Ottawa makes massive data change on temporary foreign worker numbers 

Hopefully the government will be fully transparent on how this happened and what changes are being made. This can further undermine general confidence in government management and administration given how fundamental accurate data to government programs:

The federal government has revised more than two decades of immigration data, saying that “technical difficulties” led to bloated figures for a subset of temporary foreign workers.

Slightly more than one million people held work permits through the International Mobility Program at the end of last year, an increase of 48 per cent from 2021, according to figures that were published by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada in February.

But recently, IRCC updated those numbers – and they are significantly different. Now, the federal government says that roughly 675,000 people held IMP work permits at the end of 2022, a decline of about 340,000 from the earlier dataset. The figures for all previous years, dating back to 2000, were also reduced.

Globe and Mail journalists recently discovered the revisions. The federal immigration department did not publish the new figures with an explanation for why they had changed so much.

IRCC spokesperson Matthew Krupovich said in a statement that the department experienced “technical difficulties” when producing the figures. The current numbers, he said, are “accurate.”

The Globe and Mail asked IRCC for a deeper explanation of these issues, but has yet to receive a response.

“It’s extremely frustrating,” said Mikal Skuterud, a professor of economics at the University of Waterloo, who uses these numbers in his research. “At a minimum, when you’re working with government data, you want to trust that they’re accurate.”

Canada’s population is growing at the fastest rate in decades, in large part because of temporary migration, including students and workers. The country grew by more than one million people in 2022, and just last week, the population surpassed 40 million.

The International Mobility Program plays a large role in population growth, accounting for the majority of temporary work permit holders. Within IMP, there are several streams of migration, including post-graduate workers and spouses of skilled workers.

The presence of temporary foreign workers has grown dramatically over the past two decades. Based on the updated numbers, the volume of IMP permits has grown by 1,434 per cent since 2000.

Canada’s growing reliance on temporary foreign labour has drawn criticism on several grounds, including that it shields employers from making more competitive wage offers to domestic workers or investing in new technologies.

Canada is increasingly moving to a two-step immigration process that sees people come here first as students or workers, who vie for the opportunity of securing permanent residency.

The federal government is ramping up targets for the admission of permanent residents to 500,000 annually by 2025.

Source: Ottawa makes massive data change on temporary foreign worker numbers

AI Makes Its Way to Immigration With New Tool to Aid Attorneys

Perhaps this may make some immigration lawyers less instinctively hostile to the use of AI by the government:

The makers of a new software platform are turning to artificial intelligence to boost immigration attorneys’ research and drafting efforts.

The American Immigration Lawyers Association is partnering with Visalaw.Ai, a platform built to aid attorneys with research and summarizing and drafting documents, to launch a product similar to OpenAI’s ChatGPT that will specialize in immigration-focused administrative and case law. AILA will allow its 16,000 members to beta test a tool—dubbed Gen—focused on research and summarization beginning this week at its annual conference outside of Orlando, Fla.

Additional tools are planned for subsequent roll outs that will aid in drafting legal documents and engaging clients.

“We think this will be a tremendous time saver for lawyers conducting research on a regular basis,” said Greg Siskind, a co-founder of Visalaw.Ai and partner at immigration firm Siskind Susser PC.

Attorneys’ use of AI tools like ChatGPT—a chatbot that searches vast tracts of information online based on human-like exchanges—can come with legal pitfalls.

One lawyer landed in hot water in federal district court in New York after filing a brief full of fictitious citations generated by the platform. And use of the open source software potentially could expose confidential client information because users submit information to train the AI platforms.

Siskind said the Visalaw platform will include a private feature, allowing members to draw on information from the platform without sending client information back. Partnering with AILA will also address quality issues by feeding the tool specific information related to immigration law that’s drawn from a huge legal library of regulations and secondary sources, he said.

“It’s set to be conservative in how it answers,” Siskind said of the platform.

Expanding use of technology could help close the gap in immigrants’ access to legal representation, said AILA Executive Director Benjamin Johnson. It’s also important for the organization to get involved in shaping new technology platforms for the immigration bar while they’re being developed, instead of reacting afterward, he said.

Much of the work of immigration law involves submitting forms and documents, rather than practicing in court. But the risks of technology being improperly used mean AILA has a responsibility to make sure any tools offered to its members are accurate and effective, Johnson said.

“We can stand on the sidelines and let somebody else shape the future for us. Or we can get engaged and determine how this should affect the immigration bar and the practice of immigration law,” he said. “In this environment, nobody can afford to stand on the sidelines.”

Access to the platform will be subscription-based, although Siskind said final pricing is still being worked out. AILA’s long-term relationship with the platform will be determined by members’ interactions with it, Johnson said.

To contact the reporter on this story: Andrew Kreighbaum in Washington at akreighbaum@bloombergindustry.com

Source: AI Makes Its Way to Immigration With New Tool to Aid Attorneys

U.S. is rejecting asylum seekers at much higher rates under new Biden policy

Of note:

A new Biden administration policy has dramatically lowered the percentage of migrants at the southern border who enter the United States and are allowed to apply for asylum, according to numbers revealed in legal documents obtained by The Times. Without these new limits to asylum, border crossings could overwhelm local towns and resources, a Department of Homeland Security official warned a federal court in a filing this month.

The new asylum policy is the centerpiece of the Biden administration’s border efforts.

Under the new rules, people who cross through a third country on the way to the U.S. and fail to seek protections there are presumed ineligible for asylum. Only people who enter the U.S. without authorization are subject to this new restriction.

The number of single-adult migrants who are able to pass initial screenings at the border has dropped from 83% to 46% under the new policy, the Biden administration said in the court filing. The 83% rate refers to initial asylum screenings between 2014 and 2019; the new data cover the period from May 12, the first full day the new policywas in place, through June 13.

Since the expiration of Title 42 rules that allowed border agents to quickly turn back migrants at the border without offering them access to asylum, the administration has pointed to a drop in border crossings as proof that its policies are working.

But immigrant advocates and legal groups have blasted Biden’s new asylum policy, arguing that it is a repurposed version of a Trump-era effort that made people in similar circumstances ineligible for asylum. (Under Biden’s policy, certain migrants can overcome the presumption that they are ineligible for asylum.) The ACLU and other groups have sought to block the rule in federal court in San Francisco, in front of the same judge who stopped the Trump policy years ago.

The new filing provides the first look at how the Biden administration’s asylum policy is affecting migrants who have ignored the government’s warnings not to cross the border.

“This newly released data confirms that the new asylum restrictions are as harsh as advocates warned,” said Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, policy director at the American Immigration Council. “The data contradicts conservative attacks on the rule for being too lenient. Less than 1 in 10 people subject to the rule have been able to rebut its presumption against asylum eligibility.”

The numbers show that, thus far, 8,195 asylum-seekers who crossed the border have had the new rules applied to them and 88% had the policy limit their chance at asylum. These migrants were forced to pass a higher standard of screening reserved for different forms of protection under U.S. law. Some 46% of migrants who were forced to go through the new approach either cleared the higher standard or established an exception to the rule, like a medical emergency.

These individuals will now have the chance to seek asylum, and other protections, in immigration court.

“As intended, the rule has significantly reduced screen-in rates for noncitizens encountered along the [Southwest border],” Blas Nuñez-Neto, a senior DHS official, wrote in the filing. “The decline in encounters at the U.S. border, and entries into the Darién Gap, show that the application of consequences as a result of the rule’s implementation is disincentivizing noncitizens from pursuing irregular migration and incentivizing them to use safe and orderly pathways.”

Reichlin-Melnick said that the few who did get past the new rule probably would not succeed in getting asylum in immigration court due to the policy but could still gain the other, lesser forms of protections offered under U.S. law.

Nuñez-Neto said that without the policy, DHS expects to see an increase in border crossings that would hurt local border communities and overstretch government resources.

He explained that DHS intelligence indicates that there are an estimated 104,000 migrants in northern Mexico and that many of these migrants appear to be “waiting to see whether the strengthened consequences associated with the rule’s implementation are real.”

Nuñez-Neto said the population in northern Mexico is within eight hours of the U.S. border. He cited the increase in arrests at the border in the run-up to the end of Title 42 earlier in May, when border agents were seeing upward of 10,000 migrants cross in a single day.

“DHS anticipates that any interruption in the rule’s implementation will result in another surge in migration that will significantly disrupt and tax DHS operations. This expectation is not speculative. DHS needs only to look back to the pre-May 12 surge, which was only blunted by the application of strengthened consequences at the border and expanded access to lawful pathways and processes, in large part as a result of the rule’s implementation on May 12, to identify the repercussions of losing the rule,” he wrote.

The Trump administration barred asylum for migrants who crossed the U.S. border and did not seek protections in another country on their journey. U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar later blocked the policy. The Supreme Court stayed the order.

The Times interviewed migrants in Mexico who said they were still assessing the border changes in May — including some who were worried about the new policy and its potential consequences. The Biden administration has advertised deportations and the immigration consequences for those who cross the border without authorization on social media and in statements.

Julia Gelatt, a senior policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, said the data revealed the policy changes at the border were making a difference in who was able to access asylum, though she noted that families were not included in the statistics presented by Nuñez-Neto.

“These data show that a much smaller share of single adult migrants are able to get into the United States to seek protections than before Title 42,” she said. “This represents a significant narrowing of the possibility of asylum for single adults coming to the border.”

Source: U.S. is rejecting asylum seekers at much higher rates under new Biden policy

Canadian Immigration Tracker – April 2023

Have am in the process of renaming this monthly update given COVID is long in the past, if not quite over.

Two things that struck me:

– Sharp decline in Permanent Residents admissions: from 44,780 in March to 29,335 in Apri

– Sharp decline in new Canadian citizens: from 28,249 in March to 15,220 in April

Reasons unclear.

Appears that data revisions for the IMP only affect the annual stock of permits, not the monthly flow data. We await more fulsome explanation from IRCC.

Canada: Staff Concluding Statement of the 2023 Article IV Mission [immigration and housing linkage]

One sentence but noteworthy reference to desirability of breaking down silos between immigration and housing, even it the likely participants are unlikely to consider the fundamental question of whether levels of permanent and temporary residents are too high:

Finally, actions are needed to promote housing supply and address affordability concerns. In the context of rising mortgage rates and the sharp increase in immigration, additional policy steps are needed to boost housing supply and promote housing affordability. While the Housing Accelerator Fund, introduced in the 2022 budget to provide incentives for municipalities to expand housing supply, is a step in the right direction, more needs to be done to expedite permitting and promote densification. Consideration could also be given to creating a permanent discussion forum for relevant stakeholders, including federal, provincial, and municipal officials responsible for both housing and immigration, as well as representatives of the construction industry and advocacy groups.

Source: Canada: Staff Concluding Statement of the 2023 Article IV Mission

Regg Cohn: Here’s what our Supreme Court got right about irregular migration

Good assessment:

Border crossing points are perennial flashpoints in Canada.

The Canada-U.S. boundary long ago emerged as an internal dividing line, pitting two premiers against the prime minister. Our traditionally undefended frontier — now heavily patrolled — also offered fodder for the political opposition in Parliament.

An attempt to bring order to the border disorder provided fresh ammunition for refugee rights advocates to fight it out in the courts. Their lawyers argued that we dare not return migrants to the U.S. because it’s simply not a safe space for the world’s refugees (news to those who keep trying and retrying to get in).

All of which makes the sudden unanimity of Canada’s Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the bilateral and controversial Safe Third Country Agreement so remarkable. If not necessarily surprising.

After years of litigation in the courts, and lengthy negotiation in two capitals, the improvised pathways that permitted migrants to enter Canada are now at a dead end. The country’s highest court ruled last week that the bilateral pact does not violate our Charter of Rights (setting aside one question on gender rights, to be retried by the lower courts).

The 8-0 decision was the culmination of bitter arguments about the border, political and legal. But it was also predictable and inevitable, because any other outcome would lead to an unsustainable and unrealistic free-for-all.

The fight over our frontier has been a battle on two fronts: first, the original 2004 agreement (contested in the courts); second, the subsequent flashpoints at unofficial pathways (like Quebec’s Roxham Road) not covered by the bilateral agreement — a loophole that allowed the Americans to refuse to take back so-called “irregular” migrants.

The logic behind the 2004 mutual border pact was that refugee claimants who seek asylum at official crossings were deemed to have found “safe harbour” wherever they set foot first, either America or Canada. That’s because migrants have no inherent right to cherry pick between the second or third country where they put down roots.

A bona fide refugee is fleeing war or persecution — not poverty or hopelessness at home. There is no provision for fine-tuning one’s final destination (or the process of refugee determination) merely because their second stop seems to some a hostile place.

Yes, Canada needs more people. But if we fail to maintain a clear distinction abroad between our regular immigration stream for selected applicants, and a regulated refugee stream for those who don’t necessarily qualify, then domestic support will atrophy.

Canadians, like people in other high-immigration countries, still want people to play by the rules. Never mind the cliché of “queue-jumpers,” Canada cannot countenance “country shoppers” without undermining the integrity of an already overloaded refugee determination system.

Critics argued that automatically sending applicants back to America subjected them to an arbitrary determination and detention system. The Supreme Court quite rightly countered that no system is perfect, and that America is a democracy where the rule of law still prevails, even if not always to our tastes; Canada is in no position to second guess every other quasi-judicial system in the world.

The political question that preceded this month’s court ruling arose over how to deal with the glaring loophole in the Safe Third Country Agreement, by which the Americans would only take back people at official crossings. In the aftermath, tens of thousands of migrants detoured instead to Roxham Road and other unofficial pathways far from those border posts.

The surge in refugee claimants, while not massive by global standards, had an upward curve that was impossible to ignore. Shortly after winning power in 2018, Premier Doug Ford picked a fight with the federal government for failing to clamp down on the border crossings; more recently, Quebec’s François Legault pressured Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to close the bilateral loophole.

With COVID came a clampdown, as both the Americans and Canadians were loath to let an uncontrolled stream of migrants into either country. Post-pandemic, Washington belatedly recognized the benefits of restoring order — not to appease Ottawa’s concerns but to address its own insecurities about the tens of thousands of irregular migrants crossing from Canada into the U.S. Last March, Canada and the U.S. closed the loophole on unofficial crossings — and with it, shut down Roxham Road.

For all its faults, America’s refugee system cannot be upgraded or downgraded based on whoever is in power. Would critics of the U.S. change their view of our supposedly superior system if Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre one day becomes PM while the Democrats rule in Washington?

If America is such hostile territory, why do so many still risk the hazard of an irregular border crossing to the U.S., with Canada merely a way station? Let us not forget the deaths of eight migrants (from two families, one Romanian and the other Indian) trying to cross the St. Lawrence River into the U.S. at night earlier this year. Or the family of four from India’s Gujarat state that froze to death trying to cross the border from Manitoba into the U.S. in 2022.

Migrants are only human — they will take desperate actions to escape persecution or poverty at home, for which Canadians must show consideration with our refugee determination procedures. But the notion that Canada should countenance risky or merely irregular measures for those fleeing supposed uncertainty or misery in America has no serious foundation in refugee law or the Charter of Rights.

Source: Here’s what our Supreme Court got right about irregular migration

Barutciski: Quebec’s caution about immigration is a lesson for all of Canada

I wouldn’t necessarily characterize as this driven by ideology as much as misplaced emphasis on demographics and overall GDP growth, along with siloed approaches that ignore the impacts of high levels of permanent and temporary immigration across all levels of government. And if driven by ideology, it is more by economic ideology than anything else.

But the demographic impact on lower levels in Quebec compared to the rest of Canada is significant, as it is with respect to Indigenous peoples:

Plans to boost immigration levels in Canada are raising questions. The recent suggestion that Canada will become a country of 100 million inhabitants created controversy particularly in Quebec. Large increases in permanent and temporary residents at a time when there is a housing shortage suggests federal policy is increasingly influenced by ideology, in contrast to past pragmatic approaches.

Although temporary permits increased under the Harper government, they exploded under the Trudeau government. Quebec’s new French language commissioner recently pointed out the impact of large numbers of foreign students in Montreal, a city worried that the use of French is being replaced by a generic North American culture and its English language. As a key actor in the historic compromise that established the federation, Quebec’s concerns should be taken seriously by any Canadian committed to successful immigration outcomes.

Although Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has stated that the 100 million is not governmental policy, it is impossible to ignore the context. Immigration is simply a more sensitive issue outside the English-speaking world. European countries such as Germany and France are open to immigration, but they handle language and culture prudently because of their stronger sense of identity. For example, nobody in Hamburg would accept basic demographic shifts that result in the local population being born largely outside of Germany, let alone brag about this development as a symbol of openness to diversity. While inclusive Torontonians have been doing this for years, it is clear that Quebec’s sensibilities are closer to continental Europe’s than to the rest of Canada.

The modern version of the ambitious 100-million project has been debated for more than a decade. It was notably proposed as a geopolitical project that focused on the multi-faceted benefits of a larger demographic base. The idea was then appropriated by the Toronto-based advocacy group known as the Century Initiative. This influential group focused on economic liberalization and transformed the goal into a more one-dimensional project responding to issues such as labour supply.

Yet two important constituencies were absent from the early stages of the Century Initiative’s deliberations: Quebec and Indigenous peoples. Their concerns about demographic submersion were ignored. This was the “diversity is our strength” approach within a Toronto-centric worldview that emphasized certain economic benefits while excluding other perspectives.

Congruence with the agenda of progressive ideologues was just a matter of time. As soon as Trudeau came to power in late 2015, some cabinet members pushed for a massive increase in immigration. In the burgeoning atmosphere of identity politics, anyone opposed to increased immigration could be accused of racism. Trudeau’s first minister of immigration, John McCallum, proved to be a moderate voice to the extent that the increases in overall immigrant numbers under his watch were a fraction of what was advocated by some other cabinet ministers. He even expressed reservations, acknowledging the risk that newcomers would converge on the country’s largest urban centres, thereby creating the impression of saturation which could in turn undermine public support for future increases.

Yet Trudeau’s ideological instincts tend to align more with establishment thinking in Toronto than in Quebec City. A clash with Quebec was inevitable given that it has more difficulty attracting immigrants who can integrate within its distinct francophone society. While steady increases may be possible, as recently suggested by Premier François Legault, demographic submersion is a real threat if the rest of Canada enjoys population growth that largely outpaces other G7 members.

The underlying tension results from English-speaking Canada’s overconfident multicultural policy, which allows the short-term welcoming of massive numbers of immigrants while dismissing potentially destabilizing effects of long-term demographic shifts. Just as for Quebec, this may prove to be an existential issue for Indigenous people who risk carrying even less weight in overall population numbers and accompanying political representation.

Any national party genuinely committed to unity should consider these challenges if the vast country is to remain pro-immigration. With regard to Quebec’s hesitations, it would help national cohesion to understand the challenges faced by francophone jurisdictions that are competing with the Anglosphere for immigrants from around the world. Condescension in relation to the specific integration difficulties experienced by Quebec is misplaced.

After all, no country has ever transformed its demographic base in such a way that the numerically dominant ethnic group voluntarily cedes its leading position to migrants invited from culturally diverse places. Canadians could be reassured that the transformation is not driven by ideology if the unique nature of this societal experiment were to be acknowledged and openly debated.

Michael Barutciski is coordinator of Canadian Studies at Toronto’s Glendon College, York University. He spent the spring in both Quebec and Germany comparing migration policies.

Source: Barutciski: Quebec’s caution about immigration is a lesson for all of …

Chinese, Vietnamese students caught up in college-admission scam, Ottawa says

Some useful data:

Students from China and Vietnam have been caught up in an immigration scam affecting Indian students involving fake acceptance letters to Canadian colleges, the federal immigration department told MPs.

Immigration Minister Sean Fraser told the Commons committee on citizenship and immigration that eight Indian students ensnared in the fraud have already been deported. But they could return to Canada “if they demonstrate that their intention to come to Canada was genuine and that they were not complicit in fraud.”

Mr. Fraser this week granted a reprieve from deportation to students who were unknowingly involved in the scam. They will be granted temporary residency permits while a task force investigates their cases to see if they were innocently duped or complicit in the immigration fraud.

The task force will look into the cases of 57 Indian students with bogus admission letters to Canadian colleges and universities who have been issued with removal orders, and 25 are going through the deportation process, deputy minister Christiane Fox told MPs on the immigration committee last Wednesday.

Ten Indian students found to have fake admission letters to colleges have left Canada voluntarily.

Ottawa launched a probe into 2,000 suspicious cases involving students from India, China and Vietnam earlier this year. It found that around 1,485 had been issued bogus documents to come to Canada by immigration consultants abroad, she said.

Although 85 per cent of the students affected by scams were from India, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada had also uncovered evidence of fraud affecting Chinese and Vietnamese students.

Ms. Fox said 976 of the students had been refused entry to Canada after their letters of acceptance from colleges were found to be fake, while 448 had their applications to come to Canada approved.

The deputy minister told the committee of MPs that around 300 of these students would have their cases individually investigated by the new task force. Others of the 448 who had their applications approved have been found to have been linked to “criminality.”

In the Commons last Friday, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre said the students had been “defrauded by shady consultants who gave them fake admission letters.” He said the newcomers should be given work permits while they wait for their applications for permanent residence to be processed.

Also on Friday, Conservative MPs called for overseas immigration consultants who duped the students to be blacklisted and all their files, including those in the past, to be reviewed.

“Every consultant or agent who scammed these international students should have the files they worked on reviewed to protect the victims and proactively inform them,” said Tom Kmiec, Conservative immigration critic. “Any consultant or agent who committed fraud should be barred and their names should be logged with IRCC to prevent future fraud.”

Saskatoon Conservative Brad Redekopp, who also sits on the immigration committee, urged the federal government to immediately start checking the files of overseas consultants found to have issued bogus documents. He told The Globe and Mail it was a problem that, while Canadian immigration consultants had to register and were subject to standards, overseas consultants did not face similar checks.

Ms. Fox said the department was already looking into the files of consultants found to have issued fake letters of acceptance to Canadian universities.

Mr. Fraser said the department had found that multiple consultants had been involved in the scam involving fake admission letters as part of study permit applications. He said the government was conducting hundreds of investigations to “bust fraudsters.”

In 2018, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada introduced a new program to verify letters of acceptance to colleges, he said. But he added the department deals with hundreds thousands of applications a year and it would be hard to manually verify every admission letter. He hoped that new efforts to clamp down on overseas scams could be aided by technology, but it also required the co-operation of foreign authorities.

He said he understood the situation was extremely distressing for students facing deportation, after being duped by “bad actors,” and their well-being was paramount.

The task force will look at whether they finished their studies or started work in Canada soon after they arrived.

Source: Chinese, Vietnamese students caught up in college-admission scam, Ottawa says

Blaming immigration for the country’s housing crisis disguises the real problem, analysts say

In denial. Not the only reason for the housing crisis but definitely a significant contributing factor:

It’s an argument that comes up time after time whenever there is a discussion about the housing crisis that plagues Metro Vancouver or anywhere else in Canada.

If Canada can’t house the people who already live here, we should stop letting more people into the country.

On Friday, the country’s population hit 40 million, with nearly all of last year’s growth due to immigration. The federal government has signed on to allow up to 500,000 newcomers into Canada annually by 2025.

Source: Blaming immigration for the country’s housing crisis disguises the real problem, analysts say

With new “talent visas,” other countries lure workers trained at U.S. universities

Of note and good overview:

When Cansu (pronounced “Johnsu”) Deniz Bayrak was deciding where to emigrate from her native Turkey, she first considered San Francisco.

Only in her 20s, she had already co-created an e-commerce website that rose to the top of its category in her home country, gotten snatched up by a tech company, then been poached by another tech firm. But she saw more opportunity in the United States, where there is a projected demand for more than 160,000 new software developers and related specialists per year, and where tech companies said in a survey that recruiting them is their biggest business challenge.

Bayrak quickly learned, however, that to come to the United States, she’d need an employer sponsor. Even then, she’d have to enter a lottery for an H-1B visa, with only one-in-four odds of being approved. If she was laid off, she’d have 60 days to find a new job, or she’d likely have to leave.

Source: Highly skilled workers thwarted by the U.S. immigration system find …