Biden Made the Judiciary More Diverse—but Not More Liberal

2025/01/03 Leave a comment

Interesting analysis. Would be useful to have a similar systematic analysis of Canadian judicial appointments under Trudeau (may have missed one:

President Biden left his mark on the federal judiciary by installing a large number of appointees from diverse backgrounds, but he made few inroads on changing the ideological balance of courts that Donald Trump made more conservative during his first term.

Now, Trump’s return to office could ensure that the federal courts lean solidly in a conservative direction for years to come.

In terms of raw confirmation numbers, Biden edged Trump’s first term by a nose, appointing 235 judges to Trump’s 234. But the Democrat had the opportunity to appoint just one Supreme Court justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and he installed nine fewer judges than Trump to the powerful U.S. courts of appeals, which sit one level below the high court. 

Many of Biden’s appointees to those courts succeeded other like-minded judges, meaning that the overall ideological dynamics didn’t change much.

Where Biden made a lasting impact, however, was in appointing judges that represent a broader swath of America. About 60% of the judges he installed were people of color, according to the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. And more than 60% were women. 

Biden noted in December that he appointed more Black women to the courts of appeals than all other previous administrations combined. He also appointed the first openly LGBTQ woman to the appeals courts, as well as the first Muslim-American to a life-tenured judicial post.

Another Biden priority was selecting nominees with a broader array of professional experience, including by appointing former federal public defenders to a judiciary that has been disproportionately represented by former prosecutors. 

That focus resulted in a new batch of judges who are distinctly different “in terms of the types of clients they’ve represented and the cases they have been exposed to,” said retired federal judge Jeremy Fogel, who now directs the Berkeley Judicial Institute, a center at the UC Berkeley School of Law….

Source: Biden Made the Judiciary More Diverse—but Not More Liberal

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

USCIS Scraps Naturalization Test Redesign

2025/01/03 Leave a comment

Of note:

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced it would not move forward with a new version of the naturalization test

In a Federal Register notice published Monday, the agency said it would scrap the redesign after critics said the redesign would create unnecessary barriers, making the process harder for applicants. In 2022, USCIS announced plans to trial a new version of the test after subject matter experts reviewed the current version and suggested changes.

“The objective of the trial was to determine an efficient way to reduce undue barriers to taking the naturalization test and the majority of the feedback received revealed concerns that the trial version of the test may increase burdens on applicants,” the agency said in the notice. “Therefore, USCIS has decided to terminate the previously proposed trial test altogether.”

The citizenship test is one of the final stages of the naturalization process. It consists of two parts: an English test that evaluates an applicant’s reading, writing, and speaking abilities, and a civics test that assesses the applicant’s knowledge of U.S. government and history.

Proposed changes included:

  • For the speaking portion of the test, applicants would be asked to describe three color photographs depicting everyday life, such as the weather or food. Currently, the immigration officer asks the applicant questions about their citizenship application and eligibility to test their speaking ability.
  • During the current civics test, the immigration officer reads questions about U.S. government and history out loud. The applicant must answer six out of 10 questions correctly to pass. As part of the proposed redesign, applicants would instead answer ten multiple-choice questions and select the best answer from four choices. The questions would be displayed on a tablet.

USCIS said it received more than 1,300 public comments about the test redesign, with the majority opposing the changes, arguing the new test would create new barriers to naturalization rather than make the process easier. For the speaking part of the test, commenters said the changes:

  • Introduced a new testing requirement, adding more preparation and tasks for applicants.
  • Offered a less effective way to evaluate English proficiency compared to the current speaking test.

For the civics portion of the test, commenters argued the new version:

  • Required higher-level reading comprehension and vocabulary skills than currently needed.
  • Introduced a multiple-choice format, demanding test-taking skills not previously required.
  • Presented challenges for adult learners with low literacy who rely on oral learning.
  • Created obstacles for individuals without formal education.

USCIS said it will continue to use the 2008 version of the naturalization test.

Source: USCIS Scraps Naturalization Test Redesign

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with ,

Idées | 2024, une année centrale pour la laïcité de l’État

2025/01/03 Leave a comment

Useful overview:

Plusieurs étapes ont été franchies au cours des ans pour une laïcité de l’État au Québec. On n’a qu’à penser à la création du ministère de l’Éducation lors de la Révolution tranquille, à la déconfessionnalisation des Commissions scolaires en 2000, ou encore à la Loi sur la laïcité de l’État (Loi 21) en 2019. Cette grande épopée n’est pas encore arrivée à terme. Voici, en rappel, quelques événements survenus en 2024.

5 février 2024. Le Bloc québécois dépose un deuxième projet de loi pour éliminer l’exception religieuse du Code criminel canadien, lorsqu’il s’agit de propagande haineuse (C-373). Le 14 juin dernier, ce projet de loi a été ajouté à l’ordre de priorité du gouvernement, mais il est toujours en attente d’une date pour être considéré en deuxième lecture.

29 février 2024. La Cour d’appel du Québec confirme la constitutionnalité de la Loi 21 et rejette ainsi le jugement de la Cour supérieure qui en avait exempté les Commissions scolaires anglophones.

21 mars 2024. La Cour supérieure autorise Droits Collectifs Québec et le Mouvement laïque québécois (MLQ) à intenter un recours en justice (via un mandamus) contre le Conseil de la magistrature du Québec pour lui enjoindre d’établir des règles traduisant les exigences de la laïcité de l’État auprès des juges. Cette cause est importante car elle concerne le droit de toute personne vivant au Québec de bénéficier d’institutions judiciaires laïques.

26 avril. Le gouvernement fédéral crée tout un émoi au Québec en indiquant, dans son budget 2024, explorer de nouvelles mesures pour élargir l’accès aux prêts hypothécaires islamiques. La Coalition avenir Québec, le Parti québécois, le Bloc québécois à Ottawa et des organisations civiles, dont le Rassemblement pour la Laïcité (RPL) montent aux créneaux pour s’opposer à cette initiative contraire aux principes de la laïcité de l’État.

29 avril. La décision de la Fédération autonome de l’enseignement (FAE) d’amener la Loi 21 devant la Cour suprême est vivement critiquée par des enseignants qui s’opposent à ce que leurs cotisations syndicales servent à financer ce recours juridique et réclament une véritable consultation sur cette démarche.

19 juin. L’arrondissement d’Ahuntsic-Cartierville autorise un groupe religieux à organiser une prière collective musulmane dans un parc, en contradiction avec son règlement qui y interdit toute cérémonie religieuse. Cette décision crée des remous puisque l’événement, réservé aux adeptes de cette religion tout en reléguant femmes et fillettes dans un espace cloisonné loin derrière les hommes, prive les citoyens de leur espace public.

9 juillet. À la demande du gouvernement du Québec et du MLQ, le juge Mahmud Jamal de la Cour suprême se retire du dossier sur la Loi 21.

Juillet. Le choix de la Ville de Montréal d’inclure une femme voilée sur le panneau de bienvenue de son hall d’entrée crée polémique. Selon le MLQ et Pour les droits des femmes du Québec, cette affiche porte atteinte à la laïcité de l’État et au droit des femmes à l’égalité. La mairesse Valérie Plante annoncera, en octobre, que cette affiche sera retirée en raison du « malaise » qu’elle suscite, mais essentiellement pour réitérer que le Québec est une société laïque.

Septembre. Les manuels du nouveau programme Culture et citoyenneté québécoise, qui devaient faire la « promotion de l’État de droit laïque » dans nos écoles, comportent de sérieuses lacunes. Ils contiennent des définitions et principes de la laïcité qui ne reflètent pas les principes de la Loi 21 et ils ne s’appuient pas sur les considérants de la loi pour expliquer ses motifs.

22 octobre. À la suite de la publication du rapport de l’école Bedford, le premier ministre Legault confie aux ministres Drainville et Roberge le mandat de trouver des moyens de renforcer les contrôles et la laïcité dans les écoles du Québec. Ce rapport faisait état de plaintes et de signalements concernant des enjeux liés au non-respect d’obligations en matière de laïcité. Le PM a aussi mentionné être disposé à débattre de bonne foi de l’abolition du financement des écoles privées religieuses quoique ce ne soit pas sa priorité. Quelques jours plus tard, les ministres amorcent des vérifications dans 17 écoles du Québec.

27 novembre. Le Comité consultatif sur les enjeux constitutionnels du Québec au sein de la fédération canadienne recommande de doter le Québec d’une constitution codifiée qui inclurait les lois fondamentales actuellement en vigueur, dont la Loi 21.

29 novembre. Le gouvernement du Québec demande au fédéral la fin de l’exemption religieuse inscrite au code criminel concernant la propagande haineuse, demande aussitôt appuyée par RPL et le Centre consultatif des relations juives et israéliennes (CIJA). Comme le dit si bien la philosophe Louise Mailloux : « cette immunité accordée aux croyants est une aberration et rien ne peut justifier que ceux-ci puissent jouir d’un pareil privilège au détriment de tous les autres citoyens ».

6 décembre. Le premier ministre Legault dit songer à légiférer pour interdire la prière dans l’espace public et à un projet de constitution pour inscrire la laïcité, l’égalité entre les femmes et les hommes et l’intégration des immigrants en toutes lettres dans un texte fondamental.

Il n’y a pas à dire, l’année 2025 s’annonce fructueuse en discussion quant à la laïcité de l’État.

Marie-Claude Girard L’autrice est retraitée de la Commission canadienne des droits de la personne. Elle signe ce texte à titre personnel.

Source: Idées | 2024, une année centrale pour la laïcité de l’État

Several steps have been taken over the years for a secularism of the state in Quebec. We only have to think of the creation of the Ministry of Education during the Quiet Revolution, the deconfessionalization of School Boards in 2000, or the Law on the Secularism of the State (Law 21) in 2019. This great epic has not yet come to an end. Here are, as a reminder, some events that occurred in 2024.

February 5, 2024. The Bloc Québécois is filing a second bill to eliminate the religious exception of the Canadian Criminal Code when it comes to hate propaganda (C-373). On June 14, this bill was added to the government’s order of priority, but it is still waiting for a date to be considered in second reading.

February 29, 2024. The Quebec Court of Appeal confirms the constitutionality of Bill 21 and thus rejects the ruling of the Superior Court, which had exempted the English-speaking School Commissions.

March 21, 2024. The Superior Court authorizes Droits Collectifs Québec and the Mouvement laïque québécois (MLQ) to bring an action (via a mandamus) against the Conseil de la magistrature du Québec to order it to establish rules reflecting the requirements of the secularism of the State with judges. This cause is important because it concerns the right of any person living in Quebec to benefit from secular judicial institutions.

April 26. The federal government is creating a stir in Quebec by indicating, in its 2024 budget, to explore new measures to expand access to Islamic mortgages. The Coalition avenir Québec, the Parti québécois, the Bloc québécois à Ottawa and civil organizations, including the Rassemblement pour la Laïcité (RPL), are stepping up to oppose this initiative contrary to the principles of state secularism.

April 29. The decision of the Fédération autonome de l’enseignement (FAE) to bring Bill 21 before the Supreme Court is strongly criticized by teachers who oppose their union dues being used to finance this legal recourse and call for a real consultation on this approach.

June 19. The borough of Ahuntsic-Cartierville authorizes a religious group to organize a collective Muslim prayer in a park, in contradiction with its regulations that prohibit any religious ceremony. This decision creates a stir since the event, reserved for followers of this religion while relegating women and girls to a compartmentalized space far behind men, depriving citizens of their public space.

July 9th. At the request of the Government of Quebec and the MLQ, Justice Mahmud Jamal of the Supreme Court withdrew from the Bill 21 file.

July. The City of Montreal’s choice to include a veiled woman on the welcome sign in its entrance hall creates controversy. According to the MLQ and Pour les droits des femmes du Québec, this poster violates the secularism of the state and the right of women to equality. Mayor Valérie Plante will announce in October that this poster will be removed because of the “unease” it causes, but mainly to reiterate that Quebec is a secular society.

September. The manuals of the new Quebec Culture and Citizenship program, which were supposed to “promote the secular rule of law” in our schools, have serious shortcomings. They contain definitions and principles of secularism that do not reflect the principles of Bill 21 and they do not rely on the recitals of the Act to explain its reasons.

October 22. Following the publication of the Bedford School report, Prime Minister Legault entrusted Ministers Drainville and Roberge with the mandate to find ways to strengthen controls and secularism in Quebec schools. This report reported on complaints and reports regarding issues related to non-compliance with secular obligations. The PM also mentioned that he was willing to debate in good faith the abolition of the funding of private religious schools whatever was not his priority. A few days later, the ministers began checks in 17 schools in Quebec.

November 27. The Advisory Committee on the Constitutional Issues of Quebec within the Canadian Federation recommends that Quebec be given a codified constitution that would include the fundamental laws currently in force, including Bill 21.

November 29. The government of Quebec asks the federal government to end the religious exemption inscribed in the criminal code concerning hate propaganda, immediately supported by RPL and the Advisory Center for Jewish and Israeli Relations (CIJA). As the philosopher Louise Mailloux says so well: “this immunity granted to believers is an aberration and nothing can justify that they can enjoy such a privilege at the expense of all other citizens”.

December 6th. Prime Minister Legault said he was thinking of legislating to prohibit prayer in public space and a draft constitution to include secularism, equality between women and men and the integration of immigrants in full in a fundamental text.

There is no need to say, the year 2025 promises to be fruitful in discussion about the secularism of the State.

Marie-Claude Girard The author is retired from the Canadian Commission on Human Rights. She signs this text in a personal capacity.

Filed under Interculturalisme, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Order of Canada Appointments: 2024 Update

2025/01/03 Leave a comment

This analysis, conducted over the past decade, examines the diversity of Order of Canada appointments. Appointments are contingent upon nominations and typically reflect contributions over an extended period. This updates the analysis in my analysis of last year, How diverse are Order of Canada appointments? Key findings include:

  • Women are significantly underrepresented across all periods.
  • Visible minorities are underrepresented, while Indigenous peoples are slightly overrepresented relative to their population share.
  • Visible minority representation has increased over time.
  • Contributions to the arts have generally constituted the largest share of appointments, followed by health, business, public service, and activism.
  • The share of appointments by rank and group follows the typical pattern in most diversity analyses, where diversity decreases with increasing rank. However, this pattern is only observed for women. In contrast, the share of Indigenous companions is higher than for officers, which in turn is higher than Indigenous members. The share of visible minority officers is greater than the share of visible minority members.
Order of Canada 2013-24 Diversity – Key slidesDownload

Filed under Aboriginal, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

MacDougall: Memo to the public service — From here on in, all change, all the time

2025/01/02 Leave a comment

Not cheery but realistic:

To the esteemed members of the public service,

As the calendar prepares for its switch to 2025, it is time to take stock of 2024 and what it portends for the new year.

First, the obvious: There is likely to be a change in the political control of the government. To put things bluntly, it would take a miracle (Christmas or otherwise) for Pierre Poilievre to not become prime minister in the first quarter of the new year, now that NDP leader Jagmeet Singh has indicated his intention of moving a vote of no confidence in the Liberal government.

What’s more, the current Conservative advantage in the polls translates into a size and strength of government that will be unlike anything we have seen in the modern age. Forget the first minority Harper government in 2006. Forget even the 2011 Harper majority. It is likely to be a record majority. As a result, Canadians are going to expect significant change and they will be expecting the public service to deliver that change.

And the public service is likely going to have to do so as a smaller team. Its numbers have grown — and grown enormously — under the current Liberal government. In 2015, the number was under 258,000. As of today, it is just under 368,000, which represents an expansion of some 43 per cent. Expect the headcount to come down, in some places significantly. There is no point bemoaning this fact.

It doesn’t matter what your politics are. Yes, you are here to advise the government of the day. But in the end, and after providing that fearless advice, you are also here to deliver the mandate of the government elected by the Canadian people. So public servants would do well to pay particular attention to the policy priorities of the modern Conservative Party of Canada. The carbon tax will go. Housebuilding will become (even more of) a priority. Budgets will be reduced. And criminal justice policy will once again become more aggressive.

Government workers will, of course, be busy elsewhere too. Canada’s foreign policy, for one, will take on a new posture. And those of you working in immigration are already toiling hard to reshape our core programs. We can expect this work to continue at pace. We have lost the pan-Canadian acceptance of our historically high immigration levels and we will have to work hard to re-establish control over the numbers, especially if the incoming American administration does what it says it will do with respect to a crackdown on illegal immigrants.

Indeed, the incoming Trump administration will provide a number of challenges to our country’s government. Many of you are already seized with tariff policy and border security measures. Many more of you will be seized by Canada’s reactions to the other whims of the former and soon-to-be president. An already increasingly unpredictable world is going to throw up even more wild cards.

It is perhaps trite to observe at this point that we are now a long way from the heady days of 2015, which is the last time this vast team of bureaucrats faced a change of administration. Ten years ago, public servants felt that their efforts were about to be more fully appreciated. Ten years on, many are sitting down with their families in apprehension this holiday period.

What I propose is to make this challenge an opportunity. For there is an advantage to be had. What the current prime minister has described as a “post-national state,” i.e. Canada, is once again about to feel acutely aware of its Canadianness in the face of Donald Trump. There is work everyone can do to make Canada (even) great(er) again.

As Marcus Aurelius once said: “The blazing fire makes flames and brightness out of everything thrown into it.” As Friedrich Nietzsche put it: “Amor fati”, i.e. love your fate. And if that’s too high-brow for you, you can try this: “If life gives you lemons, make lemonade.”

Source: MacDougall: Memo to the public service — From here on in, all change, all the time

Filed under Government Tagged with ,

A new generation of judges is redefining what Canada’s top courts look like 

2025/01/02 Leave a comment

Really good and thorough analysis of judicial appointments under the Liberal government. My 2016 analysis of the Harper government appointments referenced. Legacy achievement of the Liberals and their first minister of justice, Wilson-Raybould. The next needed analysis would be to assess their impact on jurisprudence and decisions, a much harder task.

Likely that there will be a contrary shift under the likely Poilievre government in terms of process, appointments and transparency (i.e. FCJAC reports):

…A decade ago, and forever before that, a clear majority of judges on Canada’s most important courts were white men. That began to change after the federal government’s 2016 reshaping of the judicial hiring process, which in part focused on increasing diversity.

Now, among 1,180 federally appointed judges, 47 per cent are women, 6 per cent are racialized and 2 per cent are Indigenous, according to data compiled by the Office of the Commissioner of Federal Judicial Affairs in 2024. It is the first time the agency has compiled statistics on the varied backgrounds of all judges who decide the biggest cases.

Underrepresentation remains an issue, especially among Indigenous and racialized people, but recent gains are significant. In unofficial data from 2016, compiled by a former senior federal civil servant [me!] in Policy Options magazine, 30 per cent of judges at the time on federally appointed benches were women, 2 per cent were racialized and 1 per cent were Indigenous…

Up until 2016, the top judicial ranks were dominated by white men, chosen by Liberal and Conservative governments alike. From 2007 through 2015, when Stephen Harper was prime minister, two-thirds of 701 appointments were men, according to earlier data on gender from Federal Judicial Affairs. For several years, almost all new judges appointed by Mr. Harper’s government were white, a 2012 Globe story reported.

The federal Conservative Party did not respond to requests for comment.

In the new data compiled by Federal Judicial Affairs, with numbers as of February, 2024, the shift under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is distinct….

Source: A new generation of judges is redefining what Canada’s top courts look like 


Filed under Government, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

‘We didn’t turn the taps down fast enough’: Immigration minister wants to save Canada’s consensus on newcomers

2025/01/02 Leave a comment

Yet another intv with immigration minister Miller, charged with correction the missteps of the government and his predecessors:

This year brought one of the most significant policy reversals in the Liberal government’s nine years in power: drastically cutting the number of immigrants entering Canada over the next three years.

The dramatic reduction followed months of warnings from economists, corporate banks and even the government’s own officials that Canada’s population growth was outpacing the availability of services and housing, driving up costs.

It marked a pivotal political moment for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who came to power in 2015 on a pro-immigration message. By this fall, Trudeau admitted they “didn’t get the balance quite right,” particularly coming out of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Immigration Minister Marc Miller sat down with National Post to discuss the government’s recent immigration changes.

National Post: You’re the fifth immigration minister for this government, but you’re the one who came in and had to reduce immigration levels. How does that feel?

Immigration Minister Marc Miller: Off the cuff, I think it was the right thing to do. I think it was an important thing to do for a number of things, just because of the need to make sure that we’re being responsible, to put the flow of people into the country and properly giving Canadians a snapshot of what population growth looks like in the context of a government that has been very bullish on immigration. I think rightly so. And I won’t pretend that we’ve gotten everything right, certainly haven’t in some respects, but we have gotten a lot right. Avoiding recessions has been important.

The prime minister put me in this position less than a year-and-a-half ago knowing that there needed to be some change and so gave me enough of a landing strip to be able to land a big bunch of policy planes and trusted me to do that. And so that is something that didn’t come out the head of one person. We were conscious as a government that there were some adjustments that needed to be made, but in a thoughtful way.

We do have, unfortunately, the tendency of confusing consensus with unanimity, we will not ever have unanimity on immigration. There are people that don’t want immigrants. There are people that want more than we can accommodate, but there is a consensus that’s been built. I think it’s one that is under some threat, if it hasn’t completely crashed in some other countries, but we have a unique moment in Canadian politics to get this right.

National Post: When did you realize you had to reduce permanent residents and what kind of sell was that to cabinet, maybe even the prime minister, caucus colleagues?

Miller: The levels plan are several months in the planning and it isn’t the result of one poll or one in-depth survey.

I truly wanted options this year that I could put in front of cabinet members where we could have a healthy discussion about where we wanted to see this country in the next three years, and what signal that sent to Canadians in the context of an election year. There will be no other levels plan, barring some extraordinary measure before the next election.

It’s very easy when you’re constantly increasing the numbers, to spread a little bit here and spread a little bit there. It’s a radically different intellectual and emotional exercise to say, ‘OK, well, we’ve got to cut 20 per cent, where you do care about immigration, where do you want to see this going?’ And it makes for some really difficult choices.

It is probably in my experience in cabinet, one of the cabinet items that is the most hotly debated with a variety of views that don’t always come to one mind. But I think on this one, there was broad consensus because of what people were hearing at the doors, I think what economists were signalling, what provinces and territories were telling us.

National Post: Did you have any colleagues saying ‘we can’t do 20 per cent?’

Miller: I’m not going to betray the trust that they put in me, but, you know, we have different views in our caucus and Canadians do as well.

Some people have huge hearts and want more refugees and humanitarian folks coming from the countries that are war torn. Certainly there’s an argument for that. Lots of people across Canada that want to bring the family members in, increasingly so with the number of first generation immigrants.

And then, you know, from the chambers of commerce, that want an unlimited supply of economic migrants, some temporary, some permanent.

There are different economic impacts: one, the initial investment into a refugee or an asylum seeker that pays off, perhaps only in the next generation or years later in someone’s career, if you look at it purely from an economic perspective and someone that comes in with a high set of skills and hits the ground running and integrates into society almost immediately.

National Post: Why should Canadians trust the Liberals to handle immigration when you and the prime minister have admitted you didn’t adjust as quickly as you could have?

Miller: It’s a fair question. I think we owe it to Canadians, first and foremost, to be honest with them and not double down when we get something wrong or not get it as right as we should have.

Let’s not underplay the good that’s happened with immigration. It is significant, and I think it has helped us get out of a perfect storm that we faced coming out of COVID.

We did, going into the COVID, particularly in my province (Quebec), have labour shortages (that) magnified coming out of COVID, so we scrambled pretty quickly to fill that and I think we did it successfully. What I would say, probably, is we didn’t turn the taps down fast enough and when it comes to international students, probably should have acted early.

I think we are being honest with Canadians. We’re being responsible in taking the shift, which is an important one, but not being cavalier in overcorrecting, which in these political situations is always a risk to simply please one group or another.

National Post: Was part of the reason you didn’t move fast enough was emotions people in cabinet have towards immigration and the role immigration has played to the Liberal brand?

Miller: I’m not too worried about our brand. It isn’t something I focus on too much when making policy.

I think there are legitimate questions about the impact of slowing down volume, the impact on the economy of having even a marginal population decline. When it comes to temporary residents, in my mind, I believe we probably trusted the provinces and the (post-secondary) institutions that they should be regulating better for too long.

National Post: Do you think that the time it took and some of the mistake made is contributing to the asks that are now coming from the incoming U.S. administration when it comes to immigration?

Miller: Not to downplay the asks, because I think we do have to take any actions or signals that the incoming administration is sending to us, I think we do have to take them seriously.

I think it’s the results of a toxic debate around immigration in the U.S., that is the result of how their southern border, the border with Mexico, is perceived and not with Canada.

There are some measures that I took coming into power … to put a little more discipline into the visa program, including the Mexican visa, actually putting the hammer down in May on Indian visas and visas from Bangladesh, so much so that our November numbers for transporter traffic is at a yearly low. That needs to continue.

National Post: Do you think you waited too long on the (Mexican) visa requirement because it had been an issue throughout 2023 and it wasn’t until February they were reinstated?

Miller: I won’t speculate specifically on that for a number of reasons, because there’s a lot of operational considerations that we take into account when making one of these decisions. They’re not taken lightly, particularly when we’re dealing with one of our larger trading partners in Mexico.

National Post: Are you considering any changes to the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement?

Miller: That is a discussion that is going to be had with the U.S. because it’s a two-way street. if we can always perfect the way the border is managed, I’m totally open to it. But amendments to the Safe Third Country Agreement at times requires a passage through Congress. It’s a long process that is a product of the U.S. machine.

On balance, it’s an agreement that has served us well. What I am considering is changes to the asylum system that could potentially address the way the … agreement gets gamed by people trying to come to Canada.

National Post: Why should there be an ability for someone to make an asylum claim if they didn’t come through an official port of entry?

Miller: People could be trying to save their own lives, and in any story of a refugee, you’ll find people that will commit technical breaches of the law in order to save their own lives.

I think it’s unfair to sort of paint them constantly, as quote unquote “illegals.” But there is a way to get into this country. It needs to be managed properly and it needs to be done in a way that’s fair and humane to folks.

Source: ‘We didn’t turn the taps down fast enough’: Immigration minister wants to save Canada’s consensus on newcomers

Filed under Immigration Tagged with

Snyder: The Mump Oligarchy — A Glossary

2025/01/02 Leave a comment

Snyder is providing some of the best macro-level analysis of the incoming administration and its acolytes. The recent infighting over H1-B visas being a recent example:

  1. Mump regime. Musk plus Trump. Mu…mp. The real centibillionaire and the fake rich person in the proper order.
  2. Mump oligarchy. The regime is an oligarchy, rule by the wealthy few. Trump is the oligarchs’ spokesman. He might stay or go. The oligarchs will remain.
  3. Mump as illness. Physical illness: we are made sick and scammed blind (think of RFK Jr and Ramaswamy). Mumps is one of the diseases that will return without vaccines. Mental illness: Musk’s idea of prosperity is that he hurts you and you thank him. See my work on sadopopulism. 
  4. In Mumptopia, Americans spend our time in front of screens, instructed whom to hate and worship by algorithms curated by immigrant software engineers. We die pointlessly young on an overheated Earth with the word “Mars” on our lips. The Mump mage performs a ritual rocket dance, leaping a few inches over our graves. 
  5. Mump not MAGA. The MAGA folks somehow did not realize that they were giving power to a an illegal immigrant South African centibillionaire. This is not their regime.
  6. Mumpers. South Africans, Russians, and others close to power. Musk, Putin, Thiel, Sacks, Trump (today), Vance (tomorrow) and their closest circles.
  7. Mumpery. Behavior typical of the Mump regime. Gaslighting, theft, scams, tax avoidance, disinformation, Putinism, dictator worship, threatening U.S. allies, submitting to U.S. enemies, persecuting Americans, suppressing speech with threats of violence and lawsuits, promoting pollution and global warming, ending public services.
  8. Mumpets. Those who choose to submit to Musk. For example, senators who ignore their constitutional responsibilities and vote for Trump’s Cabinet nominees, whose buffoonery and fascism are meant to weaken the state so Musk can profit. Compare: puppet, pet.
  9. To mumpify. To become a mumpet. Nouns can be formed from this verb. For example: “Senator Fetterman is pretty far along in his mumpification.” Or adjectives: “Yep, I’d say he’s mumpified by now.” Compare: zombify, zombification.
  10. Mumpy, or mumpish. People influenced by the Mump regime, or actions that tend towards a mumpified world. “That’s mumpier than I would have expected.” “She’s gone all mumpy on me.” Supercedes: trumpy.

Source: The Mump Oligarchy — A Glossary

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Newer posts →