CILA | How the government can protect the public from bad immigration consultants

The immigration lawyer perspective:

…Miller can enact legal reform so that immigration consultants are only able to work under the supervision of an immigration lawyer. Lawyers are governed by strong regulatory bodies and face significant consequences such as disbarment for poor behaviour. Putting a lawyer’s license on the line will help to significantly strengthen the quality of advice immigration applicants receive as well as oversight of the conduct of immigration consultants.

We wish to be clear: not all immigration consultants are bad. There are some good ones who are honourable and competent.

Immigration lawyers have long argued that they are best able to represent visa applicants given these cases are often complex and raise legal issues involving Charter, family, employment, and criminal law. If consultants are going to continue to be given the right to provide legal services to the public, there must be stronger regulations. Consultants who are competent and ethical should be given the chance to continue to work but under a regime that ensures that the integrity of the immigration system is not brought into disrepute, and the public is adequately protected.

The Prime Minister, Ontario Premier, and federal immigration minister are correct to draw attention to this problem. Canadians remain supportive of immigration but are unsupportive of what they believe is an immigration system that has lost its way. Government leaders can help restore public confidence by limiting the ability of bad consultants to abuse victims and the immigration system.

Source: Opinion | How the government can protect the public from bad immigration consultants

Why Indians are risking it all to chase the American Dream

Good analysis and reminder how the Northern border is of increasing concern to the USA:

…Since October 2020, US Customs and Border Protection (CPB) officials have detained nearly 170,000 Indian migrants attempting unauthorised crossings at both the northern and southern land borders.

“Though smaller than the numbers from Latin America and the Caribbean, Indian nationals represent the largest group of migrants from outside the Western Hemisphere encountered by the CPB in the past four years,” say Gil Guerra and Sneha Puri, immigration analysts at Niskanen Center, a Washington-based think tank.

As of 2022, an estimated 725,000 undocumented Indian immigrants were in the US, making them the third-largest group after those from Mexico and El Salvador, according to new data from the Pew Research Center. Unauthorised immigrants in all make up 3% of US’s total population and 22% of the foreign-born population.

Looking at the data, Mr Guerra and Ms Puri have identified notable trends in the spike in Indians attempting illegal border crossings. 

For one, the migrants are not from the lowest economic strata. But they cannot secure tourist or student visas to the US, often due to lower education or English proficiency.

Instead, they rely on agencies charging up to $100,000 (£79,000), sometimes using long and arduous routes designed to dodge border controls. To afford this, many sell farms or take out loans. Not surprisingly, data from the US immigration courts in 2024 reveals that the majority of Indian migrants were male, aged 18-34.

Second, Canada on the northern border has become a more accessible entry point for Indians, with a visitor visa processing time of 76 days (compared to up to a year for a US visa in India).

The Swanton Sector – covering the states of Vermont and counties in New York and New Hampshire – has experienced a sudden surge in encounters with Indian nationals since early this year, peaking at 2,715 in June, the researchers found.

Earlier, most irregular Indian migrants entered the Americas through the busier southern border with Mexico via El Salvador or Nicaragua, both of which facilitated migration. Until November last year, Indian nationals enjoyed visa-free travel to El Salvador.

“The US-Canada border is also longer and less guarded than the US-Mexico border. And while it is not necessarily safer, criminal groups do not have the same presence there as they do along the route from South and Central America,” Mr Guerra and Ms Puri say.

Thirdly, much of the migration appears to originate from the Sikh-dominated Indian state of Punjab and neighbouring Haryana, which has traditionally seen people migrating overseas. The other source of origin is Gujarat, the home state of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Punjab, which accounts for a large share of irregular Indian migrants, is facing economic hardships, including high unemployment, farming distress and a looming drug crisis. 

Migration has also long been common among Punjabis, with rural youth still eager to move abroad. 

A recent study of 120 respondents in Punjab by Navjot Kaur, Gaganpreet Kaur and Lavjit Kaur found that 56% emigrated between ages 18-28, often after secondary education. Many funded their move through non-institutional loans, later sending remittances to their families. 

Then there has been a rise in tensions over the separatist Khalistan movement, which seeks to establish an independent homeland for Sikhs. “This has caused fear from some Sikhs in India about being unfairly targeted by authorities or politicians. These fears may also provide a credible basis for claims of persecution that allows them to seek asylum, whether or not true,” says Ms Puri.

But pinning down the exact triggers for migration is challenging. 

“While motivations vary, economic opportunity remains the primary driver, reinforced by social networks and a sense of pride in having family members ‘settled’ in the US,” says Ms Puri.

Fourth, researchers found a shift in the family demographics of Indian nationals at the borders.

More families are trying to cross the border. In 2021, single adults were overwhelmingly detained at both borders. Now, family units make up 16-18% of the detentions at both borders.

This has sometimes led to tragic consequences. In January 2022, an Indian family of four – part of a group of 11 people from Gujarat – froze to death just 12m (39ft) from the border in Canada while attempting to enter the US.

Pablo Bose, a migration and urban studies scholar at the University of Vermont, says Indians are trying to cross into the US in larger numbers because of more economic opportunities and “more ability to enter the informal economies in the US cities”, especially the large ones like New York or Boston.

“From everything I know and interviews I have conducted, most of the Indians are not staying in the more rural locations like Vermont or upstate New York but rather heading to the cities as soon as they can,” Mr Bose told the BBC. There, he says, they are entering mostly informal jobs like domestic labour and restaurant work.

Things are likely to become more difficult soon. Veteran immigration official Tom Homan, who will be in charge of the country’s borders following Trump’s inauguration in January, has said that the northern border with Canada is a priority because illegal migration in the area is a “huge national security issue”.

What happens next is unclear. “It remains to be seen if Canada would impose similar policies to prevent people migrating into the US from its borders. If that happens, we can expect a decline in detentions of Indians nationals at the border,” says Ms Puri. 

Whatever the case, the dreams driving thousands of desperate Indians to seek a better life in the US are unlikely to fade, even as the road ahead becomes more perilous.

Source: Why Indians are risking it all to chase the American Dream

Chris Alexander: Fixing immigration and fixing the economy are two sides of the same coin

Number of suggestions by former immigration minister Alexander. First set, government already moving in that direction. Others are more difficult and or controversial to implement. While the government is committed to a Ukrainian victory (but our role minor compared to USA), not clear what other sanctions against Iran remain to be implemented, or which ones he proposes for Pakistan (Alexander has been consistent, and rightly so, on Pakistan’s counterproductive role in Afghanistan).

While we can all agree on the need to increase unity and trust, the devil is in the details and there are no easy solutions apart from better and clearer messaging by political and other leaders:

First, set immigration levels between 300,000 and 400,000—targeting the lower end so long as our economy struggles and apportioning economic immigrants roughly equally among Skilled Worker, Canadian Experience, and Provincial Nominee programmes. In future, immigration levels should be driven by our prospects for economic growth and the availability of basic services like health care and housing. But there is no substitute for decent, clear-eyed political judgement on these issues.

Second, end access for low-skilled temporary foreign workers, a subsidy for uncompetitive businesses and, as the prime minister recently put it, “big chain corporations.” Skilled workers may still be needed in selected fields, but the system needs to be tight and well-managed, not a morass of abuse and ad-hockery.

Third, process 260,000 asylum claims fast. The law requires hearings within 60 days; currently, they take over three years. The Immigration and Refugee Board needs to staff up and burn the midnight oil to take this backlog back below 10,000, where it was in 2015. To prevent new backlogs, our visa requirements should be de-politicized: citizens of countries that do not meet our existing criteria for lifting visa requirements should be required to have them. Our current government undermined these criteria, notably in the case of Mexico, with predictable consequences.

We also need to come to grips with the number of people now in Canada without any immigration status, which has ballooned, and ensure such cases are resolved via existing programmes, including the humanitarian and compassionate stream, or through the asylum system. People should not be left in limbo or the shadows.

Fourth, lift current caps for international students so our best institutions of higher education are not punished for our current government’s missteps and implement a hard-edged strategy to end fraud and “fake colleges” and restore Canada’s merit-based reputation.

Fifth, a new government should think creatively about the world’s refugee crises. By April 2024, about 120 million persons were forcibly displaced worldwide—nearly twice the 2014 figure. About 43 million are refugees. Our generous refugee programmes failed to reverse these horrendous trends. Why? Because the dictators responsible for wars, genocides and repression in the Sahel, Middle East, South Asia, and Ukraine have gone unpunished.

Russia alone launched migration crises in Europe, Turkey, and Africa; genocide in Syria and Ukraine; coups and repression on four continents; and Europe’s largest postwar invasion. Iran armed terrorists. Pakistan put the Taliban back in power. China and North Korea help them.

These aggressors are behind this spike in displacement. To prevent the number of refugees from doubling again, Canada should commit to Ukraine’s victory, sanction Iran and Pakistan, and focus our refugee programmes on victims we failed over the past decade.

Sixth, we need to restore our sense of unity and trust. The Chrétien government had a cabinet committee on social union; we need something similar now. Canada should be free of violent extremism, hate speech and antisemitism. Our borders should be respected and our laws enforced. New citizens should be equipped to resist disinformation and polarization.

Far from being “post-national,” Canada’s strong, dynamic culture and identity attract millions who want to work hard, support families, communities, and businesses, live under the rule of law, participate in good government, and help those less fortunate than themselves.

By fixing the economy and taking six additional steps, we can turn a corner on immigration. Asylum backlogs, abuses by “big chain corporations” and “fake colleges” did not spring out of the ether. They are by-products of too many years of poor administration. With competent management, Canada’s economic promise can be restored and our immigration programmes will see better days.

Source: Chris Alexander: Fixing immigration and fixing the economy are two sides of the same coin

Barutciski: Ambiguous messaging won’t be enough to protect Canada from the U.S.’s mass deportation plan

Correct assessment. Government has shifted messaging but needs to be bolstered by actions that demonstrate seriousness to Trump administration:

…The incoming U.S. administration will be fully aware of a new immigration problem on their northern border: an explosion in illegal southbound crossings, including alleged terrorists. An increased RCMP presence on the Canadian side would not only help prevent illegal crossings in both directions, it would help Ottawa negotiate the removal of the 14-day loophole in the STCA. Proof that the Trudeau government can help Washington address the migration problems at the U.S.-Mexico border, as it did when it negotiated an extension to cover illegal crossings with the Biden administration, would give it leverage in any potential deal.

The U.S. immigration system has been broken for decades, so it should not surprise Ottawa if a new disruptive White House attempts to force change with dramatic methods, including mass deportations. Canada, then, needs to rethink its own approach to border control and to reconceive immigration policy within a continental co-operation framework. Just as with free trade, Ottawa should focus its diplomatic efforts on increasing collaboration with the U.S. – otherwise, there is a real risk that the immigration file will turn into a source of tension between two long-time allies that share the world’s longest undefended border.

Source: Ambiguous messaging won’t be enough to protect Canada from the U.S.’s mass deportation plan

Sadinsky and Bondy | Donald Trump’s plans will mean chaos at the Canadian border. We aren’t even close to being ready

The view from immigration lawyers and likely advocates. Not too early to plan but may be too early to assume it will be that chaotic. Suspect exemptions may be a non-starter in the context of a Trump administration. And once the door is opened for one group or set of circumstances, others would then cite this to advocate for their particular group or circumstances:

…But the suddenly U.S. reality requires immediate reforms to our system. A growing backlog of refugee claims means our system needs more capacity. This can be achieved through efficiencies, such as streaming simpler claims to paper review — that is, by considering documentary evidence, without a hearing in order to issue a positive decision in the case of simple claims — and allowing eligible refugee claimants to apply in other programs.

Canada should also develop a more accessible process for individuals leaving the U.S. to seek personalized exemptions to the restrictions of the Safe Third Country Agreement. Notably, when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on the constitutionality of the agreement, it upheld it due to “safety valves”, where officers can admit people to Canada in exceptional situations if turning them back to the U.S. would violate their Charter rights. In practice, these safety valves barely exist and do not function. We need a clear, robust process for individuals to seek exemptions and proper training for officers.

Targeted exemptions to the STCA would allow some of the most vulnerable individuals to present themselves at official ports of entry to initiate refugee claims. Article 6 of the STCA permits either country to invoke exemptions to review claims where “it is in its public interest to do so.” In particular, women fleeing domestic violence are often unable to obtain asylum in the U.S. because of how U.S. law interprets the Refugee Convention. In Canada such claims are often successful, and are heard by a specially trained task force of the Immigration and Refugee Board.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration recommended in a May 2023 report that exemptions also be invoked for individuals from places that Canada has a policy not to deport to. Invoking exemptions for such claimants would permit them to submit their claims at regular ports of entry, and would protect them from smugglers and otherwise dangerous crossings.

Above all, as a federal election looms in Canada, we must not learn the wrong lesson from the U.S. election: that dehumanizing others is a cheap way to secure votes. Changes to our system may be inevitable, but they must not be accompanied by rhetoric that demonizes others and turns members of our community against one another.

Aisling Bondy is President of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers (CARL). Adam B. Sadinsky is Co-Chair of CARL’s Advocacy Committee. Both are immigration and refugee lawyers in private practice in Toronto.

Source: Opinion | Donald Trump’s plans will mean chaos at the Canadian border. We aren’t even close to being ready

Feds want $411 million to cover refugee health care as the number of new arrivals soars

No surprise given rising numbers and equally no surprise that it is prompting questioning among some

The federal government is asking Parliament to approve hundreds of millions of dollars in new spending to cover the health-care costs of eligible refugees and asylum seekers — a budget line item that has soared in recent years as the number of these newcomers reached record highs.

The Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP) is designed to cover migrants who don’t yet qualify for provincial or territorial medicare. By removing some barriers to health care, the program makes it easier for refugees — many of them fleeing conflict or persecution abroad — to get the care they need on arrival.

There’s also a public health benefit: it helps prevent and control the spread of infectious diseases in Canada.

Some resettled refugees receive health care through the IFHP for only a few months before transitioning to provincial plans. Some remain on the federal plan for much longer as they wait for their claims to be adjudicated — a process that now takes more than two years as Ottawa grapples with a mounting backlog.

The IFHP’s cost has soared from roughly $60 million in 2016 to a projected $411.2 million this year, easily outpacing inflation.

Former prime minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative government curtailed the IFHP and eliminated coverage entirely for some refugees and asylum seekers as part of a push to reduce spending and balance the budget.

The Harper government also said it was unfair for taxpayers to be paying for a program that was, in some instances, much more generous than what’s available to some Canadian citizens and permanent residents through public health care.

The decision to cut the program prompted a wave of criticism and was ultimately deemed unconstitutional by a Federal Court judge.

Source: Feds want $411 million to cover refugee health care as the number of new arrivals soars

Speer: As Canada’s diversity increases, anti-racialism becomes essential

We are more than individuals and outcomes reflect a mixture of individual and group characteristics and experience, along with intersectionality within and between groups. Not one or the other, but need to consider both aspects as the various datasets indicated:

…As an epistemological framework, it represents a way of thinking that systematically organizes individuals into group categories based on race and then grants it explanatory power for virtually everything.

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that every “pretendian” cited in Pete’s article is a progressive. As the principal purveyors of identity politics, progressives are distinctly predisposed to racialist thinking. They’re more inclined to think in terms of racial identity and attribute value to membership in certain racial groups.

It’s logical therefore that within progressive circles claiming a particular group identity has greater upside than among conservatives who are more instinctively anti-racialist. Does anyone for instance doubt that progressive figures like Turpel-Lanford or Boissonnault realized status gains from adopting fake Indigenous identities?

Which brings us back to Pete’s case against affirmative action and its perverse incentives. His argument is well taken—but one can argue that we actually need to go deeper. We should aim to address the racialist thinking that underpins those policies and the political culture that enables them. Herein lies Salam’s case for anti-racialism.

The good news is that he believes that in the U.S. context, anti-racialism may represent a powerful political proposition across a multi-ethnic coalition. Donald Trump’s election victory is evidence that he’s right.

There’s a strong case to think that the same is true in Canada—particularly in the coming years. As the country becomes more diverse, the distinction between majority and minority populations will necessarily become far weaker. Defining one’s identity in contradistinction to the so-called “white mainstream” will presumably have less resonance in a world in which “racialized” Canadians represent as much as half of the population as early as 2041. Racial salience may counterintuitively decline in a polity composed of a growing multiplicity of racial identities.

If so, we may look back at this era of identity politics and the “pretendians” that it has produced as a regrettable yet temporary waystation on the path to the meritocratic culture that Pete envisions.

Source: As Canada’s diversity increases, anti-racialism becomes essential

The Great Regression: How do we reverse course in a societal death spiral?

New term for me but seems appropriate. Sound recommendations to improve self-awareness (“know thyself”):

…The Great Regression is a full-out threat to civility, peace, democracy and humanity – a social and public health emergency, or what some have called a social death spiral. And I’d like to offer this plea from the therapist’s chair: We’re so distracted by the left-right axis that we haven’t understood the deeper problem of regression, which is a truly dangerous aspect of polarization.

To be clear, I’m not calling for anyone to water down their cherished ideals or strong political beliefs. But I am asking that those swept up in the culture wars take time to consider these questions: Are you no longer able to be friends with people who hold differing views? Do you dehumanize your political opponents? Do you believe they wish you and your family harm? Do you wish them harm? And are you able to consider the other side in a political debate – even though you strongly disagree?

These are all signs, in my view, that you may be drifting downward on the Great Regression axis. It’s important to catch yourself before you descend to regrettable actions such as destroying relationships, or creating a toxic work environment.

Gaining self-awareness of our processes can be life-improving. It helps us mend fences with family members, develop deeper friendships and get along better with colleagues. At one time, our leaders and institutions – not just political, but in all facets of life – were role models of emotional regulation. In a regressed society, we see fewer healthy examples in public life. That’s why I believe individuals must begin to look at their own position on that up-down axis, painful as it might be. The ability to identify and resist regression in ourselves and others is a great power, and an opportunity to help heal our society’s emotional health.

Thomas Ungar is a professor in the Temerty Faculty of Medicine at the University of Toronto and a staff psychiatrist at North York General Hospital.

Source: The Great Regression: How do we reverse course in a societal death spiral?

Immigration Under the Trump Administration: Five Things to Expect in the First 90 Days

Good solid analysis:

The first Trump administration brought significant changes to U.S. immigration policies, which had profound impacts on businesses and individuals alike. Donald Trump has shared plans for closing the U.S. borders and enforcing mass deportations for undocumented immigrants almost immediately after taking office in January. Below are five major impacts to immigration policy we saw as a result of Trump’s first term, and what we can expect for his second term.

  1. Extreme Vetting: The administration introduced stringent vetting processes for visa applicants, with the stated aim of enhancing national security. This led to longer processing times and increased scrutiny of applicants’ backgrounds. The U.S. Department of State, whose Bureau of Consular Affairs oversees the issuance of U.S. visas, has yet to recover from staffing shortages resulting from the first Trump administration, while geopolitical conflicts continue to grow in size and severity, drawing limited resources away from visa processing. Like under the first Trump administration, visa applicants – and the U.S. companies that employ them – can expect extremely long wait times for visa interview appointments, more frequent administrative processing delays, and much higher visa refusal rates. Foreign workers may be less able to travel internationally for work due to the risk of being unable to return to the U.S.
     
  2. Hiring and Onboarding Delays: Slow adjudication and consular operations, coupled with heavy scrutiny, caused significant delays in hiring and onboarding international employees. Businesses faced challenges in maintaining their high-skilled workforces due to these prolonged processes since such (legal) foreign workers are the cohort most affected by delays and increased scrutiny of work visa applications. Only the H-2 visa category for seasonal and temporary workers seems to have been unaffected by these delays. In fact, the number of available H-2 visas doubled under Trump, and applications maintained an average approval rate of over 98 percent. Given this history, employers should plan for delays in onboarding high-skilled foreign workers as well as decreased ability to recruit such candidates to the U.S., though the ability to recruit short-term and seasonal labor should remain steady.
     
  3. Business Disruption: Border closures, visa bans, skyrocketing processing times, and denial rates under the first Trump administration exacerbated the staffing issues faced by companies during the pandemic and recovery. Year-plus processing times caused foreign nationals working legally in the U.S. to lose their work authorization and, in some cases, their jobs as employers struggled to navigate the changing adjudication standards. Employers in highly scrutinized industries like construction, manufacturing, food service, hospitality, and agriculture can expect increased immigration enforcement activity, including raids. Raids, in particular, have a chilling impact on recruitment and hiring even of authorized workers, including workers permanently authorized to work in the U.S. – like U.S. citizens, permanent residents, and asylees. In 2022, a federal court ordered ICE to pay more than $1 million to victims of the agency’s raid of a meatpacking plant in Tennessee, after determining ICE agents used racial profiling and excessive force to illegally detain workers without regard to their actual status – lawful or unlawful – in the U.S.
     
  4. Increased Costs: The cost of sponsoring employees for visas and green cards increased due to additional documentary requirements and higher denial rates. Businesses had to allocate more resources to manage immigration-related expenses. Under the incoming administration, employers can expect a return to those high immigration costs and then some. Since Biden took office, denial rates for H-1B visa applications have hovered between 2 – 3 percent; under Trump, H-1B denial rates were more than triple that, ranging from 8 – 15 percent.
     
  5. Uncertainty: In the first Trump administration, sudden policy changes, reduced service levels, and uncertain decisions created concern among employees and businesses. Companies had to adjust their expectations and factor in events that created disruptions impacting all levels of their business, including employee onboarding, production, and service delivery. We expect the impacts of the areas outlined above will lead to a significant number of additional uncertainties for both employers and employees that could impact workforce morale and productivity in anticipation of what could come….

Meredith C. Doll, of counsel in Baker Donelson’s Houston office, helps clients with business immigration matters, including strategy planning, worksite compliance and enforcement, and immigrant and nonimmigrant petitions.  Melanie C. Walker, a shareholder in the Baker Donelson’s Global Immigration Group in Chattanooga. Tennessee, provides strategic guidance and immigration counseling services to companies and their employees.

Source: Immigration Under the Trump Administration: Five Things to Expect in the First 90 Days

Seidle: Better co-ordination and governance needed to steer Canada’s migration policies

Good points but implementation always a challenge. Merging IMP and TFWP would be a challenge given their differences but a reexamination of these differences and their justifications would be a worthy initiative along with more explicit recognition of the blurring between temporary and permanent migration:

…At a news conference on October 24, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said changes will allow “our communities, our infrastructures” time to catch up to population growth.

In that context, governments need to develop joint actions to help break down administrative silos and improve coordination. A case in point concerns international students. Although governments have taken some steps, individually, other issues require a more concerted approach (including between provincial governments and postsecondary institutions).

Consideration should begiven to the merging of the two existing federal temporary worker programs within Immigration, Citizenship and Refugees Canada. The department name could be modified to reflect any change, and acknowledge explicitly the blurring of boundaries between permanent and temporary migration.

Source: Better co-ordination and governance needed to steer Canada’s migration policies