ICYMI – ‘A win on all fronts’: Federal Court quashes Ottawa’s attempt to stop legal challenge on cabinet secrets in Canada-U.S. refugee deal

Not all that surprised:

A Federal Court judge has rejected the Canadian government’s attempt to throw out a challenge by advocacy groups seeking greater transparency on how Ottawa decides to designate the United States as a safe country for refugees.

The legal challenge by the Canadian Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers and the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario asked the government to pull back the curtain on its internal reviews regarding the Safe Third Country Agreement with the U.S. In its application, the groups argue that Ottawa must be transparent about the process and ensure it complies with Canada’s Charter of Rights and its international legal obligations.

Under the bilateral refugee pact, which was introduced in 2004, most asylum seekers are required to claim protection in the first safe country they arrive in. This means Canada can turn back refugees arriving from the U.S. on the basis they should pursue their claims in the U.S.

The government brought forward a motion to strike the legal challenge last year, before the case could start. In a ruling on Monday, Justice Alan Diner rejected that request, saying the application was not “doomed to fail” and is strong enough to warrant a full hearing.

Diner wrote that at the core of the government’s argument is the question of what constitutes a decision when it’s required to conduct an ongoing review — “a legal question that should not be answered on a truncated record.”

The judge also granted the applicants “public interest standing,” while recognizing that the advocacy groups themselves are not “directly affected” individuals like refugee claimants.

While the government argued the challenge was filed too late, Diner granted an extension and agreed with the applicants in finding that the delay was reasonable because the legal pathway to challenge the review process only became clear following a 2023 Supreme Court of Canada decision.

Maureen Silcoff, a co-counsel for the refugee lawyer association, described the ruling as “a win on many fronts.”

The question of why the Canadian government is continuing to designate the U.S. a safe country is more pertinent now than ever, Silcoff told the Star. “All we have to do is look south of the border and we see that the current administration has essentially eradicated the asylum process,” she said….

Source: ‘A win on all fronts’: Federal Court quashes Ottawa’s attempt to stop legal challenge on cabinet secrets in Canada-U.S. refugee deal

Officials processing foreign nationals’ visas, permanent-residence applications will not face job cuts: minister

Of note and to watch whether processing times improve or not:

Federal employees processing applications from foreign nationals for temporary or permanent residence in Canada will be insulated from forthcoming public-service cuts, Immigration Minister Lena Diab says.

Government departments have begun rolling out plans to reduce staffing levels, honouring a pledge made in last year’s budget to cut the number of public servants by about 30,000 over five years. The federal public service numbered almost 358,000 employees last year.

Statistics Canada this month said it plans to cut more than 850 jobs. 

Natural Resources Canada told The Globe and Mail last week that approximately 700 employees received letters last month informing them that their position may be affected. The department said it plans to eliminate approximately 400 positions by 2028-29.

Other government departments are expected to announce job cuts shortly. 

In an interview, Ms. Diab, who oversees Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, said public servants working on applications for settlement, employment and study here will not be among those facing job cuts.

She said the agency’s staffing is tied to Ottawa’s annual immigration levels plan, which sets targets for the numbers of people admitted for entry to Canada.

“The way IRCC has been funded over the years, it’s funded based on the levels plan, and so therefore that will not change. The people that are processing those numbers, they’ll still be there. They will not be affected,” Ms. Diab said. 

IRCC has huge backlogs in processing of applications for permanent residence, with some wait times stretching to more than 10 years. 

Toronto immigration lawyer Stephen Green said many applicants were facing long delays in decisions about their immigration status because of the backlogs. But he said IRCC officers were creating more work by failing to call applicants who may have, for instance, made slight mistakes or forgotten to include a document with their application. He said rejections of applications for small errors were leading to a slew of Federal Court challenges. 

“They need better processing, and just picking up the phone to check things could increase efficiencies. If picking up the phone can resolve an issue quickly, officials should be encouraged to do that,” Mr. Green said. 

Source: Officials processing foreign nationals’ visas, permanent-residence applications will not face job cuts: minister

Canada can offer comfort to Ukrainians with a path to permanent residency

Not unexpected call:

…Canada should establish a targeted, time-limited pathway to permanent residence for eligible CUAET holders, a focused pilot program delivered federally, under existing ministerial authority, without the need for new regulations.

Such a program should be disciplined and defensible. Eligibility would be limited to Ukrainians who entered Canada under CUAET by March 31, 2024; maintained legal status; and can demonstrate at least six months of full-time work, or its equivalent. Modest language thresholds would apply. Applications would be accepted only within a fixed intake window, underscoring that this is an exceptional response to exceptional circumstances, not an open-ended program.

This initiative should be carried out federally, not by provincial nominee programs, which would add complexity, delay and political friction. Quebec’s distinct immigration jurisdiction would require consultation and co-ordination….

John Weston is a government relations and communications expert, former member of Parliament, and president of Pan Pacific Solutions Ltd.

Source: Canada can offer comfort to Ukrainians with a path to permanent residency

How Many People Has Trump Deported So Far?

Over the past year, President Trump’s administration has deported about 230,000 people who were arrested inside the country and another 270,000 at the border, a New York Times analysis of federal data shows.

The number of deportations from interior arrests since Mr. Trump took office is already higher than the total during the entire four years of the Biden administration. It offers the clearest measure of the impact of Mr. Trump’s immigration crackdown and expansive efforts to fulfill his campaign promise to deport millions of people.

At the same time, the number of people trying to cross the Southwest border has fallen to record lows. As a result, far fewer people were arrested and deported from the border than in the preceding few years.

Another roughly 40,000 people returned to their countries after signing up to “self-deport” and receive a stipend through a novel program and app provided by the administration.

That brings the total number of deportations since Mr. Trump took office to 540,000 — fewer than in the last two years of the Biden administration, when border crossings were at record highs. There were 590,000 total deportations in 2023 and 650,000 in 2024….

Source: How Many People Has Trump Deported So Far?

Immigrants more likely to cite human rights, diversity as ‘Canadian values’: survey

Of note:

Immigrants are more likely than those born in Canada to identify things like respect for human rights and gender equality as “shared Canadian values,” say survey results in briefing notes prepared for Immigration Minister Lena Diab.

The survey results — part of a package assembled for the minister when she took over the portfolio last May — were obtained by The Canadian Press through an access to information request.

The Statistics Canada survey asked respondents whether they saw human rights, respect for the law, gender equality, linguistic duality, ethic and cultural diversity and respect for Indigenous culture as shared “Canadian values.”

In each case, the percentage of immigrants surveyed who said they saw those values as distinctly Canadian was higher than the percentage of people born in Canada who said the same.

The data was pulled from Statistics Canada’s December 2022 general survey on social identity. The data was collected between August 2020 and February 2021, with a sample of more than 34,000 people that included almost 14,000 landed immigrants.

The survey suggests 67 per cent of immigrants who were aged 13 or older when they came to Canada see respect for the law as a shared Canadian value, while just 40 per cent of respondents born here agreed.

The responses from people who came to Canada aged 12 and younger were more in line with those of people born here.

Lori Wilkinson, Canada Research Chair in migration at the University of Manitoba, said she thinks that statistic is the result of a younger cohort of immigrants growing up in Canada.

“The longer (immigrants) stay here, the more they act Canadian. And I suspect that that’s an issue with attitudes as well,” she said.

“The more you’re here, you pick up the norms and values of the Canadians that you live around. So it’s not surprising they become more like Canadians.”

The survey suggests about 58 per cent of immigrants are satisfied with their lives, while just 44 per cent of Canadian-born respondents said the same.

The survey was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic — a time when many people were stuck at home due to public health measures and more likely to be out of work.

Daniel Bernhard, CEO of the Institute for Canadian Citizenship, said this result matches research his organization has conducted. He said immigrants tend to be more focused on their potential for future prosperity after making personal sacrifices to come to Canada.

“There is recognition there that it is difficult to move to a new country, that the economic conditions here, you know, can be difficult for everybody. But as long as they feel that they’re making progress, they’ll be willing to stay,” he said.

Bernhard said his institute has also found immigrant attitudes tend to converge with those of Canadian-born citizens the longer they’re in Canada.

Wilkinson said she expects satisfaction rates across the entire population have declined in recent years due to the elevated cost of living.

“I think people in general, whether you’re immigrant or not, are going to be more angry the longer that affordability is not addressed, the longer homelessness and (housing) precarity are not addressed,” she said….

Source: Immigrants more likely to cite human rights, diversity as ‘Canadian values’: survey

L’immigration se régionalise au Québec, The immigration shift away from Canada’s three biggest cities

Of note:

“Le dernier bilan démographique des régions laisse entrevoir une répartition accrue de l’immigration aux quatre coins du Québec. Si Montréal attire encore la majorité des nouveaux arrivants, les autres régions obtiennent une part de plus en plus grande du gâteau. La régionalisation tant souhaitée depuis des décennies est-elle en voie de se réaliser ?

La part des immigrants permanents s’installant à Montréal a de nouveau reculé, passant de 48 à 45 % sur un an, selon les données publiées mercredi par l’Institut de la statistique du Québec (ISQ) pour la période allant du 1er juillet 2024 au 1er juillet 2025.

Il y a 20 ans, cette proportion était de 75 %.

Après Montréal, c’est la Montérégie (13,2 %) et la Capitale-Nationale (12,8 %) qui attirent le plus les nouveaux arrivants, suivies de Laval (5,2 %), de l’Outaouais (4,6 %) et de Chaudière-Appalaches (3,6 %).

Dans le même bilan, on remarque aussi que dans 11 des 17 régions du Québec, le nombre de nouveaux immigrants admis à titre de résidents permanents a été le plus élevé depuis que les données sont disponibles, soit depuis 2001.

“Le dernier bilan démographique des régions laisse entrevoir une répartition accrue de l’immigration aux quatre coins du Québec. Si Montréal attire encore la majorité des nouveaux arrivants, les autres régions obtiennent une part de plus en plus grande du gâteau. La régionalisation tant souhaitée depuis des décennies est-elle en voie de se réaliser ?

La part des immigrants permanents s’installant à Montréal a de nouveau reculé, passant de 48 à 45 % sur un an, selon les données publiées mercredi par l’Institut de la statistique du Québec (ISQ) pour la période allant du 1er juillet 2024 au 1er juillet 2025.

Il y a 20 ans, cette proportion était de 75 %.

Après Montréal, c’est la Montérégie (13,2 %) et la Capitale-Nationale (12,8 %) qui attirent le plus les nouveaux arrivants, suivies de Laval (5,2 %), de l’Outaouais (4,6 %) et de Chaudière-Appalaches (3,6 %).

Dans le même bilan, on remarque aussi que dans 11 des 17 régions du Québec, le nombre de nouveaux immigrants admis à titre de résidents permanents a été le plus élevé depuis que les données sont disponibles, soit depuis 2001.

« Les migrations internationales occupent un rôle accru dans le bilan démographique de certaines régions où, il n’y a pas si longtemps, “l’immigration jouait un rôle assez mineur, notamment dans les régions plus éloignées des grands centres. Dans les dernières années, ç’a été déterminant dans des régions comme l’Abitibi-Témiscamingue, la Côte-Nord, le Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean », observe Martine St-Amour, démographe à l’ISQ.



Sans l’immigration, la plupart des régions vivraient une décroissance démographique.”.

Source: “L’immigration se régionalise au Québec”

“The latest demographic assessment of the regions suggests an increased distribution of immigration across the world of Quebec. While Montreal still attracts the majority of newcomers, the other regions are getting an increasingly large share of the cake. Is the regionalization that has been longed for decades in the process of being realized?

The share of permanent immigrants settling in Montreal has declined again, from 48 to 45% over a year, according to data released Wednesday by the Institut de la statistique du Québec (ISQ) for the period from July 1, 2024 to July 1, 2025.

20 years ago, this proportion was 75%.

After Montreal, it is the Montérégie (13.2%) and the Capitale-Nationale (12.8%) that attract the most newcomers, followed by Laval (5.2%), the Outaouais (4.6%) and Chaudière-Appalaches (3.6%).

In the same assessment, we also note that in 11 of the 17 regions of Quebec, the number of new immigrants admitted as permanent residents has been the highest since the data is available, since 2001.

“The latest demographic assessment of the regions suggests an increased distribution of immigration across the world of Quebec. While Montreal still attracts the majority of newcomers, the other regions are getting an increasingly large share of the cake. Is the regionalization that has been longed for decades in the process of being realized?

The share of permanent immigrants settling in Montreal has declined again, from 48 to 45% over a year, according to data released Wednesday by the Institut de la statistique du Québec (ISQ) for the period from July 1, 2024 to July 1, 2025.

20 years ago, this proportion was 75%.

After Montreal, it is the Montérégie (13.2%) and the Capitale-Nationale (12.8%) that attract the most newcomers, followed by Laval (5.2%), the Outaouais (4.6%) and Chaudière-Appalaches (3.6%).

In the same assessment, we also note that in 11 of the 17 regions of Quebec, the number of new immigrants admitted as permanent residents has been the highest since the data is available, since 2001.

“International migration plays an increased role in the demographic balance of certain regions where, not so long ago, “immigration played a rather minor role, especially in regions further away from major centers. In recent years, this has been decisive in regions such as Abitibi-Témiscamingue, Côte-Nord, Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean, “observes Martine St-Amour, a demographer at the ISQ.

Without immigration, most regions would experience a demographic decline.”

At the national level, The immigration shift away from Canada’s three biggest cities:

Canada’s three largest metropolitan areas once together attracted the vast majority of new immigrants to Canada, but a combination of eroding affordability and the influx of international students to smaller cities has sent the three cities’ share of new immigrants to a record low.

Over the 12 months ending in mid-2025, the three census metropolitan areas of Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal attracted a combined 46 per cent of new immigrants, down from close to 80 per cent two decades earlier, according to municipal-level population estimates released by Statistics Canada.

Across Canada, the number of new immigrants is in decline as Ottawa tightens its immigration rules, falling 6.2 per cent between 2023-24 and 2024-25. But the drops in Toronto and Vancouver were particularly steep, declining 10 per cent and 14 per cent, respectively. 

The decline in the large cities’ share of new immigrants is explained, in part, by the number of international students who attended college or university outside of the three major metro areas, then later obtained permanent residency in those smaller locales, said Mike Moffatt, an economist and founding director of the Missing Middle Initiative at the University of Ottawa.

But the declining share is part of a broader population slowdown for Canada’s largest urban centres, with growth in Toronto and Vancouver in particular coming to a standstill. 

Fixing Canada’s broken immigration system – Presenting more data to Parliament: Michael Barutciski

First in a series of opinion pieces by MLI. In reading Barutciski’s recommendations for more data, he presents the case as if no data available when in fact in most areas he mentions, open data has rich data sets, albeit historic but regularly updated. Valid to argue more breakdowns in terms of future permanent and temporary residents and the like in the annual levels plan. Certainly, he flags some areas where data is lacking, particularly exit data undocumented, removals and deportations.

On country of origin, he argues that “Identifying source countries can also help to clarify whether immigrants are coming from jurisdictions with inferior educational standards and from cultures that are not necessarily going to make it easy for them to succeed in Canada.” I would argue better to focus on the skill, education level etc rather than country of origin, as there is a mix of skill levels in all countries, and selection should focus on the higher skilled within each country (dilution of the CRS used in Express Entry is of concern in that regard). His arguments tend towards generalizations with some reasonable examples, but no government is likely to return essentially back to race or country criteria.

One particularly notable gap is relative silence on the impact of immigration on housing, healthcare, infrastructure etc, which has largely contributed to the shift to lower support for immigration. This needs to be part of the levels plan, along with a number of his suggestions, some of which are being implemented (e.g., temporary residents), albeit imperfectly.

Recommendations as follows:

Recommendation: Section 94 of the IRPA should be amended to oblige the immigration minister to provide Parliament with data on countries of origin for all migrant categories.

Recommendation: Section 94 of the IRPA should be amended to also include detailed information on temporary residents.

Recommendation: Section 94 of the IRPA should be amended to oblige the immigration minister to provide data on work permits issued to temporary residents.

Recommendation: International students should be required to show to the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) upon arrival that they have pre-paid full tuition.

Recommendation: To encourage scrutiny of any discrepancies between issued visas and actual enrolment, the immigration minister should be obliged under section 94 of the IRPA to report on immigration compliance data from educational institutions.

Recommendation: The federal government should clarify the objectives of the IMP and provide data on who is being admitted under this stream, along with future planning.

Recommendation: The federal government should explore the feasibility of authorizing all provinces to select their own candidates for the IMP.

Recommendation: In accordance with the Statistics Act, the Chief Statistician should be directed to revise the assumption that non-permanent residents leave the country 120 days after visa expiry. The Chief Statistician should correspondingly adjust the way general statistics relating to immigration and emigration under s. 22 of the Act are collected and analyzed.

Recommendation: CBSA should be directed by the minister of public safety to provide Statistics Canada with its exit data. Data related to the relationship between expired visas and actual departures at the border should be presented in the report produced by the minister of immigration under section 94 of the IRPA.

Recommendation: The Canada Revenue Agency Act should be amended to oblige the CRA to provide Canada Border Services Agency and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada with any data it holds regarding migrants unlawfully present in the country. These data should be presented in the report produced by the minister of immigration under section 94 of the IRPA.

Recommendation: Section 94 of the IRPA should be amended to oblige the minister of immigration to provide information about the country of origin of asylum seekers, the location where they presented their claim, along with their immigration status prior to the claim.

Recommendation: The immigration minister’s annual report under s. 94 of IRPA should specify the following information regarding asylum claims: it should include how many migrants claim asylum each year, how many proceed to a hearing before the IRB, how many are recognized as needing protection, how many remain in Canada despite not being granted formal protection, how many benefit from a deferral or moratorium regarding removal, as well as how many disappear altogether from the system. For a truly constructive debate, the immigration minister should be encouraged to present comparable data regarding our peers: the US, the UK, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, along with other EU member states such as Sweden and Denmark.

Recommendation: Section 94 of the IRPA should be amended so that the minister of immigration is required to provide data on removals and deportations.

Source: Fixing Canada’s broken immigration system – Presenting more data to Parliament: Michael Barutciski

Nicolas | Maintenant… l’avenir du Québec

Lot’s of various commentary, with this one focussing on the polarization on identity issues Legault engendered:

…“Des ministres comme Jean-François Roberge, Simon-Jolin Barrette et Bernard Drainville semblent particulièrement à l’aise avec l’aspect plus « identitaire » de la coalition. Je soupçonne fortement des ministres comme Mathieu Lacombe, Eric Girard ou Sonia LeBel de nourrir ailleurs leur passion pour la chose publique. Je ne sais pas si Kateri Champagne Jourdain est particulièrement à l’aise avec le traitement réservé aux Premiers Peuples dans le projet de Constitution québécoise. Je mettrais ma main au feu que le discours de certains collègues sur l’immigration ou sur le filet social a travaillé la solidarité ministérielle d’un Lionel Carmant, bien avant que le débat sur la rémunération des médecins ne soit lancé.

Le premier ministre a démissionné en reconnaissant que les Québécois veulent du changement. Sa succession doit être libre de prendre ses distances par rapport à certaines de ses idées, méthodes, discours ou approches. La course au leadership qui s’organise devra certainement être libre d’en débattre.

“Si la CAQ veut se donner une chance de se renouveler, la première étape, c’est de ne pas lier les mains de sa succession à un agenda législatif qui non seulement polarise inutilement et crée de potentiels dommages à notre état de droit, mais n’aura pas réussi à faire ce pour quoi il a été pensé : sauver François Legault et son parti. Il faut proroger le Parlement durant la course, se donner au moins l’option de repartir sur du neuf.”

Source: Chronique | Maintenant… l’avenir du Québec

“Ministers like Jean-François Roberge, Simon-Jolin Barrette and Bernard Drainville seem particularly comfortable with the more “identity” aspect of the coalition. I strongly suspect ministers like Mathieu Lacombe, Eric Girard or Sonia LeBel of nurturing their passion for public affairs elsewhere. I don’t know if Kateri Champagne Jourdain is particularly comfortable with the treatment reserved for the First Peoples in the Quebec Constitution project. I would put my hand on the fire that the speech of some colleagues on immigration or the social net worked the ministerial solidarity of a Lionel Carmant, long before the debate on the remuneration of doctors was launched.

The Prime Minister resigned, acknowledging that Quebecers want change. His succession must be free to distance himself from some of his ideas, methods, speeches or approaches. The leadership race that is being organized will certainly have to be free to debate it.

“If the CAQ wants to give itself a chance to renew itself, the first step is not to bind the hands of its succession to a legislative agenda that not only polarizes unnecessarily and creates potential damage to our rule of law, but will not have succeeded in doing what it was designed for: saving François Legault and his party. We must extend the Parliament during the race, at least give ourselves the option to start again.”

MPI: Unleashing Power in New Ways: Immigration in the First Year of Trump 2.0

Usual good and comprehensive analysis by MPI:

Having campaigned on and won re-election with immigration as a top issue, President Donald Trump has kept it at center stage in the first year of his second term. Immediately upon returning to office, the administration advanced sweeping changes to immigration policy, unprecedented in their breadth and reach. These changes have made the United States more hostile to unauthorized immigrants while also altering how the government treats immigration and immigrants of all legal statuses and the communities in which they live. The impacts on individuals, families, workplaces, and the nation’s overall economic outlook and global standing will be felt for years ahead.

While some efforts have stalled or not yet met the White House’s lofty goals, the administration has dramatically reshaped the machinery of government to target unauthorized immigrants in the country, deter unauthorized border arrivals, make the status of many legally resident immigrants more tenuous, and impose obstacles for lawful entry of large swaths of international travelers and would-be immigrants. These changes could set the course for reduced family, humanitarian, and employment-based immigration in the future, while also driving key aspects of U.S. foreign policy.

In This Article

To accomplish the administration’s mass deportation goal, Trump advisor Stephen Miller and other aides dismantled longstanding norms. The White House invoked archaic statutes, enlisted support from state and local law enforcement as well as federal agencies that historically had no immigration enforcement role, and pressured foreign governments to receive deportees. Perhaps most visibly, it militarized immigration enforcement: Scenes of troops and masked federal agents roaming U.S. streets, lobbing tear gas and in some cases violently—and even fatally—subduing individuals, have garnered global attention and profoundly changed how many residents go about their daily lives. Among other changes, some U.S. citizens now feel compelled to carry identification with them at all times.

The administration has leaned heavily on executive action rather than seeking legislative change in Congress. As of January 7, Trump had signed 38 executive orders related to immigration, accounting for nearly 17 percent of the 225 total orders signed so far during his first year, which is more than the 220 executive orders signed during his entire first term. The administration also ushered in hundreds of other actions via presidential proclamations and policy guidance that have had profound impacts on immigration policy. The Migration Policy Institute (MPI) estimates that the Trump administration in the first year of its second term took more than 500 actions on immigration, surpassing the 472 actions over all four years of Trump’s first term.

While some elements of the administration’s approach mirror policies of the prior term, albeit at far greater scale and scope, the changes of the last year have been arguably more impactful than any during the first term. Administration officials appear to have learned from their first-term experience and have also benefited from a much more sympathetic Congress and Supreme Court. Indeed, Congress in July provided the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with a staggering $170 billion to upscale over Trump’s second term what was already the world’s largest detention and deportation machinery. And the Supreme Court has greenlit several high-profile actions, including revoking Temporary Protected Status (TPS) from about 600,000 Venezuelans, although it blocked the administration from deporting noncitizens without due process and did not allow deployment of the National Guard for immigration enforcement. Key questions on birthright citizenship and other immigration policies are yet to be resolved.

The net change has been dizzying in its scope and speed. After the administration further shut down access to asylum, unauthorized arrivals at the U.S.-Mexico border plummeted to the lowest levels since the 1970s. This development has allowed the administration to shift its focus largely to unauthorized immigrants living in the United States, whom MPI estimates numbered 13.7 million as of mid-2023. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrests have more than quadrupled since Trump took office, while average daily detention has doubled. On December 19, DHS said that 622,000 noncitizens had been deported since Trump took office, a high—but not historic—number. It is below the 778,000 repatriations carried out in the final full fiscal year of the Biden administration, and well short of the Trump team’s pledge of 1 million deportations per year. The administration’s deportation number likely includes noncitizens turned away at U.S. borders and at airports; limited release of immigration enforcement data means it is unclear who is being counted and how. While the administration claims 1.9 million people have “self-deported” during that same period, it has not provided any data, including on use of the CBP Home app, through which immigrants are offered a free flight and $1,000 payment if they return to their origin country.

The hardline approach has extended to many lawfully present immigrants and those aspiring to come legally. The administration has stripped temporary legal protections from more than 1.5 million humanitarian parolees, nearly completely halted refugee resettlement, and severely restricted access to asylum. It has also erected obstacles and therefore slowed the granting of lawful permanent residence, temporary visas, and U.S. citizenship. International students and scholars have been targeted for expressing their political opinions, many newcomers face extensive vetting of their social media activity and medical history, and hefty new fees and visa bonds have caused some would-be immigrants and visitors to rethink plans to come to the United States. Slower legal immigration will likely affect labor markets, local economies, and the broader economic outlook for years to come, with the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas and the Congressional Budget Office already reporting negative effects and potential future implications.

This article reviews the changes to U.S. immigration policy during the first year of the second Trump term….

Source: Unleashing Power in New Ways: Immigration in the First Year of Trump 2.0

Ottawa’s shutting-out of startup founders is shutting down Canada’s future

Hard to square “rigorous integrity checks” with speed in decision making. Government generally has a poor record in assessing business immigration programs:

…We are not the only country wrestling with the politics of immigration. Even as the United States turns inward and raises barriers for skilled workers and entrepreneurs, its technology dominance still rests disproportionately on immigrant founders and their teams. 

This should be Canada’s moment: to position ourselves as the destination of choice for the world’s builders, especially in the sectors that will determine our economic sovereignty – artificial intelligence, quantum computing, defence and dual‑use technologies, life sciences, energy transition and advanced manufacturing.

It is not too late to correct course. Ottawa must treat the shutdown of the Start‑up Visa Program not as a restart but a fast pivot. That pivot must include a fast‑track, by‑invitation pathway for founders with credible backing to build from Canada, with rigorous integrity checks rather than paralyzing backlogs. Anything less will send the most ambitious entrepreneurs elsewhere.

Yung Wu is a serial entrepreneur and the former chief executive of MaRS Discovery District.

Source: Ottawa’s shutting-out of startup founders is shutting down Canada’s future