The Conversations About the War in Gaza We Ought to Be Having

2023/10/31 Leave a comment

Worth reading:

The conflict in Israel and Palestine has thrown American campuses and society into turmoil.

We are both deans of public policy schools. One of us comes from a Palestinian family displaced by war. The other served in Israeli military intelligence before a long career in academia. Our life stories converged when we were colleagues and friends for 10 years on the faculty of Princeton University. Notwithstanding our different backgrounds, we are both alarmed by the climate on campuses and the polarizing and dehumanizing language visible throughout society.

Universities should state hard truths and clarify critical issues. As leaders of public policy schools, we train the leaders of tomorrow to think creatively and boldly. It starts with countering speech that is harmful, modeling civic dialogue, mutual respect and empathy, and showing an ability to listen to one another.

Universities should not retreat into their ivory towers because the discourse has gotten toxic; on the contrary, the discourse will get more toxic if universities pull back.

Faculty and students on some campuses across the country have reported feeling unsafe in light of verbal and physical attacks. Activist groups and even student groups are screaming past one another instead of listening and engaging with the other side. The polarizing talk in media, political and campus circles create an environment lacking in sophistication and nuance.

For example, chants like “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” are commonly perceived as calls for the annihilation of the state of Israel. What’s more, the position these chants represents completely ignores the fact that the majority of Palestinians have rejected this stance since the 1993 Oslo Accords, and leaders of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank have consistently called for a two-state solution. Furthermore, the claim that all Palestinians in Gaza are responsible for Hamas lacks empirical support.

Condemnation of the Oct. 7 massacre of Israeli civilians by Hamas — and calling it out as an act of terrorism — shouldn’t be avoided out of risk of offending Palestinians and their supporters. Not condemning the terrorist attacks is a failure of a moral core, and by no means should condemnation of terrorism be viewed as incompatible with believing in Palestinian rights and statehood, alongside Israel. Terrorism is, by common understanding, an attack on all humanity.

We teach our students to deal with policy predicaments that start with tough questions that require understanding opposing ideas. The uncertainty about what the future of Gaza will look like, whether the peace process can be revived and how the security and safety of Israelis and Palestinians will be achieved — these are, to be sure, hard questions with solutions that do not fit on placards.

While campus groups and all Americans enjoy freedom of speech, educators at universities must respond to speech that is harmful, hateful, untrue or lacking nuance and historical context. Free speech only works when there is vigorous counter speech.

As deans, we also know that in this volatile political environment, we must ensure that our campuses have places where each side can air their opinions and even come together and hold difficult conversations without fear of retaliation. Examples of this include webinars that our respective schools held in the wake of the attacks featuring a diversity of voices, including academics and policymakers, Israelis and Palestinians, Democrats and Republicans. That must start with the core element of civic engagement and civil disagreement.

Campuses must protect free speech, but equally advocate for mutually respectful dialogue. That obligation is both especially important and especially demanding in our current political and societal landscape.

A discussion of the actions that states should take in self-defense is worth convening, as well as one on the conduct of warfare in a dense urban environment. Israel’s response should be directed at eliminating the threat posed by Hamas, not at innocent civilians in Gaza. What that means in practice is a matter for debate. Calling out Israel for its bombing of civilian areas in Gaza shouldn’t be avoided out of risk of offending Israelis and their supporters.

There is no better place for these discussions than a university campus. But sponsoring this kind of debate takes courage.

As educators, we at times have to make our students uncomfortable by challenging their preconceptions and encouraging them to think through their positions using data, evidence and logic. It is unrealistic to believe that individuals can put their emotions away. But if a university doesn’t encourage students to reflect on how their own emotions shape, and occasionally distort, their analysis of the world around them, where else could they possibly learn this?

Even prior to the current violence, the Arab-Israeli conflict was an intensely uncomfortable topic to discuss, and, unfortunately, some schools may try to solve that problem by omitting it from their curriculums. Journal editors may be wary of wading into such hotly charged topics. This gap has left an intellectual vacuum filled by hate speech, antisemitism, Islamophobia and other stereotypical tropes on campuses and crowded out rigorous empirical analysis and reasoned discussions. Add to that a polarized media establishment, political landscape and social media, and no wonder we’ve seen the conversation on campus devolve into a verbal war of platitudes and talking points.

We remain hopeful, however. Over the past few weeks, we’ve also witnessed a vibrant student body eager for more information around these issues.

Universities play a vital role in shaping the conversation. Polls show that universities still enjoy a higher level of trust by the public than many other institutions, although it is dwindling. We have unique access to the world’s best intellectual minds and financial resources to support them.

We will squander this trust and legacy if we stay on the sidelines.

 Amaney Jamal and Keren Yarhi-Milo: Dr. Jamal is the dean of the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs. Dr. Yarhi-Milo is the dean of Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs.

Source: The Conversations About the War in Gaza We Ought to Be Having

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , , ,

Ibbitson: All of us could do with a check of the words we’re using

2023/10/31 Leave a comment

Indeed. 13 ridings are more than 5 percent Jewish compared to 114 who are more than 5 percent Muslim, hence the tension within the Liberal party:

Justin Trudeau has been stalwart in supporting Israel during the current crisis, despite divisions within the Prime Minister’s Liberal caucus. Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives are unequivocally pro-Israel. The NDP, though more ambiguous in its position, also condemned the horrific attacks by Hamas of Oct. 7.In

But Canada is changing, politically and demographically. Some who defend the rights of Palestinians use language that is plainly antisemitic. People are saying hateful things during pro-Palestinian demonstrations. For supporters of Israel and of Jews everywhere, the future darkens.

…

words we use should reflect on their own words as well.

Source: All of us could do with a check of the words we’re using

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with

Yakabuski: Fin de la récréation pour Trudeau

2023/10/31 Leave a comment

Hard hitting but merited:

Depuis l’attaque des militants du Hamas contre Israël du 7 octobre dernier, le premier ministre Justin Trudeau se garde soigneusement de dévier de la position américaine sur le conflit, qui menace de se propager à d’autres pays du Proche-Orient.

Son refus d’appeler à un cessez-le-feu crée des remous au sein du caucus libéral. Pas moins de 23 députés libéraux ont signé une lettre lui demandant que le Canada « se joigne au nombre croissant de pays qui demandent un cessez-le-feu immédiat ». M. Trudeau leur a répondu cette semaine en se disant favorable « à l’idée de pauses humanitaires », qui permettraient l’acheminement d’aide aux civils piégés à Gaza tout en n’empêchant pas Israël de reprendre son assaut sur le territoire palestinien dans le but d’éliminer le Hamas.

Sa déclaration, mardi, est arrivée presque simultanément à celle du secrétaire d’État américain, Antony Blinken. Devant l’Organisation des Nations unies, à New York, il a, lui aussi, appelé à des pauses humanitaires.

Depuis son arrivée au pouvoir, en 2015, le gouvernement de M. Trudeau semble élaborer sa politique étrangère en fonction des désirs des clientèles ethniques de certaines circonscriptions clés, notamment de la banlieue de Toronto et de Vancouver. Dans beaucoup de cas, ses positions n’attirent pas l’attention du public en dehors de ces enclaves ethniques, où l’appui — ou pas — de la population sikhe, tamoule, chinoise ou autre peut tout changer entre une victoire ou une défaite des libéraux lors d’élections fédérales.

Puisque leurs mots et leurs actions ne pèsent pas beaucoup sur la scène internationale, les gouvernements canadiens, sauf de rares exceptions, ont tous traditionnellement eu le luxe de concevoir leur politique étrangère comme un bidule à faire gagner des votes. Toutefois, cette approche s’est retournée deux fois contre le gouvernement Trudeau dans la dernière année.

Il a longtemps cherché à minimiser les allégations d’ingérence chinoise dans les élections fédérales de 2019 afin de ne pas se mettre à dos les électeurs chinois des circonscriptions baromètres de Toronto et de Vancouver. Mais ce scandale a fini par lui éclater au visage, avec les révélations dans les médias des avertissements répétés sur l’ingérence chinoise que lui aurait lancés le Service canadien du renseignement de sécurité.

On est en droit de se demander si M. Trudeau aurait fait une sortie aussi dramatique pour annoncer que l’Inde serait impliquée dans l’assassinat d’un militant séparatiste sikh commis en banlieue de Vancouver en juin dernier s’il ne se préoccupait pas autant du sort des libéraux dans les circonscriptions où la population sikhe est majoritaire ou presque. La réaction du gouvernement indien à ses propos menace maintenant les relations du Canada avec le pays que tous nos alliés cherchent à courtiser pour contrer l’influence chinoise dans le monde.

Dans le dossier du conflit entre Israël et le Hamas, M. Trudeau, contrairement à certains de ses députés, ne peut pas contredire nos alliés sans qu’ils s’en aperçoivent. Tout comme pour la guerre en Ukraine, les enjeux de ce conflit sont trop importants pour que le premier ministre ose aller à contre-courant.

Certes, des divisions existent aussi au sein même de l’alliance occidentale, comme en témoigne la difficulté qu’ont les pays de l’Union européenne à s’entendre sur une position commune. Seul le premier ministre espagnol, le socialiste Pedro Sánchez, qui lutte pour sa survie politique après avoir perdu les élections en juillet, a jusqu’ici exigé publiquement un cessez-le-feu. Mais, dans son cas, toute autre position ferait éclater la coalition de partis de gauche qu’il essaie de préserver afin de garder le pouvoir et d’éviter la tenue d’élections, qui pourraient mener à sa défaite définitive.

Le président américain, Joe Biden, n’est pas prêt à appeler à un cessez-le-feu, même s’il dit déplorer les conséquences des actions militaires d’Israël contre le Hamas pour la population de Gaza et qu’il milite pour une accélération dans la livraison d’aide humanitaire. D’abord, parce qu’il sait que le Hamas, un groupe terroriste qui se consacre à la destruction d’Israël, ne respecterait jamais ses conditions. Ensuite, parce que toute clémence envers cette organisation serait perçue comme une invitation, pour les ennemis des États-Unis, à commencer par l’Iran, à semer la terreur à travers la région et le monde.

Tout au plus M. Biden demande-t-il à Israël d’exercer une certaine prudence en menant sa campagne contre le Hamas. Il sait pertinemment que cette situation est un bourbier géopolitique qui risque de plomber sa présidence et de mener à de multiples conflagrations militaires ailleurs au Proche-Orient et dans le monde. La dernière chose dont il a besoin, c’est de voir un gouvernement canadien soucieux de plaire à l’opinion publique lui compliquer davantage la tâche, déjà si délicate. M. Trudeau semble l’avoir compris.

Source: Fin de la récréation pour Trudeau

Filed under foreign policy, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Focus Canada: Public support for immigration falls sharply amid affordability concerns

2023/10/31 Leave a comment

Yet another poll showing a decline in support for current high levels of immigration over the past year given the impact on housing, in particular.

Public support for immigration has fallen sharply over the past year as Canadians increasingly tie affordability and housing concerns to a historic influx of newcomers, according to survey results published on Monday.

Forty-four per cent of Canadians think immigration levels are too high, up from 27 per cent last year, according to a survey conducted by the Environics Institute for Survey Research, in partnership with the Century Initiative, an organization that advocates for Canada’s population to hit 100 million by 2100. This was the largest change in sentiment between surveys that Environics has observed in four-plus decades of polling on the topic.

Just a year ago, public support for immigration was stronger than ever, Environics found. But since then, Canadians have been consumed by a number of economic worries, including high inflation, rising interest payments and a worsening housing crisis, which is pushing up resale prices and rents across the country.

At the same time, Canada is growing rapidly. Over the 12 months through June, the population expanded by around 1.2 million people, bringing the total number of residents to 40.1 million. At 3 per cent, this was the largest 12-month increase since 1957; international migration accounted for almost the entirety of the expansion.

This surge has led to a spirited debate about immigration and Canada’s ability to absorb so many people so quickly. The results from Environics are similar to other recent surveys, including a Nanos poll for The Globe and Mail that found more than half of Canadians want the country to accept fewer immigrants than Ottawa’s plan.

“We see these results as a clarion call for action,” said Lisa Lalande, the chief executive officer of the Century Initiative. “You cannot address demographic decline through immigration without having these corresponding investments” in housing and other areas.

The survey was published just before the federal government unveils its next three-year plan for immigration this week, covering 2024 to 2026. Last year, Ottawa said it was aiming to admit 500,000 permanent residents annually by 2025, part of a steady increase since the Liberal Party came to power in 2015.

As the Liberals struggle with weaker support in the polls, the Century Initiative is hoping the government doesn’t water down its immigration plans. “Now is not the time to pull back on immigration,” Ms. Lalande said.

Of late, the population increase is mostly driven by the arrival of temporary residents, such as international students and workers, many of whom wish to settle permanently in Canada. There are no limits on the issuance of temporary visas, although Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said last week that his government was considering a cap.

Under Mr. Trudeau, the Liberals have made high immigration a cornerstone of their economic agenda. They argue that not only will immigration lead to stronger growth, but it will also help fill jobs as Canada gets progressively older.

David Williams, vice-president of policy at the Business Council of British Columbia, said this is a naive view of how economies work. He pointed to a stagnation in gross domestic product per capita as a sign that average living standards were not improving, despite the high intake of newcomers. Furthermore, there is ample research that indicates immigration has little effect – positive or negative – on per-capita output or average wages.

“Canada’s immigration policy has really become disconnected from the academic evidence,” Mr. Williams said. “There seems to be a view in Ottawa that ever-increasing immigration levels is a panacea for all of the structural problems in Canada’s economy.”

Rupa Banerjee, a Canada Research Chair in immigration and economics at Toronto Metropolitan University, said the country has struggled for a long time to build homes in sufficient quantities. “People are getting this wrong impression that the immigration situation is causing the housing crisis,” she said.

The Environics survey found the largest declines in support for immigration in British Columbia and Ontario. There was a sharp divide by political party: Nearly two-thirds of Conservative Party supporters agreed with the statement that “there is too much immigration to Canada,” compared with 29 per cent of Liberals and 21 per cent of New Democratic Party backers.

Still, the results suggest that Canadians see the upsides of immigration. Around three-quarters of people agreed that immigration has a positive impact on the economy, down from 85 per cent last year.

The survey was based on telephone interviews conducted with 2,002 Canadians between Sept. 4 and 17. The results are accurate to within plus or minus 2.2 percentage points in 19 out of 20 samples.

The Century Initiative was co-founded by Mark Wiseman, chair of Alberta Investment Management Corp., and Dominic Barton, the former global managing partner of consulting giant McKinsey & Co. Mr. Barton also served as chair of the Advisory Council on Economic Growth, which recommended to the Trudeau government in 2016 that it raise its annual intake of permanent residents by 50 per cent over five years.

“We do not believe in growth at all costs,” Ms. Lalande said. “That growth must absolutely be accompanied by investments in infrastructure, both physical and social.”

Dr. Banerjee said the federal government could do a better job of communicating its plans for how these newcomers will integrate into Canada. Otherwise, she said, people are left with the impression that there is no plan.

“For several years now, I’ve been slightly concerned that we shouldn’t take this high support for immigration for granted,” she said. “It’s very precarious, to be honest.”

Source: Focus Canada: Public support for immigration falls sharply amid affordability concerns

Interesting to contrast Canadian and foreign-born along with party. Striking that more immigrants feel levels too high compared to Canadian born. Party differences less surprising:

Overall, there is too much immigration to Canada: Canadian-born 43 percent, Foreign-born 47 percent, Liberals 29 percent, CPC 64 percent, NDP 21 percent

Many people claiming to be refugees are not real refugees: Canadian-born 33 percent, Foreign-born 45 percent, Liberals 29 percent, CPC 49 percent, NDP 21 percent

There are too many immigrants coming into this country who are not adopting Canadian values: Canadian-born 48 percent, Foreign-born 46 percent, Liberals 38 percent, CPC 65 percent, NDP 27 percent

Overall, immigration has a positive impact on the economy of Canada: Canadian-born 72 percent, Foreign-born 81 percent, Liberals 85 percent, CPC 64 percent, NDP 89 percent

The other question that is interesting to look at the breakdown between Canadian and foreign-born pertains to those immigrants considered to be high priority. Not surprisingly, immigrants place higher priority on family immigration and international students but a lower priority on refugees. Both give priority to higher skilled compared to lower skilled:

People with good education and skills who move to Canada permanently: High priority: Canadian-born: 66 percent, Foreign-born: 67 percent

Family members of current residents of Canada, including immigrants: Canadian-born: 38 percent, Foreign-born: 43 percent

Refugees who are fleeing conflict or persecution in their own countries: Canadian-born: 58 percent, Foreign-born: 47 percent

Workers with specialized skills that are in high demand in Canada: Canadian-born: 76 percent, Foreign-born: 80 percent

Students who come to study in Canadian colleges and universities: Canadian-born: 29 percent, Foreign-born: 45 percent

Lower skilled workers who are hired to come to Canada for a short time to take on hard-to-fill jobs: Canadian-born: 34 percent, Foreign-born: 33 percent

Filed under Immigration, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , ,

Yakabuski: The Liberals’ immigration blueprint is unsound, and will hinder the economy it seeks to help

2023/10/30 1 Comment

Good, long and informative read on the fallacies of the government’s immigration policies and programs. Good quotes by Mikal Skuterud, Pierre Fortin and yours truly:

On the afternoon of June 16, Canada’s population surpassed the 40-million mark.

In a country long lamented by some of its leading thinkers as a low-density also-ran stunted by a lack of bodies to fill its vast expanses and dynamize its sleepy cities, it was to be expected that hitting this milestone would be considered a big deal by some.

…

Source: Opinion: The Liberals’ immigration blueprint is unsound, and will … – The Globe and Mail

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , , ,

Globe editorial: How Ottawa ignored its own warning and made Canada’s refugee crisis even worse

2023/10/30 Leave a comment

Good policy advice, not listened to.

And it appears from a variety of public opinion research that this ill-advised policy change is likely one of the changes contributing to declining public support for immigration:

There is a thicket of bureaucratic language in the eight-page briefing document from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada on the upside and downside of waiving temporary visitor visa requirements to get rid of a massive backlog of applications.

…

Source: How Ottawa ignored its own warning and made Canada’s refugee crisis even worse

Filed under Immigration, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Miller to provinces: If you can’t fix international student rackets then feds will

2023/10/30 Leave a comment

Some stronger messaging from the feds:

The federal government is prepared to crack down on dubious post-secondary institutions that recruit international students if provinces aren’t up to the task, Immigration Minister Marc Miller warned Friday.

Miller made the comments as he announced new rules to curb fraud and “bad actors” in the international student program, following an investigation this summer into more than 100 cases involving fake admission letters.

Provinces are responsible for accrediting schools that can accept international students, which include both public universities and colleges as well as private institutions.

In his final months in the role former immigration minister Sean Fraser raised concerns about the number of private colleges in strip malls and other venues that rely on international student tuition, but in some cases offer a meagre education in return.

Several advocacy groups, including the Migrant Workers Alliance for Change have highlighted cases of student exploitation by some of those intuitions.

Miller said Friday the international school program has created an ecosystem that is “rife with perverse incentives,” and that is very lucrative for the institutions and for provinces that have underfunded their post-secondary schools,

“The federal government is coming forward and opening its arms to our provincial partners, territorial partners, to make sure we all do our jobs properly,” Miller said at a press conference at Sheraton College in Brampton, Ont. Friday.

“If that job can’t be done, the federal government is prepared to do it.”

The immigration department counted 800,000 active study permits at the end of 2022, a 170 per cent increase over the last decade.

“What we are seeing in the ecosystem is one that has been chasing after short term gain, without looking at the long term pain. And we need to reverse that trend. But it will take time,” he said.

Ontario in particular has “challenges” when it comes to the accreditation of post-secondary intuitions, but it is not the only one. Miller did not elaborate on what those specific challenges are.

The Ontario Ministry of Colleges and Universities did not answer specific questions, but said in a statement the provincial government will “again ask for a meeting with the new federal minister to discuss the planned changes once they’ve been communicated with ministry.”

Sarom Rho, an organizer with the Migrant Workers Alliance for Change, said the “fly-by-night colleges” are sometimes partnered with public institutions. But even those can be exploitative, she said.

She said she is working with a group of students who paid tuition up front to one of those intuitions, but were asked for more money just weeks before class enrolment began.

“The school said, ‘Well, if you don’t have the money, you can go back home, earn some and come back,'” Rho said Friday.

She said the federal government must take up the accreditation of colleges and universities that accept international students.

“They are aware of the substandard nature of these institutions, these fly-by-night private colleges,” she said.

Also on Friday Miller announced new rules in the federal government’s jurisdiction to address fraud and “bad actors” in the international student program.

Miller’s department plans to set up a system to recognize post-secondary schools that have higher standards for services, supports and outcomes for international students in time for the next fall semester.

The standards could include adequate access to housing, mental health services, and a lower ratio of international to Canadian students, Miller said, though the criteria hasn’t been finalized.

Details about how exactly recognized schools and institutions would benefit under the new system will be released later, the minister said. As an example, he said applicants for those schools would be prioritized when it comes to processing their study permits.

“Our goal here is to punish the bad actors to make sure that they are held accountable, and reward the good actors who provide adequate outcomes for the success of international students,” the minister said.

The details of that system will be important, Rho said, especially since students often fear speaking out because of their precarious status in Canada.

“Migrant student workers should not be caught in this … carrot and stick system,” she said.

“What will happen to those who do go to the schools that are ‘bad actors?’ They will also be punished. So instead, what they need is protections and equal rights.”

The department is also looking to combat fraud by verifying international students’ acceptance letters from Colleges and Universities.

The extra verification is a reaction to a scheme that dates back to 2017, which saw immigration agents issue fake acceptance letters to get international students into Canada.

The department launched a task force in June to investigate cases associated with the racket. Of the 103 cases reviewed so far, roughly 40 per cent of students appeared to be in on the scheme, while the rest were victims of it.

The task force is still investigating another 182 cases.

“The use of fraudulent admissions letters has been a major concern for my department this year and continues to pose a serious threat to the integrity of our student program,” Miller said, adding that international students are not to blame.

The new rules come as a welcome development to the National Association of Career Colleges, the group’s CEO said in a statement Friday.

“We welcome the opportunity to work with the federal government to improve our international student system by building greater trust and security, supporting Canadian communities, and ensuring that Canada’s immigration programs are student-centred,” the CEO, Michael Sangster said in a statement.

Source: Miller to provinces: If you can’t fix international student rackets then feds will

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , , , , , ,

A GOP plan for the census would revive Trump’s failed push for a citizenship question

2023/10/30 1 Comment

Of note (the usual suspects):

A coalition of conservative groups is preparing for a chance to shape the country’s next set of census results in case a Republican president returns to the White House in 2025.

Their playbook includes reviving a failed push for a citizenship question and other Trump-era moves that threaten the accuracy of the 2030 national head count.

The plan also calls for aligning the mission of the government agency in charge of the next tally of the country’s residents with “conservative principles.” Many census watchers, including a former top Trump administration official, tell NPR they find this position particularly alarming.

The policy proposals — led by The Heritage Foundation, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank — are part of a broader “Project 2025” plan for dismantling aspects of the U.S. government. “For too long, conservative presidents’ agendas have been stymied by liberal bureaucrats who put their own agenda over that of the President, whom they serve,” Paul Dans, a former Trump appointee who is Project 2025’s director, claims in a statement.

Since the plan’s release in April, most public attention has focused on its climate policy and calls to expand the president’s power over federal agencies. But 2025 marks a pivotal year for one particular and often-neglected agency — the Census Bureau.

The federal government’s largest statistical agency is about to start a critical planning period for the upcoming once-a-decade count. Decisions expected to be made during the next administration, including what census questions to ask and how, will have long-lasting effects on the statistics used to divvy up congressional seats and Electoral College votes, redraw voting districts for every level of government, inform policymaking and research, and guide more than $2.8 trillion a year in federal money for public services across the country.

If former President Donald Trump or another Republican candidate is elected in 2024, many census watchers are bracing for a potential sequel to the years of interference that muddled the last tally in 2020.

Why do these conservative groups want a citizenship question?

It’s not clear exactly why these conservative groups want the next census to ask for the U.S. citizenship status of every person living in every household in the United States.

Research by the bureau has shown that including the question “Is this person a citizen of the United States?” on forms is likely to discourage many households with Latino or Asian American residents from getting counted in official population totals.

The bureau’s annual American Community Survey already produces estimates of U.S. citizens, which are used to help enforce the Voting Rights Act.

And a future Republican administration could, as the Trump administration tried to, seek citizenship data from an alternate source — government records. The agency’s researchers said those would be more accurate and less costly to use than people’s self-reported answers. (President Biden stopped that work in 2021.)

Still, Thomas Gilman — a former Chrysler executive who, during the Trump administration, served as chief financial officer for the bureau’s parent agency, the Commerce Department — writes in the Project 2025’s policy guide: “Any successful conservative Administration must include a citizenship question in the census.”

Gilman declined NPR’s interview requests through a Heritage Foundation spokesperson and did not respond to written questions. The Heritage Foundation also did not make any representatives available to be interviewed for this report.

During the Trump administration, a citizenship question was part of a secret strategy to alter a key set of census numbers, the 2020 release of a presidential memo and, later, internal documentsconfirmed. Those numbers are used every 10 years to reapportion each state’s share of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Electoral College.

According to the 14th Amendment, the congressional apportionment numbers must include the “whole number of persons in each state.” But Trump officials wanted to make the unprecedented move of excluding unauthorized immigrants.

In public, however, the Trump administration claimed to want a citizenship question to better enforce the Voting Rights Act’s protections against the discrimination of racial and language minorities — a justification the Supreme Court found appeared to be “contrived.”

In court, groups that sued over the proposed question pointed to another reason that remains a potential motivating factor for a future GOP administration — neighborhood-block level citizenship data that could be used to draw voting districts that a Republican redistricting mastermind said would be “advantageous to Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites.”

That kind of data would be key to a legal dispute that the Supreme Court left unresolved in 2016: whether it is legal for states to redraw legislative districts based on the number of citizens old enough to vote rather than of all residents in an area.

Would Trump, if reelected, try again for a citizenship question?

It’s an open question whether Trump, if reelected, would make another go for a citizenship question. His campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

Hermann Habermann — a former deputy director of the bureau who testified in court against the Trump administration’s citizenship question push — sees echoes of that failed effort embedded within the Project 2025 plan. It repeats a misleading Trump-era talking point that appears to reference the United Nations Statistics Division’s census recommendations: “Asking a citizenship question is considered best practice even by the United Nations.”

“I don’t think they’ve read properly what it says there,” says Habermann about how Project 2025 interprets recommendations he helped write while serving as the director of the U.N. Statistics Division. “It doesn’t say thou shalt do this. It recommends that citizenship be one of the areas that is looked at. The U.S. does look at citizenship at the block-group level through the American Community Survey. So we do it. We just don’t do it at the block level. And so the question always became, why is that necessary?”

How a Republican administration answers that question could be the focus of another round of lawsuits, says Thomas Saenz, president and general counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which represented some of the groups that sued the Trump administration over its citizenship question push.

“I’ve never heard articulated a justification for the citizenship question that is not fairly obviously a veil to disguise racial and partisan intent,” Saenz says.

Still, in the Biden years, GOP calls to add a census citizenship question and alter the congressional apportionment numbers have not gone away. In July, House Republicans released a draft funding bill that would have banned the bureau from using the money to include unauthorized immigrants in future counts used to divide up House seats.

These conservative groups also have a “conservative agenda” for the Census Bureau

While the Project 2025 plan also outlines garden-variety presidential transition moves such as reviewing budgets and eliminating duplicative census operations, there are other proposals that many census watchers find troubling.

They call for more political appointee positions at the bureau, which has largely been run by career civil servants.

“Strong political leadership is needed to increase efficiency and align the Census Bureau’s mission with conservative principles,” Gilman, the former Commerce Department CFO, writes, adding there’s a need to have “both committed political appointees and like-minded career employees” in place to “execute a conservative agenda” as soon as the next Republican president takes office.

During its final months in office, the Trump administration installed four additional political appointees without any past experience at the agency or obvious qualifications for joining the highest ranks. In a 2020 email, the bureau’s top civil servant raised concerns that the appointees showed an “unusually” high level of “engagement in technical matters, which is unprecedented relative to the previous censuses.” After an investigation, an official from the Government Accountability Office told Congress that the appointees ultimately “did not have undue influence into the operations of the census.” Their exact responsibilities, however, remain murky.

Habermann, the former deputy director at the bureau, sees any similar return of this Trump-era move as “the first step to having a set of statistics which the people, the nation will not trust.”

“Some of us would believe that the function of statistics is, if you will, the lifeblood of a democracy,” Habermann adds. “The idea of statistics agencies is to produce reliable, unbiased, trustworthy information that the nation can use in making its decisions and in understanding itself. They want the statistics agency to be a mouthpiece, if you will, for the Republican administration.”

Their plan includes delaying potential changes to how the census asks about race and ethnicity

The plan also criticizes an ongoing review by the White House’s Office of Management and Budget of how the census and federal government surveys ask about people’s racial and ethnic identities. Ahead of the 2020 census, Trump officials stalled that process, which has been driven by years of research by the bureau into how to better reflect the country’s ever-shifting diversity.

The bureau has found that many people of Middle Eastern or North African descent do not identify as white, which is how the federal government officially categorizes them. The agency has also been tracking the rise of a catch-all checkbox known as “Some other race,” now the second-largest racial category in the U.S. after “White.” It’s mainly the result of the difficulty many Latinos face when answering a census question about their race that does not include a checkbox for “Hispanic” or “Latino,” which the government considers to be an ethnicity that can be of any race.

Based on their testing, the bureau’s researchers have recommendedcombining the questions about race and ethnicity into one and adding a checkbox for “Middle Eastern or North African.” OMB is expected to announce decisions on those proposals by summer 2024.

Project 2025’s plan, however, calls for a Republican administration to “take control of this process and thoroughly review any changes” because of “concerns among conservatives that the data under Biden Administration proposals could be skewed to bolster progressive political agendas.”

Meeta Anand, senior program director of census and data equity at The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, says any attempts to modify or roll back changes would be a movement away from accuracy and “truly understanding who we are as a nation.”

“If you were to have a stop and say, ‘Let’s review the questions again. Let’s conduct another research test,’ we would need to see appropriations for the Census Bureau to be able to do that. They would need to mount another test all over again. And there’s no way it would be done in time for 2030,” Anand adds. “Census advocates were trying to get revisions in place for the 2020 census, and that just never happened.”

The plan’s emphasis on a “conservative” approach to the census is raising concerns, including from a former top Trump official

Terri Ann Lowenthal, a former staff director of the House oversight subcommittee for the census who served on former President Barack Obama’s presidential transition team on census issues, sees the plan’s call to get rid of at least one of the bureau’s committees of outside advisers as a way to reduce transparency about how the agency produces the country’s statistics.

“This really is sort of undermining all of the principles and practices that federal statistical agencies should be following. And that is extremely troubling,” says Lowenthal, who is now a census consultant.

For Democratic Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii, one of the few vocal census advocates in Congress, Project 2025’s proposals run counter to his attempts to shield the bureau from further interference through new legislation.

“This is a clear partisan effort to force an undercount of communities of color. It’s unlawful and unconstitutional,” Schatz says in a statement.

The plan’s call to carry out a “conservative agenda” at the bureau is also catching public criticism from a less likely source: former Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross.The former top Trump administration official pushed for a citizenship question while overseeing the bureau, and an investigation by the Commerce Department’s Office of Inspector General found that Ross “misrepresented the full rationale” for adding a citizenship question when testifying before Congress in 2018. During the Trump administration, the findings were presented to the Justice Department, which declined to prosecute Ross.

“I think that the job of the census is to provide data. If the elected officials want to interpret that one way or another, well, that’s OK. That’s their prerogative. I don’t think the census should try to shade things in any political direction,” said Ross, who declined to answer questions about a citizenship question but said he believes it is “a valid question.”

On whether there should be more political appointees at the bureau, Ross said it’s not a question he has “really thought about” but noted: “To the degree that the implication was that the census should be more politicized, I do not agree with that.”

Ross said that until NPR contacted him, he was not aware of Project 2025’s census proposals written by Gilman, who served under Ross as the Commerce Department’s CFO.

“I’m frankly a little bit surprised that he regards himself as an expert on what actually happens in terms of the census. I don’t recall him being that involved in the whole process,” Ross said.

For Lowenthal, the census consultant who is a longtime watcher of the national head count, Project 2025’s census recommendations mark a notable shift in the right wing’s approach.

“I have not seen anything remotely like these proposals in this document coming out of previous Republican administrations,” Lowenthal says. “I think that the author or authors of this document clearly understand that if you control the production and flow of information, you can control how people view their government, the actions their government is taking or not taking and their view of the world around them. These proposals should raise alarm bells, I think, for anyone worried about the future.”

Source: A GOP plan for the census would revive Trump’s failed push for a citizenship question

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

Stateless in Germany have hardly any rights – DW (English)

2023/10/30 Leave a comment

Of note:

For people like Christiana Bukalo, 29, born in Germany but stateless, everyday life can become a challenge at any time: Opening a bank account, booking a hotel, getting married, pursuing a career as a civil servant — you need an ID for everything. But which state will issue you a passport if you don’t have any nationality at all?

“You don’t have freedom to travel because a travel document is required. You have difficulties when it comes to getting a job,” Bukalo told DW. “I know people who couldn’t finish their studies because they would have had to show a birth certificate to take the exam at the end. Also, stateless people don’t have the right to vote, even if they’ve always lived here.”

Bukalo is the daughter of West African parents whose nationality could not be verified by German authorities. She is one of a growing number of stateless people living in Germany — currently some 126,000 people. Many of them are Palestinians, Kurds, or former citizens of the Soviet Union or Yugoslavia — states that no longer exist.

Bukalo learned from an early age what it means to have no nationality. “Even as a child, you get the message that you don’t belong,” she said. “That you’re not supposed to stay here, but at the same time you can’t leave either. It’s very banal things that turn into a problem: Student exchanges, skiing trips abroad, none of that is possible. And of course, you have a great sense of shame, because you’re asked to explain something that has never been explained to you.”

‘Statefree’: A voice for stateless people

Two years ago, Bukalo decided to give stateless people a voice and founded the human rights organization “Statefree” in Munich. The goal was not only to inform the wider public, and to bring together those affected, but also to make demands on politicians.

“In Germany, we have an extreme reproduction of statelessness, as no way has been found to deal with stateless children who are born here,” she said. “We demand that stateless children born in Germany have a right to German citizenship.”

In Germany, it is the parentage that counts, not the place of birth. If the parents are stateless, so is their child. As a result, a third of all stateless people in Germany are children, though Bukalo also knows 65-year-olds who were born in Germany and are still stateless.

Statefree had high hopes for the new citizenship law proposed by the current center-left government of Social Democrats (SPD), Greens and neoliberal Free Democrats (FDP), but the issue of statelessness has not appeared in any draft law so far.

A spokesperson for the German Interior Ministry said in response to a DW question: “The concerns of stateless people are already sufficiently taken into account in the citizenship law. In addition, the general regulations for acquiring German citizenship apply to stateless people, since stateless people are also foreigners in the sense of citizenship law.”

Europe mulls deportations, not integration

The reform of the new citizenship law, which includes rapid naturalizations and incentives for skilled immigrants, comes at a time when the debate on migration is also at the top of Germany’s political agenda.

Bukalo is not surprised that her campaign is not making much progress at present. “I explain this to myself on the one hand with the politicians’ lack of knowledge about statelessness and on the other hand with the general political situation: The shift to the right in Europe,” she said. “Germany’s more progressive parties are having a hard time standing up for supposedly ‘progressive’ issues that have long been part of the status quo in countries like Spain or Portugal.”

No uniform legal procedures

Judith Beyer, professor of ethnology at Konstanz University, has been researching statelessness since she came across the topic seven years ago on a research trip to Myanmar, where 700,000 members of the Rohingya Muslim minority were fleeing persecution. They now live in Bangladesh but are considered stateless under international law.

Beyer works as an expert witness in a UK court when stateless people are in asylum proceedings. “Statelessness is a problem that is really not yet in the public eye in Germany,” she told DW.

Take the judiciary, for example: While in the UK experts like Beyer examine the life stories of stateless persons, and their expertise is incorporated into the final verdict on their status, in Germany the decision often rests solely with the judges.

There are also no standardized procedures in Germany for determining statelessness — it is up to municipal authorities, which means people in Munich sometimes get different decisions than they would in Hamburg or Cologne.

“The bottom line is that it depends on the individual who makes the decision,” Beyer said. “That’s what many stateless people keep complaining about: there is no legal certainty. Quite often it’s not malicious intent at all, but simply a lack of knowledge about how to deal with stateless people.”

Around 30,000 people in Germany like Bukalo have been officially recognized as stateless, which means they can apply for naturalization after six years of residency. But almost 100,000 individuals are categorized as persons with unclear nationality: Refugees who have no documents to prove their identity, such as the Rohingya who were expatriated from Bangladesh.

Being stateless is a violation of human rights, says SPD politician Sawsan Chebli. She was born in Berlin to stateless Palestinian parents and was not naturalized until she was 15. The ethnologist Beyer agrees: Stateless people are effectively denied the right to have any rights.

Source: Stateless in Germany have hardly any rights – DW (English)

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with ,

Le Bloc compte forcer un débat sur les cibles d’immigration à Ottawa

2023/10/28 Leave a comment

Long overdue, but Parliament likely not the best place for a meaningful discussion and debate:

Le Bloc québécois va utiliser sa journée d’opposition de mardi prochain pour forcer la tenue d’un débat, en Chambre, sur la nécessité ou non d’Ottawa de consulter le Québec et les autres provinces avant de fixer ses cibles d’immigration.

La formation politique entend mettre de l’avant une motion afin que les Communes « demande[nt] au gouvernement de revoir ses cibles d’immigration dès 2024 après consultation du Québec, des provinces et des territoires en fonction de leur capacité d’accueil, notamment en matière de logement, de soins de santé, d’éducation, de francisation et d’infrastructures de transports, le tout dans l’objectif d’une immigration réussie », selon le libellé qu’a lu aux journalistes le chef bloquiste, Yves-François Blanchet, jeudi.

Il a affirmé en mêlée de presse qu’il estime que la motion, « sur le principe », « devrait pouvoir rallier un peu tout le monde ».

« On n’a pas voulu être trop contraignants », a-t-il déclaré, disant vouloir « forcer une réflexion de bonne foi ».

Geler les cibles d’immigration ?

Le Canada a pour cible d’accueillir 500 000 nouveaux résidents permanents par an partout au pays d’ici 2025. Selon un reportage publié par Radio-Canada, le Conseil des ministres du gouvernement Trudeau a des discussions sur la possibilité de stabiliser, voire de revoir à la baisse cet objectif.

Si l’option du plafonnement en venait à être préconisée, cela signifierait qu’une pause surviendrait quant à la hausse des cibles d’immigration qui s’est maintenue au courant des dernières années.

La Presse canadienne n’a pas été en mesure de corroborer les informations rapportées par le diffuseur public, qui a précisé s’être entretenu avec une demi-douzaine d’élus libéraux.

Appelé à commenter ce reportage, M. Blanchet a dit vouloir se garder une certaine réserve considérant qu’aucune décision n’a été prise par le Conseil des ministres.

Il a néanmoins soutenu que l’idée de stabiliser ou réduire, si elle se concrétise, n’équivaudrait « pas [à] un recul au sens politique ».

« C’est un recul au sens mathématique […] et juste arrêter de monter est probablement une politique intéressante. Geler, ce serait une amélioration. Réduire serait probablement une amélioration en attendant que le Québec soit capable d’avoir mis en place des mesures et des choix en termes de nombres et de manières qui soient propres au Québec », a dit le chef du Bloc québécois.

« Pro-immigration » et Québécois

Habituellement, le débat sur la motion d’opposition commence le jour même de son dépôt, prévu mardi prochain. Le vote, toutefois, a en temps normal lieu à une date ultérieure.

Le Bloc québécois n’a pas attendu pour questionner le gouvernement sur sa réceptivité quant à l’idée de sa motion à être déposée. Dès jeudi, il a utilisé plusieurs de ses interventions à la période des questions pour interpeller les libéraux.

Le ministre de l’Immigration, Marc Miller, a soutenu qu’il est « pro-immigration » en plus d’être Québécois. « On a besoin d’immigrants au pays, on a besoin de construire des maisons. Ça nous prend 100 000 emplois dans la construction. Ça ne va pas nécessairement venir d’ici. Ça va prendre de l’immigration », a-t-il répondu.

Il a, du même souffle, invité le Bloc québécois, « s’ils sont contre l’immigration », à le dire « high and clear » (haut et fort).

Source: Le Bloc compte forcer un débat sur les cibles d’immigration à Ottawa

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

← Older posts