone.

Ismaili Muslims, followers of the Aga Khan, are beginning to fast in Ramadan, and perform the annual hajj pilgrimage in Saudi Arabia. Given that such obligations had long been left to individual choices among the Ismailis, the new trend by their young denotes strong ecumenical solidarity.

This increase in faith activity may spook those who consider religion incompatible with secularism. On the contrary, freedom of religion, including the right to public assertion of it, is a bedrock principle of liberal democracy. So long as a faith practice is within the law, we have little or no reason to panic. Indeed, it can lead to ethical behaviour and a more humane society. Sikh gurdwaras, for example, serve Sikhs and non-Sikhs alike at their langar, free mass feeding, as they did during the COVID-19 pandemic. Churches routinely house refugee claimants.

Mosque-based food banks are feeding people of all faiths and no faith, and mosques are raising funds for neighbourhood public schools and hospitals. The Toronto-based International Development and Relief Foundation – founded in 1984 by a pious Niagara Falls physician, Fuad Sahin – provides humanitarian aid and development programs without discrimination in Canada and abroad. The Aga Khan Foundation Canada is partnering with the federal government to deliver development programs abroad.

All this represents a remarkably swift evolution for a relatively recent immigrant group, especially the Ismailis. Refugees from East Africa in the 1970s, they’ve shown themselves to be highly organized, self-reliant and successful – a model minority within a minority. Former prime minister Jean Chrétien told me during the 1990s recession that what his hometown of Shawinigan, Que., needed was “a dozen Ismaili entrepreneurs.”

Muslim advocacy groups helped turn the politically docile Muslims into a formidable voting bloc. In the 2015 election, nearly 80 per cent of Canadians Muslims voted, according to the group The Canadian Muslim Vote. Nationally, they voted 65 per cent for the Liberals, 10 per cent for the NDP and just 2 per cent for the Conservatives. In the 2021 election, 28 Muslim candidates ran and 12 won. Four have been ministers: Maryam Monsef (a refugee from Afghanistan), Ahmed Hussen (a refugee from Somalia), Omar Alghabra (an immigrant of Syrian descent), and my Toronto area MP Arif Virani (a refugee from Uganda), now Canada’s first Muslim minister of justice. Naheed Nenshi of Calgary was the first Muslim mayor of a large North American city, and Ausma Malik is the first hijab-wearing councillor in Toronto, indeed Canada.

In the United States, 57 Muslims were elected in the 2020 national and state elections. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to the House of Representatives, took his oath of office in 2007 on a copy of the Quran owned by president Thomas Jefferson who, unlike contemporary American politicians, wanted to better understand Muslims. Mr. Ellison has been followed by three others: representatives Andre Carson, Rashida Tlaib and the hijab wearing Ilhan Omar.

In Britain, which has been slower in integrating minorities, there were 55 Muslim candidates in the 2019 general election and 19 were elected. Two were named Conservative ministers – Sajid Javid and Nadhim Zahawi. In Scotland, Humza Yousaf became First Minister earlier this year, the first Muslim to lead a major U.K. party, and the first Muslim to lead a democratic Western European nation. His wife, Nadia El-Nakla, is a councillor in the City of Dundee, the first member of any minority elected there.

The mayor of London since 2016 has been Sadiq Khan. Earlier as a Labour MP, he voted against his own government’s draconian anti-terrorism legislation in 2006, fearing it might snare innocent Muslims. In 2009, he was sworn in as a member of the Privy Council at Buckingham Palace on the Quran. Upon discovering that the palace had none, he left his copy there.

It’s not just politics.

Goldy Hyder is the first Muslim chief executive of the Business Council of Canada, which represents the heads of Canada’s 150 leading businesses. Toronto lawyer Walied Soliman, Canadian chair of Norton Rose Fulbright, has also served as its global chair.

Authors include M.G. Vassanji, Canada’s first two-time winner of the Giller Prize for fiction; Uzma Jalaluddin; Kamal Al-Solaylee; and Omar Mouallem. Rappers K’naan and Belly. TV anchors Omar Sachedina, Farah Nasser and Ginella Massa; broadcaster Adnan Virk. There’s hockey star Nazem Kadri and the wrestler Sami Zayn. Comedian Ali Hassan and Zarqa Nawaz, producer of the CBC sitcom Little Mosque on the Prairie, which drew a record audience of 2.1 million when it premiered in 2007.

We are familiar with American entertainers Hasan Minhaj, Mahershala Ali, and Aziz Ansari; the writers Fareed Zakaria, Reza Aslan, and Ayad Akhtar, who is also the president of PEN America; the painter Salman Toor and his partner, singer Ali Sethi, whose song Pasoori, Punjabi for conflict, has exceeded 500 million views and was the most searched song in 2022, according to Google Trends.

Muslims have traditionally divided the world into Dar al-Islamand Dar al-Harb, the dominion of Islam and the dominion that barred the free practise of Islam. Canadian Muslims speak of Canada as Dar al-Amn, an abode of peace – sans Quebec.

The province has been aping France and certain European jurisdictions in banning the hijab and the niqab (and the turban and the kippa) in public service, on pain of the wearers losing their jobs. France recently also banned the abaya in state schools, the long dress worn by some Arab women. The discrimination is rationalized in the rubric of laïcité, secularism – oblivious to the irony that while the Taliban and the ayatollahs tell women what to wear, these guardians of secularism order women what not to. The urge to control women is the same. Quebec recently banned religious activity (i.e. prayers) in schools, which disproportionally affects Muslim students. China has banned beards in Muslim Xinjiang in the name of curbing “extremism.” We are left to argue only about the degree of the control and the punishments for disobedience.

Quebec also shares another unfortunate trait with France and other parts of Europe. The only Muslims it grants prominent roles in government and the public sector are those who attack fellow Muslims, especially the observant. No dissident voices are allowed to disturb the certitudes of anti-religious secularism.

Happily, in English Canada, Muslim-baiting no longer pays political dividends. Stephen Harper found that out in the 2015 election when Canadians decided that his Barbaric Cultural Practices Act was one dog whistle too many.

Today, no Islamophobic party can win a national election, nor a xenophobic one.

Yet, as we know, Canada has not been immune from Islamophobia.

Six worshippers were massacred in Quebec City in 2017. A caretaker at a Toronto mosque was murdered in 2020. A family of four was mowed down in London in 2021; the trial of the accused is taking place as I write this.

Muslims face hostility – including, shamefully, by the right-wing mainstream media. They suffer high unemployment and underemployment. Hijab-wearing women are still harassed, spat upon, pushed, shoved and kicked in public spaces, pointing to yet another irony: The West thinks that Islam and Muslims mistreat women, yet it is Muslim women in the West who are the biggest victims of discrimination by liberals and louts alike.

Ottawa has appointed a Special Representative on Combatting Islamophobia, Amira Elghawaby, a hijab-wearing human-rights activist. Her role is akin to that of the Special Envoy on Preserving Holocaust Remembrance and Combatting Anti-Semitism. This is appropriate, given that Islamophobia is the new antisemitism.

Through these tough times, as during others through the ages, Muslims have been sustained by a resiliency born of sabr, patience/perseverance, enjoined by the Quran and the Prophet Muhammad. Even the non-observant have it in their DNA. One common refrain among Muslims is that as bad as they’ve had it here, they are blessed, compared with the plight of many Muslims and non-Muslims around the world.

Overcoming adversity, succeeding as a minority, and integrating into the larger society have had two significant beneficial side effects for Muslims:

1) Going or gone is the notion that Muslim states “back home,” or at least the influential ones, would come to the rescue of Muslims here. Or that the Organization of Islamic Co-operation, the Jeddah-based, 56-member umbrella organization of the world’s 1.8 billion Muslims, would.

2) Old-world interdenominational rivalries are dissipating. All strands of Islam co-exist here: There are no Orange Day-like parades, with one set of Muslims needling the other.

All these transformational changes speak to a greater truth: Democracy is the best polity for Muslims, as it is for peoples of other faiths and no faith, so long as it treats all groups fairly.

This is not an exclusively secular idea. It was enunciated with stunning clarity by Islamic clerics back in the 1930s in colonial British India. Its strongest proponent was Husain Ahmed Madani, rector of a highly regarded orthodox madrassah in Deoband, north of Delhi. I’ve been reading about him while tracing my family history in those precincts.

He was a steadfast supporter of Mahatma Gandhi’s joint Hindu-Muslim struggle for independence from the British. He opposed dividing India into a majority-Muslim Pakistan and Hindu-majority India, and would ask: Whose Islam would prevail in Pakistan? Given the range of theological diversity among Muslims, only an authoritarian government could impose the kind of Islam it opted for. He was making the case for Muslims to stay in the democratic framework of postcolonial India. His prescience is being proven over and over in the West, especially Canada.

Haroon Siddiqui is editorial page editor emeritus of the Toronto Star and a senior fellow at Massey College. His latest book is My Name is Not Harry: A Memoir.

Source: Despite decades of adversity, Muslims have become an integral part of the West

Cornellier: De l’huile sur le feu

More Quebec discussions on integration:

Cet été, dans un parc de Joliette, je travaillais mes coups de tennis avec mon lance-balles. Cette machine suscite toujours la curiosité des enfants. Ce soir-là, donc, un enfant de sept-huit ans est entré sur le court pour observer ça et pour m’aider à ramasser mes 75 balles. Nous avons jasé un peu. Il m’a dit s’appeler Mohammed et aller à l’école du quartier. Sa petite soeur est venue se joindre à nous, mais n’a pas pu participer à la conversation puisque, n’ayant pas commencé l’école, elle ne parlait qu’en arabe.

En retournant chez moi, je me disais, rempli d’optimisme, que tout était là : si on veut que l’immigration soit une chance et non une menace pour le Québec, il faut aller à la rencontre des nouveaux arrivants, les accueillir chaleureusement, leur parler, en français, comme à des amis, leur offrir la vie avec nous, qui sommes là depuis un bout, comme une aventure commune. Je n’ai pas peur de Mohammed et de sa petite soeur. Je souhaite, au contraire, les entendre dire « nous autres », en parlant des Québécois, dans dix ans.

Je sais bien qu’on ne fait pas de politique avec de pareils bons sentiments et que l’intégration des nouveaux arrivants ne va pas sans défi. Mon anecdote vise simplement à illustrer que je n’adhère pas à la théorie du « grand remplacement » et que je crois à la possibilité d’une intégration réussie des immigrés, moyennant des compromis de part et d’autre.

Dans Les déclinistes (Écosociété, 2023, 152 pages), l’essayiste Alain Roy, directeur de la revue L’Inconvénient, critique avec sévérité le discours de certains intellectuels opposés à l’immigration, surtout si elle est musulmane. Renaud Camus, Alain Finkielkraut, Éric Zemmour, Mathieu Bock-Côté, Michel Houellebecq et Michel Onfray sont dans sa ligne de mire.

Roy leur reproche de manquer de rigueur intellectuelle, d’ébaucher des scénarios alarmistes au mépris des données statistiques et de n’avoir aucune solution crédible à proposer aux problèmes qu’ils déplorent. Ces essayistes, écrit-il, jettent de l’huile sur le feu en nourrissant l’islamophobie.

Roy vise juste concernant Camus, Zemmour et Houellebecq, quand celui-ci oublie d’être romancier. Voici, en effet, trois trublions prêts à dire n’importe quoi pour se rendre intéressants, même si cela signifie alimenter un climat de guerre civile en France sur le dos des musulmans.

À l’heure actuelle, les immigrés représentent 10,2 % de la population française. Les personnes de culture musulmane représentent environ 8 % de la population. Parmi elles, seulement 25 % affirment être pratiquantes. On est loin du « grand remplacement ».

Au Québec, 3 % des citoyens sont musulmans. Selon le démographe Guillaume Marois (Le Journal de Québec, 4 septembre 2018), si les tendances actuelles en immigration se poursuivent, les musulmans représenteront 14 % de la population en 2061. Dans le scénario improbable où l’immigration de culture musulmane doublerait, les citoyens qui s’identifient à cette confession représenteraient 19 % de la population. Ainsi, Marois conclut que « le Québec n’est pas en voie de devenir une société musulmane », tout en ajoutant qu’il doit demeurer intransigeant envers les manifestations de l’islam politique.

Alain Roy a donc raison de qualifier de délirante la thèse du « grand remplacement ». Ses critiques, cependant, tournent parfois les coins ronds. Roy, par exemple, dit juste en notant que Bock-Côté, qui ne manquera pas de s’en défendre, est plus un polémiste qu’un essayiste, en ce sens que « sa pensée [est] entièrement déterminée par ses prémisses ». Or, c’est aussi le cas de Roy lui-même.

J’en veux pour preuve le traitement qu’il réserve à Finkielkraut. Ce dernier, c’est vrai, a parfois eu des formules malheureuses dans ce débat. Néanmoins, accuser son essai L’identité malheureuse (Stock, 2013) d’islamophobie est injuste. Contrairement à ce qu’affirme Roy, Finkielkraut n’écrit pas que les musulmans sont des « citoyens inassimilables ». Il note que la diversité culturelle se transforme parfois en chocs culturels, mais il ajoute qu’« aucune de ces différences n’est immuable » ou insurmontable. Il souligne, plus loin, que des Français d’adoption, en 1940, ont rejoint le général de Gaulle dans son combat pour la France et cite Lévinas disant que cette dernière « est une nation à laquelle on peut s’attacher par le coeur aussi fortement que par les racines ».

Finkielkraut insiste aussi sur le fait qu’il est « impératif » de ne pas « faire payer tous les musulmans pour le radicalisme islamique ». Avec Claude Lévi-Strauss, il plaide à la fois contre « la tentation ethnocentrique de persécuter les différences » et contre « la tentation pénitentielle de nous déprendre de nous-mêmes pour expier nos fautes ». Ça se défend.

C’est d’ailleurs comme ça, fraternellement, mais sans m’effacer, que je veux accueillir Mohammed.

Essayiste et poète, Louis Cornellier enseigne la littérature au collégial.

Source: De l’huile sur le feu

Aziz: The real reasons Canada’s relationship with India is broken

Classes example of diaspora politics taken to excess:

When Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stood up in the House of Commons on Monday and made the unprecedented allegationthat “agents of the government of India” assassinated a Canadian citizen on Canadian soil, I cannot say I was surprised. It was a brazen and violent encroachment upon Canadian sovereignty, done in public, meant to be discovered, and over one of the issues that the Indian government of Narendra Modi takes most seriously.

I should know. In 2017, I was the Policy Advisor in the Foreign Minister’s office, working closely with the Prime Minister’s Office on India. From the first briefing, it was clear that India-Canada relations were headed in the wrong direction. There had been rumours of Indian intelligence services operating in the Canadian suburbs for years (along with others). The Indians counter-alleged that Canada was giving shelter, if not encouragement, to Khalistani extremists – supporters of an independent Sikh homeland, partitioned out of India. Sikhs in Canada, meanwhile, have likened the Indian government’s violence against them to genocide. The two sides had been talking past each other for years.

The sore point in this, which young Canadians have no memory of, is the tragic Air India bombing of 1985. Until 9/11, this was the worst act of terrorism in the sky, whereby Sikh extremists planted a bomb on an Air India flight, resulting in the deaths of 329 passengers and crew.

By the time I served in government in 2017, two things had recently – and radically – changed. First was the election of Mr. Modi in 2014, and his Hindutva politics. Mr. Modi’s ideology sees India as a primarily Hindu nation, and it stokes ethnic chauvinism and grievance against anyone who dares criticize it. Mr. Modi was a strongman, and would no longer take lecturing from Canada.

The second factor was the election of Donald Trump, which moved everyone’s attention and focus to Washington dramas. India, meanwhile, had gone fully nationalist by this point. Since coming into office, Mr. Modi has silenced critics, targeted Muslimslocked up political opponents, and rewritten the Indian curriculum to blot out India’s syncretic history. Mr. Modi has rolled back India’s democracy, and remains an ally of India’s far-right.When I met with India’s greatest economist, Amartya Sen, last fall, he warned me that the regime was getting worse. There can be no doubt that Mr. Modi has used state violence against minorities in frightening and authoritarian ways.

Over the years, the politics of this issue in Canada had also grown more difficult. There are some 770,000 Sikhs in Canada, one of the most politically organized communities in the country. Canadian Sikhs have kept the issue of Sikh justice on the agenda by continually advocating and pressuring politicians. Because foreign policy in a democracy is ultimately informed by domestic public opinion, the Sikh issue has an enlarged influence on our bilateral relations with India. It came up in every meeting, in every talking point, in every pull-aside. Unfortunately, Canadian politicians then didn’t care enough about either Sikhs or India to give this the policy attention it deserved.

By 2017, when I worked in government, India did not take Mr. Trudeau or Canada seriously. They viewed Canada as a bit player in world affairs, America’s loud-mouthed neighbour. In Ottawa, at least in my experience, officials did not respect India, either – to our peril. Canada’s political establishment is old and white, and infused with an ignorant Eurocentrism that still affects foreign policy priorities. Western Europe and the United States were our focus, and some ministers could hardly see beyond London or Berlin. There’s a reason why, along with India, relations with China, with Latin American countries, with much of Africa have deteriorated. It was a great abdication of our long-term priorities, given where we have ended up.

When Mr. Trudeau went to India in 2018, the trip became a debacle for Canada. Mr. Modi did not greet him on the tarmac, Mr. Trudeau got a chilly reception in general, and the PMO was put on its heels after it was reported that Jaspal Atwal, a Khalistan supporter once convicted of trying to kill an Indian cabinet minister, had been invited to two receptions during Mr. Trudeau’s visit.

Canada should have at least begun to take steps to ensure our land was not used for terrorist financing – a reasonable demand, given that the overwhelming number of Canadian Sikhs are peaceful and uninterested in using violence to create a separate Sikh homeland. (Coincidentally, Khalistan is almost entirely a diaspora issue; there is little organized support, even among Sikhs in India, for a separate homeland.) By taking goodwill measures, it would have at least been possible to keep talking and find workable policy solutions. The only problem was, Mr. Trudeau did not want to lose the Sikh vote to Jagmeet Singh. So we dug in our heels.

What I saw in government was how Canada’s ethnic domestic battles were distorting our long-term foreign policy priorities, and politicians, who never understood South Asia or India anyway, were pandering in lowest-common-denominator ways in B.C. and Ontario suburbs, and playing up ethnic grievances to win votes. This was especially true within internal Liberal Party politics, meaning that we could hardly focus on foreign policy and strategy without factoring in which ridings might be lost because a certain group might be upset. Canada, as a country, has suffered greatreputational damage by such thinking – and none of our allies are going to come to our help on this issue.

Not that Mr. Modi would have necessarily been a great friend to Canada. In my research on right-wing nationalist regimes, it is apparent that governments pursuing state violence internally – against minorities, against critics – will ultimately pursue such aggression externally. It is why the rise of the new authoritarians is so destabilizing for the world order. But Canada ultimately got the worst of all possible deals – nearly ruptured relations with India, and now a potential split in the Western alliance.

The global chessboard is shifting. The United States is strengthening its Asia alliances, something we could and should have been doing six years ago. The new influential club is the Quad – the U.S., Japan, Australia, and India. Canada is not part of it. At the G20, Canada is demeaned. The world powers will eventually face the contradiction between Mr. Modi’s Hindu nationalist regime and his foreign policy influence. What’s worrying is that Canada isn’t even at the table where those decisions are being made.

We have entered a critical period in world affairs. Major realignments are taking place – and now the murder of a Canadian citizen, allegedly carried out with the knowledge if not support of another country, could go many different ways. It is imperative the investigation continues, that its findings are made public, and that Canada seeks de-escalation with India. Canada may never be a major power in international affairs. But it can still be a serious one.

Omer Aziz is a former foreign policy adviser in the government of Justin Trudeau and the author of Brown Boy: A Memoir.

Source: The real reasons Canada’s relationship with India is broken

Woolley: Stop seeing immigration as a get-rich-quick scheme for Canada’s economy 

Indeed. Acknowledge the trade offs and both negative and positive impact:

Immigration is neither as good for Canada as recent federal government pronouncements would suggest nor as bad as some critics might claim. The best economic evidence suggests that, in the long run, immigration has limited impact on the average Canadian’s wages or job prospects. Immigration boosts the economy, but it increases our population, too, leaving the average Canadian’s living standards more or less unchanged.

Yet these long-run averages mask the fact that specific policies create winners and losers. A government that ignores the fact that immigration can have costs risks making two mistakes. First, it might uncritically accept the arguments made by those who stand to benefit from immigration. Second, if it does not take the downside risks of specific immigration policies seriously, it might not act to mitigate them.

Temporary foreign worker programs, for example, are a win for employers. In theory these programs are necessary because employers struggle to find qualified Canadian workers. Yet economists Ian O’Donnell and Mikal Skuterud have found that a significant number of jobs filled by temporary foreign workers do not require any qualifications or skills other than the ability to do hard physical labour. The jobs are hard to fill because the wages are low and the work is unpleasant; for example, $15.80 per hourto do physically demanding, fast-paced, dangerous work in a meat packing plant – at night, if needed.

People will take hard, badly paid jobs if they have no better alternatives (or if the jobs provide a route to citizenship). In Canada, those with the fewest alternatives are temporary foreign workers. My colleagues Pierre Brochu, Till Gross and Christopher Worswick have found that such workers, especially those from low-income countries, have less absenteeism and work longer hours than other workers. This is why no amount of immigration will eliminate firms’ claims that they must hire temporary foreign workers: People are more likely to show up to work if being fired jeopardizes their right to live and work here.

It’s not so much a labour shortage that fuels employers’ support for temporary foreign worker programs as a zest for profit – specifically a desire for a plentiful supply of low-wage workers to fill unattractive positions. But more people competing for low-wage jobs makes it harder for less qualified workers to find employment and dampens upward pressure on wages.

Immigration policy, as with all policy, involves trade-offs – in this case, between higher profits for companies and higher pay for employees. Economist Armine Yalnizyan has long argued for replacing temporary foreign worker programs with higher levels of permanent immigration: If people are good enough to work here, they are good enough to stay and build their lives here. But permanent residents have options that temporary foreign workers lack. They can work as many or as few hours as they choose and are free to work for any employer. This means that, to attract permanent residents, employers have to make workers an offer that is competitive with their other options – and that means improving wages or working conditions or both. Different policy, different trade-offs.

The federal government, in announcing its new immigration plans last year, introduced both enhanced temporary foreign worker programs and increased permanent immigration. If it was trying to make everyone happy, it failed.

Newcomers increase the supply of workers, but they also increase demand – for food and shelter, for example. In the long run, these two effects usually more or less cancel each other outIn the short run, they do not.

The government hoped to avoid worsening the housing crisis by attracting newcomers to small towns and rural communities. But such a strategy forgets that immigrants are people, too. Like people born in Canada, they are pulled by economic gravity to urban centres where there are jobs, social networks and cultural supports.

Yet Canada’s big cities have no more room to sprawl – and it would be bad policy to let them. Most of this country’s population lives in a few concentrated areas such as the Quebec City-Windsor corridor and B.C.’s Fraser Valley. Most of the rest of Canada has a harsh climate or would be very expensive to develop or both. We are not a vast, underpopulated country; we are a densely populated, highly urban, diverse country. We need immigration, housing and transportation policies that reflect that reality.

Most of all, we need to stop viewing immigration as a get-rich-quick scheme. Immigration policy involves trade-offs. We need to be honest about the fact that immigration creates winners and losers, at least in the short run, and figure out ways of preserving the benefits of immigration, both for established Canadians and newcomers, while protecting those who stand to lose out.

Frances Woolley is a professor of economics at Carleton University.

Source: Stop seeing immigration as a get-rich-quick scheme for Canada’s economy

Rioux: Un parfum de colonialisme

Good column on the questionable morality of recruiting skilled healthcare workers from developing countries. Of course, individuals from this countries naturally seek better opportunities:

Il y a des nouvelles qui tombent à plat. Sitôt apparues, elles disparaissent comme par enchantement dans le grand trou noir de l’information. C’est comme si tout le monde, les politiques, les médias et même le public, se donnait le mot pour regarder ailleurs en attendant qu’on parle d’autre chose.

C’est un peu ce qui s’est passé la semaine dernière avec cette information révélant que les campagnes de recrutement de personnel de la santé que mène régulièrement le Québec en Afrique contribuent à fragiliser encore plus des pays africains dont la situation sanitaire est déjà précaire.

À l’encontre de toutes les politiques de l’Organisation mondiale de la santé (OMS), le Québec mène depuis longtemps des campagnes de recrutement dans des pays comme le Bénin, le Cameroun, la Côte d’Ivoire et le Togo. L’an dernier, il annonçait vouloir recruter 1000 infirmières étrangères, pour la plupart africaines. Souvent des infirmières expérimentées. Dans quelques jours débuteront d’ailleurs des entretiens d’embauche avec des candidats du Cameroun, de la Côte d’Ivoire et du Togo, sélectionnés dans le cadre des Journées Québec Afrique subsahariennes. Depuis 2017, le Québec aurait ainsi recruté plus de 1900 travailleurs de la santé, dont de nombreuses infirmières, provenant de 24 pays d’Afrique, d’Amérique du Sud et d’Europe.

Faut-il en conclure que le Québec ne se gêne pas pour participer sans retenue au pillage des cerveaux de ces pays pauvres ? À titre d’exemple, le Cameroun et le Bénin possèdent respectivement moins de 2 et 3 infirmières pour 10 000 habitants alors que, pour la même population, le Québec n’en compte pas moins de 77 ! L’OMS n’est pas seule à penser que ce pillage organisé est indigne du Québec. L’Association des infirmières et infirmiers marocains avait déjà accusé le Canada d’« épuiser les ressources infirmières des autres pays dans lesquels il y a également une pénurie ».

En guise de réponse, nos responsables se contentent généralement de regarder la pointe de leurs souliers en balbutiant du bout des lèvres qu’ils font un recrutement… éthique ! Personne n’aime se faire dire ses quatre vérités, surtout pas les partisans de l’immigration de masse, qui prétendent chaque fois se porter ainsi au secours de l’humanité souffrante. Et si cet « immigrationisme » vertueux n’était au fond que le nouveau visage du bon vieux colonialisme affublé d’un beau tampon humanitaire ?

Il y a longtemps que des chercheurs comme le démographe Emmanuel Todd ont expliqué le fait que, dans un monde où la communication mène le bal, le pillage des cerveaux avait remplacé celui des ressources naturelles. Cette « véritable prédation démographique », écrit-il, serait même plus grave que celle des ressources naturelles, car elle met aujourd’hui « en péril le développement de pays qui décollent ».

Parmi les milliers de migrants qui ont littéralement envahi l’île de Lampedusa la semaine dernière, personne ne s’est demandé — pas même le pape — combien il y avait de mécaniciens, de boulangers ou d’aides-infirmières qui désertent ainsi leurs pays. L’ancien journaliste de Libération Stephen Smith, professeur d’études africaines à l’Université Duke, en Caroline du Nord, a montré dans ses études que, contrairement à ce que sérine la presse, ce ne sont pas les plus pauvres qui émigrent. Ceux-là, en général, n’en ont pas les moyens. En cas de nécessité, ils se déplacent dans un pays voisin. Ceux qui se retrouvent chez nous sont ceux qui peuvent se le payer et qui pourraient donc au mieux contribuer à consolider la classe moyenne de leur pays.

Dans notre vision misérabiliste de l’Afrique — une vision encore aggravée par le catastrophisme climatique —, il ne nous viendrait pas à l’idée que les pays africains qui progressent, et il y en a, ont un urgent besoin de ces travailleurs pour se sortir de la misère. À Madagascar, en 2016, alors qu’il distribuait des bourses d’études, Philippe Couillard s’était ainsi fait rappeler à l’ordre par la ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur de Madagascar, qui lui dit que la plupart de ces boursiers ne revenaient jamais au pays. Et qu’ils étaient donc une perte sèche pour l’île. Belle charité que celle qui ne sert que le bienfaiteur. Ce jour-là, Philippe Couillard avait lui aussi longuement regardé ses souliers.

Dans ce que le politologue Pierre-André Taguieff appelle « l’utopie messianique du salut par l’immigration » — un mal très répandu au Canada —, il y a un mépris profond pour les peuples de nos pays, qui n’auraient d’avenir démographique, économique et culturel qu’en accueillant le plus d’étrangers possible.

Il y a aussi un mépris pour l’Afrique, car il sera toujours plus valorisant de s’épandre en larmes sur la misère africaine que d’appeler ces pays à se prendre en main et de les y aider à le faire. Ce qui me frappe toujours chez ceux qui ne jurent que par cette immigration providentielle, c’est leur désintérêt à peu près complet pour les pays pauvres. Comme si le seul avenir des Africains était de se déverser en nombre toujours plus grand dans nos beaux et grands pays riches et démocratiques. Ne sentez-vous pas là un étrange parfum de colonialisme ?

Source: Un parfum de colonialisme