ICYMI – David: Le véritable adversaire [en immigration]

2022/05/30 Leave a comment

Of note, useful analysis. Likely won’t be pretty:

Durant la campagne électorale de 2018, François Legault s’était impatienté lors d’une conférence de presse face à l’insistance des journalistes qui le questionnaient sur ses positions en matière d’immigration.

« Vous parlez beaucoup d’immigration, mais pas les personnes normales », leur avait-il lancé. Les « personnes normales » lui parlaient de tout autre chose, par exemple de Gaétan Barrette, disait le chef de la CAQ.

C’était pourtant lui qui avait choisi d’introduire le sujet dans la campagne pour embarrasser Philippe Couillard, mais il était vite apparu qu’il le maîtrisait très mal. Les modalités de l’entente Canada-Québec signée en 1991 lui échappaient visiblement, tout comme les conditions d’obtention de la citoyenneté canadienne. Il devenait donc urgent de passer à autre chose.

Cette fois-ci, le premier ministre a eu le temps de faire ses devoirs et a manifestement décidé d’en faire un thème important de la prochaine campagne. Pour mettre la table, son bureau a donc laissé filtrer au Journal de Québec les résultats d’un sondage que la CAQ a commandé à la firme Léger dans le but de démontrer que, contrairement à ce qu’il soutenait il y a quatre ans, les « personnes normales » sont très préoccupées par la question.

Plus de deux Québécois francophones sur trois (68 %) sont d’avis que les seuils d’immigration sont déjà suffisamment ou trop élevés, que les nouveaux arrivants n’ont pas une connaissance suffisante du français (65 %) et qu’ils adoptent davantage l’anglais que le français comme langue d’usage (66 %). Près de la moitié (48 %) estiment qu’il s’agit de la plus grande menace pour le français.

Pratiquement assuré d’être reporté au pouvoir, M. Legault n’a pas vraiment besoin d’accuser encore le PLQ de mettre la nation en danger ni de se lancer dans une surenchère identitaire avec le PQ. Ces deux partis tenteront au mieux de sauver les meubles le 3 octobre. L’électorat de QS est presque totalement imperméable au discours caquiste et la position du Parti conservateur d’Éric Duhaime sur l’immigration n’est pas si éloignée de celle de la CAQ.

En réalité, son véritable adversaire est Justin Trudeau. En 2018, il prétendait que ce dernier serait obligé de répondre positivement à ses demandes si les Québécois lui donnaient un « mandat clair ». Il a obtenu ce mandat et M. Trudeau est pourtant demeuré inébranlable. Il en obtiendra sans doute un encore plus clair, mais cela fera-t-il vraiment fléchir son adversaire, qui entend augmenter massivement le nombre d’immigrants au Canada ?

En fin de semaine prochaine, les délégués au congrès de la CAQ seront invités à adopter une résolution réclamant que le gouvernement fédéral transfère au Québec « l’ensemble des pouvoirs en matière d’immigration le plus rapidement possible ». C’est même plus que ce que M. Legault a demandé jusqu’à présent, dans la mesure où il accepte que l’accueil des réfugiés demeure de juridiction fédérale.

Or, tous les Québécois ne sont pas aussi convaincus qu’Ottawa devrait céder des pouvoirs. Selon le sondage Léger-CAQ, 52 % des francophones, mais seulement 30 % des 18-34 ans sont de cet avis, alors que 50 % de ces derniers estiment que la situation actuelle devrait être maintenue ou même que les pouvoirs d’Ottawa devraient être augmentés. Sans surprise, seulement 7 % des non-francophones souhaitent que le Québec en obtienne davantage.

Pour renforcer cet appui et accroître le rapport de force face à Ottawa, la campagne électorale pourrait être le prélude au lancement d’une grande « conversation » nationale. Dans l’entourage de M. Legault, on jongle avec l’idée de réunir des États généraux sur l’immigration, qui engageraient l’ensemble de la société québécoise dans un vaste exercice de réflexion sur son avenir collectif. Cela ne pourrait certainement pas nuire.

La formule n’est pas nouvelle. On pense immédiatement aux « États généraux du Canada français », dans les années 1960, qui avaient marqué une étape décisive dans le développement du mouvement nationaliste et affirmé le droit du Québec à son autodétermination, mais il s’agissait là d’une initiative de la société civile.

En 2001, le gouvernement Bouchard avait organisé des « États généraux sur la situation et l’avenir de la langue française au Québec », présidés par l’ancien président de la CSN Gérald Larose. Ils n’avaient pas eu un gros effet, dans la mesure où Lucien Bouchard y voyait simplement un prix de consolation pour les militants péquistes qui réclamaient à grands cris un retour à la loi 101 originelle.

Les militants caquistes sont loin d’être aussi exigeants envers leur chef que l’étaient ceux du PQ à l’époque. Ils se contentent de le suivre sans jamais le bousculer. Si M. Legault décidait de lancer une opération de ce genre, alors que rien ne l’y oblige, ce serait vraisemblablement avec l’intention d’y donner suite. Qui sait où cela pourrait mener.

Inévitablement, ceux qui croient qu’il n’a pas renoncé à son idéal d’antan y verront une « astuce » visant à raviver le projet indépendantiste, mais s’il est réellement convaincu que le plein contrôle de l’immigration est essentiel à la survie d’une société française dans le cadre fédéral et qu’Ottawa s’entête à le refuser au Québec, il lui faut bien tenter quelque chose.

Source: Le véritable adversaire

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , , ,

Ben Woodfinden: Canada’s aspiring populists aren’t actually all that radical – Immigration excerpt

2022/05/28 Leave a comment

Really telling, whether in Conservative leadership debates or this commentary by Woodfinden, just how much all political parties, save for the PPC, have accepted the Century Initiative, the business community, education institutions and other stakeholders arguments for increased immigration to address – or at least to appear to address – an aging population.

While on the right, this may reflect a legitimate fear of being labelled xenophobic or worse, on the left, hard to know why they raise some of the issues raised by increased immigration in terms of labour markets and conditions, housing shortages, environmental and climate impacts etc.

Of course, real politik, the battleground ridings in the GTHA and BC’s lower mainland, with majority or significant numbers of immigrant and visible minority voters, also plays a role.

But these voters also face the same issues and impact of large scale immigration, and I continue to wonder whether the current approach and general consensus will eventually fracture and change, as Woodfinden also raises:

Take for example the great third rail of Canadian politics: immigration. The rise of populism around the world in recent years has many competing explanations, but a backlash against immigration is a common theme in many of the places where populism has caused political earthquakes. Poilievre, nor any major candidate in the race, has shown absolutely no interest in touching this. If anything, he has embraced the political consensus on immigration, making direct pitches and appeals to immigrant communities. This is probably a political necessity given the diversity of ridings in areas like Toronto that anyone who seeks to form government will need to win.

But the present moment might well be ripe for a populist challenge to this consensus. Over 400,000 immigrants came to Canada in 2021, a record number. Yet with a growing number of younger Canadians locked out of the housing market due to skyrocketing prices, it’s a surprise a political entrepreneur hasn’t come along and pointed out, rightly or wrongly, that Canada’s high levels of immigration are likely to keep propping up what feels like to many young Canadians an economic pyramid scheme in which they pay exorbitant amounts for housing so that older Canadians can retire. While the PPC have made such arguments, and while you will see this kind of sentiment bubble up on social media, it’s probably more widespread than we generally assume. Thus far no serious figure has challenged the status quo on this.

Arguments in favour of immigration are often framed in economic terms. We need these immigrants to keep our population growing and to support an ageing society. But of course, there’s no real challenge or consideration given to the deeper reasons why this is necessary, namely that we need high levels of immigration because of our low, and still falling, birth rates. Our discourse and politics just accept this as a fact, given that having children is just entirely a personal choice. To suggest that we should try and increase birth rates and that having children and starting families are a social good we actively ought to be promoting and encouraging seems beyond the pale. Bring this up, and you’ll inevitably get accused of being a secret white supremacist who is motivated by racial concerns. For many pundits and elites, it is simply inconceivable that anyone could be legitimately concerned about birth rates and thus must have ulterior motives. 

Source: Ben Woodfinden: Canada’s aspiring populists aren’t actually all that radical

Filed under Immigration, Politics Tagged with , ,

UN agency concerned about impact of Canada’s immigration backlog on refugees

2022/05/27 Leave a comment

Of note. Implementation and delivery matters:

The UN refugee agency says it is concerned about the impact of Canada’s immigration backlog on the federal government’s commitment to resettle the world’s most vulnerable people, including Afghans who risk being targeted by the Taliban as they await refugee protection.

Gillian Triggs, assistant high commissioner for protection at the United Nations refugee agency, said Canada’s immigration backlog of more than two million applications is “very distressing.”

Refugee advocates and the opposition parties in Ottawa have repeatedly expressed concern that Canada’s overrun immigration system is delaying resettlement for refugees.

Ms. Triggs, who met senior government officials in Ottawa Wednesday, said refugees face increased risks the longer their cases are stuck in government processing.

“I will be raising with the relevant deputy ministers and others our concerns about that backlog. What it does, of course, is expose people to the kind of dangers that you’re raising, of torture, attacks – the very dangers, of course, that underpin why they have refugee status in the first place,” Ms. Triggs said in an interview.

“The whole point of the need for refugee protection is that that needs to be fast. You cannot leave people in backlogs and pipelines for many months or, in some cases in some countries, for years.”

Earlier this month, The Globe and Mail reported that Afghans who aided Canada’s military and diplomatic missions in Afghanistan have been tortured by the Taliban while they struggle to navigate federal government red tape.

Concerns grew further on May 14 when a 24-year-old Afghan man who was urgently seeking protection from Canada was shot dead by the Taliban. While Ms. Triggs was careful not to comment on specific cases, she expressed concern about the fate of Afghan women, who now face more restrictions under Taliban rule.

Ms. Triggs said the COVID-19 pandemic bogged down immigration processes in many resettlement countries, such as Canada, which are now trying to catch up amid an “unsustainable” increase in the number of forcibly displaced people worldwide. An unprecedented 100 million people have been forcibly displaced by conflict, violence, human-rights violations and persecution, the UN refugee agency announced Monday.

“Part of the advocacy that we will engage in is to encourage governments to look at their processes to see if they can be made what we call fair and fast,” Ms. Triggs said.

She said she is not qualified to suggest specific system changes for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), but cited instances in which other countries have forgone their “cumbersome” immigration policies in the interests of urgency. For example, she said Poland, Slovakia and Moldova immediately opened their borders to Ukrainian refugees earlier this year when Russia invaded.

She also said a move toward digital application systems will speed up processing in resettlement countries.

IRCC did not respond to a request for comment Wednesday. Immigration Minister Sean Fraser has previously said the Liberal government’s investments in additional resources, including $85-million to help reduce the backlogs and 500 new processing staff, should help IRCC return to its prepandemic processing times by the end of the year.

Ms. Triggs said resettlement programs are available to less than 1 per cent of globally displaced people, which is why she said governments need to work to address the root causes of mass displacement. She said Canada can be a leader on this front, particularly in Central America, where violence and persecution have forced hundreds of thousands of people to flee their homes.

“Canada can play a role in looking at root causes in the region, at stabilizing populations, advocating for investments for finding ways to deal with gender inequality, with the abuse of women and girls, poverty and of course, instability,” she said.

Ms. Triggs is in Ottawa for a meeting of the Comprehensive Regional Protection and Solutions Framework Support Platform, a multicountry initiative that encourages greater responsibility sharing on forced displacement in Central America and Mexico. Canada is currently chairing the platform, with a focus on the needs of women and girl refugees and migrants.

Source: UN agency concerned about impact of Canada’s immigration backlog on refugees

Filed under Immigration, Refugees Tagged with ,

America’s states are drifting apart over illegal immigration

2022/05/25 Leave a comment

As in so many areas:

Congressional dysfunction can cause chaos in America. Look at illegal immigration, where the law strands 10.5m unauthorised migrants in limbo, with little chance of deportation or the legal status that confers the right to work. In the absence of legislation, presidents oscillate wildly. Barack Obama sought to declare almost half of the unauthorised population exempt from deportation and eligible to work. Donald Trump turned the screws the other way, and tried deterring migrants by heartlessly separating parents from children. President Joe Biden is facing dissent from Democrats fearful of Republican attacks if, as planned, he ends a pandemic-response measure called Title 42 on May 23rd. This lets American border police expel asylum-seekers and other migrants on public-health grounds.

America’s federalist system wisely leaves much room to the states to act as laboratories. But state experimentation on immigration has gravitated to the extremes. In some Republican states the aim seems to be cruelty for its own sake. Greg Abbott, the governor of Texas, has suggested that the Supreme Court should reverse precedent and remove the obligation to educate illegal children, as if that would do anybody any good.

Democratic states, by contrast, have opted to spend money. They are expanding welfare benefits for their illicit residents. New York, which in 2019 began issuing driving licences to residents in the state illegally, set up a $2.1bn fund to provide unemployment benefits and pandemic relief. Three years ago California expanded Medicaid, the government health-insurance programme for the poor, to include young irregular residents. Its governor, Gavin Newsom, wishes to offer the programme to all, regardless of immigration status.

America is an outlier. In Europe and elsewhere access to benefits is limited to citizens or legal immigrants—who often have to wait for several years to be eligible. You would not expect Bavaria to sponsor Syrian migrants that the German interior ministry had turned away, or councils in London to offer housing benefits to adults who are in Britain illegally. It is Congress’s lack of will to deal with illegal immigration in America that explains the urge in California and New York to do something about their permanent shadow-class. Despite vigorous efforts, one-tenth of California’s non-elderly population lacks health insurance. Of that group, the illegal immigrants account for 40%.

Alas, these efforts are likely to be yet another stop-start measure. Because most federal laws ban spending on illegal residents, states must fund the expanded services without federal subsidies. At present, their budgets are swollen by a strong recovery and overgenerous federal funding during the pandemic. In a recession, when budgets are squeezed, such spending is likely to come under political attack. Democrats have long maintained, correctly, that unlawful immigrants by and large work hard and pay taxes, but receive few benefits. That line will be harder to sustain as these programmes grow—to the relish of the nativist right, who will deem their warnings vindicated.

Only Congress can sort out the confusion of half-built border walls, seesawing presidential decrees and contradictory state regimes. Immigration reform, with an orderly path to legal residency for those who pay taxes and do not commit crimes, was once a bipartisan pursuit. It has been forgotten amid the Trumpian takeover of the Republican Party. Some Democratic senators, like Bob Menendez and Catherine Cortez Masto, remain committed to the idea of trading a route to citizenship for stronger border security and faster immigration courts, which today are overwhelmed. The party’s left has turned instead to daydreaming about abolishing America’s immigration authority. The pity is that a labour shortage makes this an especially propitious time for mending the system.

Source: America’s states are drifting apart over illegal immigration

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

Meggs: Le système d’immigration n’est plus maîtrisé

2022/05/25 Leave a comment

Good and valid critique, highlighting some of the inconsistencies and incoherence of immigration policy:

Tous les drapeaux rouges signalent que le système d’immigration au Canada et au Québec n’est plus maîtrisé. Il y a d’abord le nombre de dossiers en attente de traitement au fédéral. Selon un reportage de CBC du 1er février 2022, plus de 1,8 million de dossiers d’immigration permanente, temporaire et de citoyenneté étaient en attente de traitement ! Au rythme noté dans le reportage, si on n’en ajoute pas à la pile, il faudra presque cinq ans pour les traiter.

Mais on persiste à en ajouter à la pile ! Le 11 avril, il y en avait plus de 2 millions, dont 1,1 million de demandes de permis temporaires, une hausse de 230 000 depuis la mi-mars.

Ces personnes à statut temporaire généreront une bonne proportion des nouvelles admissions parce que les gouvernements font tout pour encourager et faciliter le passage de statut temporaire à permanent. Au Québec, au moins 86 % des personnes sélectionnées en 2019 avaient un statut temporaire.

Plus on augmente le nombre de personnes à statut temporaire, plus il faudra augmenter les cibles d’immigration permanente parce que les demandes dépasseront les seuils établis. Il serait politiquement téméraire de refuser de recevoir leurs demandes. Ces personnes sont installées et intégrées au pays depuis des années. Planifier des seuils d’immigration permanente devient redondant dans un contexte d’immigration temporaire non maîtrisée.

Davantage de demandes entraînent une augmentation des coûts. Le gouvernement fédéral a budgété 85 millions de dollars l’automne dernier pour faire baisser le nombre de dossiers à traiter. Dans son dernier budget, il prévoit 2,673 milliards sur cinq ans et 441,3 millions annuellement par la suite en nouveau financement, ainsi que 43,5  millions, en 2022-2023, pour « maintenir le soutien fédéral aux services d’aide juridique à l’immigration et aux réfugiés ».

Outre les hausses de volumes, de délais et de ressources, il y a la multiplication des « politiques d’intérêt public », un mécanisme utilisé par le ministre fédéral pour changer unilatéralement les règles d’octroi de la résidence permanente et de permis temporaires, s’il « estime que l’intérêt public le justifie ».

Utilisées quatre fois entre 2005 et 2013, elles ont pris un envol extraordinaire récemment avec 11 recours en 2020 et 19 en 2021.

Elles touchent des situations tant ponctuelles (les personnes à statut temporaire résultant des incendies en Colombie-Britannique ; le parrainage des personnes réfugiées syriennes et irakiennes) que générales (une forme d’exemption des exigences linguistiques pour les personnes avec un handicap physique ou mental).

Il y a des exemples d’utilisation discriminatoire et manifestement politique. Par exemple, en 2020, l’une d’elles visait « à attirer au Canada des jeunes instruits de Hong Kong, dont on s’attend à ce que leur capital humain et leur expérience internationale contribuent au tissu économique, social et culturel du pays ». Elle témoignerait de la solidarité du Canada « avec d’autres alliés aux vues similaires, de son appui solide à l’égard des valeurs démocratiques et de sa défense de celles-ci ». Il y a sûrement de jeunes diplômés ailleurs dans le monde qui aimeraient être sauvés des régimes autoritaires et répressifs.

Le gouvernement fédéral modifie aussi allègrement les règles d’immigration temporaire. Il a annoncé le 1er avril des assouplissements au Programme des travailleurs étrangers temporaires qui vont sensiblement plus loin que l’entente négociée avec le Québec. En 2016, il a créé un nouveau permis ouvert pour les employeurs hors Québec qui embauchent des francophones de l’étranger. Pourquoi exclure les employeurs québécois de cet avantage ?

Il y a des exemples d’incohérences presque inexplicables. Depuis plusieurs années, le fédéral vante sa politique de rétention des étudiantes et étudiants étrangers sans avoir modifié le Règlement de l’immigration exigeant que la personne faisant une demande de permis d’études au Canada démontre qu’elle quittera le pays à la fin de son séjour.

Les 40 000 Afghans annoncés arriveront avec un statut de réfugié, mais les Ukrainiens auront un permis de travail spécial de trois ans, sans plafond sur le nombre.

Il n’y a aucune consultation systématique avec les gouvernements provinciaux avant la prise de ces décisions. Aucune considération de l’effet de cette augmentation rapide de la population sur des besoins en logement ou en services de garde, ni sur les écoles, les systèmes de santé et de services sociaux, le transport en commun. Il y a très peu d’arrimage possible entre l’expertise et l’expérience de travail des personnes qui arrivent et les besoins locaux du marché de travail.

Le Québec est à la remorque du fédéral à bien des égards. N’ayant aucun moyen d’agir sur les délais de traitement fédéraux, il encourage l’immigration temporaire, ce qui fait augmenter le nombre de demandes d’immigration, et improvise avec de nouveaux programmes qui ne donnent pas les résultats escomptés.

L’immigration est un projet foncièrement humain. Comment penser le réussir sans une vision claire soutenue par une infrastructure législative et administrative efficace ?

Tous les drapeaux rouges signalent que le système d’immigration au Canada et au Québec n’est plus maîtrisé. Il y a d’abord le nombre de dossiers en attente de traitement au fédéral. Selon un reportage de CBC du 1er février 2022, plus de 1,8 million de dossiers d’immigration permanente, temporaire et de citoyenneté étaient en attente de traitement ! Au rythme noté dans le reportage, si on n’en ajoute pas à la pile, il faudra presque cinq ans pour les traiter.

Mais on persiste à en ajouter à la pile ! Le 11 avril, il y en avait plus de 2 millions, dont 1,1 million de demandes de permis temporaires, une hausse de 230 000 depuis la mi-mars.

Ces personnes à statut temporaire généreront une bonne proportion des nouvelles admissions parce que les gouvernements font tout pour encourager et faciliter le passage de statut temporaire à permanent. Au Québec, au moins 86 % des personnes sélectionnées en 2019 avaient un statut temporaire.

Plus on augmente le nombre de personnes à statut temporaire, plus il faudra augmenter les cibles d’immigration permanente parce que les demandes dépasseront les seuils établis. Il serait politiquement téméraire de refuser de recevoir leurs demandes. Ces personnes sont installées et intégrées au pays depuis des années. Planifier des seuils d’immigration permanente devient redondant dans un contexte d’immigration temporaire non maîtrisée.

Davantage de demandes entraînent une augmentation des coûts. Le gouvernement fédéral a budgété 85 millions de dollars l’automne dernier pour faire baisser le nombre de dossiers à traiter. Dans son dernier budget, il prévoit 2,673 milliards sur cinq ans et 441,3 millions annuellement par la suite en nouveau financement, ainsi que 43,5  millions, en 2022-2023, pour « maintenir le soutien fédéral aux services d’aide juridique à l’immigration et aux réfugiés ».

Outre les hausses de volumes, de délais et de ressources, il y a la multiplication des « politiques d’intérêt public », un mécanisme utilisé par le ministre fédéral pour changer unilatéralement les règles d’octroi de la résidence permanente et de permis temporaires, s’il « estime que l’intérêt public le justifie ».

Utilisées quatre fois entre 2005 et 2013, elles ont pris un envol extraordinaire récemment avec 11 recours en 2020 et 19 en 2021.

Elles touchent des situations tant ponctuelles (les personnes à statut temporaire résultant des incendies en Colombie-Britannique ; le parrainage des personnes réfugiées syriennes et irakiennes) que générales (une forme d’exemption des exigences linguistiques pour les personnes avec un handicap physique ou mental).

Il y a des exemples d’utilisation discriminatoire et manifestement politique. Par exemple, en 2020, l’une d’elles visait « à attirer au Canada des jeunes instruits de Hong Kong, dont on s’attend à ce que leur capital humain et leur expérience internationale contribuent au tissu économique, social et culturel du pays ». Elle témoignerait de la solidarité du Canada « avec d’autres alliés aux vues similaires, de son appui solide à l’égard des valeurs démocratiques et de sa défense de celles-ci ». Il y a sûrement de jeunes diplômés ailleurs dans le monde qui aimeraient être sauvés des régimes autoritaires et répressifs.

Le gouvernement fédéral modifie aussi allègrement les règles d’immigration temporaire. Il a annoncé le 1er avril des assouplissements au Programme des travailleurs étrangers temporaires qui vont sensiblement plus loin que l’entente négociée avec le Québec. En 2016, il a créé un nouveau permis ouvert pour les employeurs hors Québec qui embauchent des francophones de l’étranger. Pourquoi exclure les employeurs québécois de cet avantage ?

Il y a des exemples d’incohérences presque inexplicables. Depuis plusieurs années, le fédéral vante sa politique de rétention des étudiantes et étudiants étrangers sans avoir modifié le Règlement de l’immigration exigeant que la personne faisant une demande de permis d’études au Canada démontre qu’elle quittera le pays à la fin de son séjour.

Les 40 000 Afghans annoncés arriveront avec un statut de réfugié, mais les Ukrainiens auront un permis de travail spécial de trois ans, sans plafond sur le nombre.

Il n’y a aucune consultation systématique avec les gouvernements provinciaux avant la prise de ces décisions. Aucune considération de l’effet de cette augmentation rapide de la population sur des besoins en logement ou en services de garde, ni sur les écoles, les systèmes de santé et de services sociaux, le transport en commun. Il y a très peu d’arrimage possible entre l’expertise et l’expérience de travail des personnes qui arrivent et les besoins locaux du marché de travail.

Le Québec est à la remorque du fédéral à bien des égards. N’ayant aucun moyen d’agir sur les délais de traitement fédéraux, il encourage l’immigration temporaire, ce qui fait augmenter le nombre de demandes d’immigration, et improvise avec de nouveaux programmes qui ne donnent pas les résultats escomptés.

L’immigration est un projet foncièrement humain. Comment penser le réussir sans une vision claire soutenue par une infrastructure législative et administrative efficace ?

Anne Michèle Meggs Ancienne directrice de la planification et de la reddition de comptes du ministère de l’Immigration, de la Francisation et de l’Intégration

Source: Le système d’immigration n’est plus maîtrisé

Filed under Immigration Tagged with ,

El-Assal: How can Canada avoid major immigration backlogs in the future?

2022/05/24 Leave a comment

Reasonable and practical recommendations. We share belief in need for independent review but I would argue for a broader focus than just IRCC’s ability to deliver and implement.

A more fundamental review of the government’s approach, priorities and levels across the whole suite of immigration programs is needed, more on the why than the how:

Earlier this month the Canadian Parliament’s Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration (CIMM) began a study on IRCC’s application processing times and backlogs.

The purpose of CIMM is to provide oversight of the immigration system and release studies that contain recommendations for improvement. CIMM invited me to Ottawa to participate in this study, which I did on May 5th. I would like to use this article as an opportunity to elaborate on my recommendations.

The backlog has doubled since the start of the pandemic to 2.1 million people. This includes applicants for permanent residence, temporary residence, and citizenship. Needless to say, the backlog is hurting Canada’s economy, keeping families apart, and undermining Canada’s ability to provide humanitarian assistance to those in need.

There is no doubt the pandemic has been a major contributor to the backlog. At the start of the pandemic, Canadian government employees needed to work remotely which limited their ability to process applications. However, the pandemic is not the only reason for the backlog, and at the very least, the pandemic cannot explain why Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) has delivered such poor customer service for over two years now.

The following are six steps I feel can help improve the state of Canadian immigration operations.

1) Treat applicants with greater respect

The first step Canada needs to take to avoid backlogs from getting out of control again in the future is by treating all of its immigration applicants with far more respect. When we discuss backlogs, we often think about the number of files in the queue, and sometimes we forget about the number of human lives that are being negatively affected.

Taking a more human-centric approach to our immigration system is a necessary step towards progress. There is no justification for IRCC going months or even years on end without responding to enquiries from its clients. The lack of urgency to provide updates also explains why there has been a lack of urgency to process applications.

For some reason, we do not see immigration applicants as worthy enough of getting quality customer service, even though IRCC has a legal mandate to process applications. It is only fair that applicants get quality service given they are required to pay IRCC a fee for their papers to be processed. Imagine how upset you would be if you paid a postal company to deliver a parcel, only to discover they have yet to ship it and are not responding to any of your calls or emails.

Just like companies putting customers front and center of everything they do, so too should IRCC. Every decision the department makes should be through the lens of providing the best customer experience possible.

2) Align intake with processing capacity

The second step is for Canada to do a better job of aligning its intake with its processing capacity. We already do this with various programs such as IRCC’s economic class pilots, the Parents and Grandparents Program (PGP), the Provincial Nominee Program (PNP), among others. Federal and provincial governments work within the confines of the allocation for a given program and ensure they do not solicit more applications than they are capable of processing within the allocation. This is not a perfect model and often leads to disappointment, as is the case with the PGP, but at the same time it helps us limit the potential for excessive processing times.

IRCC made several major mistakes at the start of the pandemic which has made the backlog much worse. It continued to solicit applications even when its processing capacity was slowed, meaning that it had a huge mountain to climb once its processing capacity began to return to normal.

For instance, Express Entry was launched in 2015 to help avoid backlogs by only inviting candidates that IRCC wanted to process. Nonetheless, we saw our Express Entry backlog skyrocket since IRCC continued to invite candidates throughout 2020, before realizing it needed to implement two major pauses in December 2020 and then in September 2021 to manage its Express Entry inventory. This could have been avoided altogether if IRCC simply reduced its Express Entry invitations in 2020 until its operations got back on track.

Unfortunately, IRCC made the same mistake in 2021 by first, continuing to issue very high levels of Express Entry invitations, and then second, by welcoming 90,000 additional applications under the Temporary Residence to Permanent Residence (“TR2PR”) Program. According to the Immigration Levels Plan 2022-2024, it will now take IRCC two more years to catch up on all those applications before it can bring its economic class programming back to normal by 2024. Moving forward, IRCC should be more careful and ensure it has the capacity to process incoming applications within a timely manner.

3) Expedite technological transformation

The third step is for Canada to expedite the badly-needed technological transformation of its immigration system. Much of the immigration system remains paper-based, which slows things down. Moreover, it makes it difficult for staff to process applications remotely and to transfer files to other offices. IRCC should strive for all applications to be online within the near future, while at the same time providing accommodations for those who have disabilities, the elderly, among others who may need to submit paper-based applications. Technology is a major asset to the immigration system, and can expedite many processes. At some point we should strive to complete as many immigration processes online, such as changing visas status for those in Canada, and citizenship ceremonies.

4) Be more transparent

The fourth is for Canada to be more transparent on the state of immigration policies and operations. IRCC has kept us in the dark for much of the pandemic rather than fulfilling its obligation to inform the public on its policy priorities and state of operations. For instance, it went between December 2020 and April 2022 before telling Federal Skilled Worker Program (FSWP) candidates when they would be invited under Express Entry again. It did the same for Canadian Experience Class (CEC) candidates between September 2021 and April 2022. Moving forward, IRCC should provide regular public updates, preferably on a monthly basis, outlining what its current policy priorities are, and the state of its backlogs. This will allow all stakeholders including applicants themselves, employers, post-secondary institutions, and more, to be able to plan accordingly.

5) Conduct an independent study

The fifth step is for Canada to be more accountable about its immigration system shortcomings during the pandemic. An independent study should be commissioned to evaluate what IRCC did right, what it did wrong, and what it can do better. While the pandemic is a valid excuse, it is not the only explanation why the backlog has ballooned over the past two years.

An independent study can shed light on the policy and operational causes of the backlog and provide recommendations so the mistakes do not happen again. Being more accountable will also help to restore trust in Canada’s immigration system. Many stakeholders have had a bad experience during the pandemic which has hurt the reputation of our immigration system. Showing the public that the Canadian government is capable of acknowledging its mistakes and rectifying them will likely result in more applicants viewing Canada in a positive light.

6) Form a National Advisory Council on Immigration

Sixth, the Canadian government needs to collaborate more with Canadian immigration experts. Canada has a large immigration ecosystem full of experts from many different industries such as law, business, the settlement sector, research, academia, governments, post-secondary institutions, and more. Yet, there have been few meaningful immigration consultations during the pandemic, leading to avoidable consequences.

Forming a National Advisory Council on Immigration (NACI) would be a positive step towards harnessing all this expertise so Canada can make the best immigration decisions possible. These sorts of expert councils exist among other Canadian government departments. Forming one on immigration would be a major asset for IRCC.

Looking ahead

Looking ahead, we should feel optimistic that Canada’s immigration system will eventually get back on track. Immigration is far too important to Canada’s prosperity for the system to remain disrupted for much longer.

The technological investments Canada is making, plus the hiring of more IRCC staff, and increased public scrutiny from the likes of the media, CIMM, employers, post-secondary institutions, and applicants themselves will hopefully lead to Canada delivering a much better experience to immigration applicants in the years ahead.

Source: How can Canada avoid major immigration backlogs in the future?

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

Opening the ‘Black Box’ of Japan’s immigration system

2022/05/24 Leave a comment

Fascinating and disturbing read:
Japan’s immigration agency has been accused of operating in an untransparent manner, largely because there is no way for the public to find out what is happening inside its detention facilities. Authorities have pledged to improve the situation, but some people believe greater public involvement will be needed before meaningful change can take place. Among them is an American documentary filmmaker and a former Japanese immigration officer.

A memorial service for a Sri Lankan woman, Wishma Sandamari, was held at a temple in Aichi Prefecture on March 6. It was attended by her younger sister, Purnima, and other supporters. The day marked the first anniversary of Wishma’s death at an immigration detention facility. During the six months the 33-year-old was detained, she repeatedly complained of ill health, but did not receive the care she asked for. The Justice Ministry admits that in Wishma’s case, the facility’s medical system was insufficient. But her death has not been the only tragedy to occur within the walls of Japan’s detention centers in recent years. Since 2007, there have been 17 deaths, including suicides.

Mano Akemi, a volunteer who makes regular visits to detainees, met with Wishma and became friends. She was devastated by her death and is advocating for greater transparency in detention centers. “The biggest problem is the immigration system in Japan,” she says. “It really is a black box. I think speaking up has been essential, and I am trying to make more people aware of this problem.”

In response to the criticism surrounding Wishma’s death, Japan’s immigration agency has announced 12 improvement measures, including raising awareness among staff members, strengthening the facilities’ medical responses, and setting clear guidelines for granting provisional release to detainees who are suffering ill health.

But the agency is also calling for controversial changes to Japan’s immigration law. It says the current legislation creates a situation where there are more people in detention than there otherwise would be. The reason, they say, is that it allows people with no legitimate asylum claim to repeatedly apply for it to avoid deportation. Under international law, asylum seekers cannot be deported.

Thomas Ash, an American filmmaker living in Japan, recently made a documentary named “Ushiku” that urges people in Japan to face the reality of how their country’s immigration system works. He says he “started filming with the strong belief that it is imperative to leave evidence so that if an incident occurs there will be no denying it in the future.”

In October 2019, Ash began visiting an immigration detention center in Ushiku City, Ibaraki Prefecture — one of the largest facilities of its type in Japan — and met with detainees on a volunteer basis. At the time, around 265 detainees were being held there. There are 17 such facilities in the country with a total capacity of nearly 3,400 detainees.

In the winter of that year, Ash began secretly filming his interviews with detainees using a small camera, despite that recording is strictly prohibited. Visitors are allowed to meet with detainees, but only with the understanding that journalistic research is barred. The documentary was shot over the course of about a year.

In one scene captured in the Ushiku facility’s visiting room, an asylum seeker tells Ash he is refusing to comply with his deportation order because he fears persecution if he returns to his home country.

Another scene shows a young detainee who has gone on a hunger strike.

The detainee was one of several at the center who went on a hunger strike around the time that Ash began filming his documentary. The protest spread from spring 2019 to other facilities across the country, with a total of 235 detainees involved between June 2019 and January 2020. In June 2019 one Nigerian detainee died while on hunger strike at a Nagasaki Prefecture facility.

The film also contains footage that was submitted as evidence in a lawsuit filed by a former detainee who spent a total of five years in detention and was diagnosed with depression. Immigration officials explained that he became violent while asking for tranquilizers so they forcibly restrained him. They say the practice, known as “seiatsu” or suppression, is in accordance with facility regulations.

But Ash says, “Why did they go that far? It’s a detention center, not a prison, right? They should not be considered as criminals. Even if they are illegal residents, they have human rights.”

There has been criticism about Ash’s decision to film in secret among support groups and some lawyers providing aid to detainees. The documentary is controversial not only because it was made covertly, breaking the agency’s rules, but also because of the possible repercussions for the detainees it features.

The Immigration Agency told NHK it “considers filming while knowing that recording is prohibited inside the facilities to be an unforgivable act, no matter how much it is based on personal conviction.”

The director explains, “I myself believe that rules or laws should be respected, but by respecting laws or rules, someone can also become a perpetrator.” He says he felt compelled to make the film: “This person in front of me may die. He will probably die. I had to document that reality.”

Ash says it’s essential that people know what is really going on inside Japan’s detention centers. “I think there are some people who are trying to sweep immigration and refugee issues under the carpet,” he says, “as if we don’t have to think about them because they are problems of distant countries or only of non-Japanese.

“They are people suffering here. This is something that is actually happening. I want to ask. It’s happening in your country. Are you okay with that?”

The film has caught many viewers by surprise. One woman in her twenties says she was shocked by how little she knew about the issue. Another man said he felt ashamed that he didn’t know about the reality of what is happening in Japan and that Japanese people need to make this their problem.

Others have also been speaking out. Kinoshita Yoichi is a former immigration officer who leads a research group that advocates for immigration reform from the outside.

“I think the Immigration Services Agency has now realized that the days of handing out punishments without regard to the public interest or concern have passed,” Kinoshita says. “The public can play a very important role in monitoring what the agency is doing so it’s very important that people take an interest in the issue.”

People in Japan are starting to make their voices heard on refugee causes. Local charity events and donation boxes are opening to help people displaced by the Ukrainian crisis. But is the government truly considering changes to its immigration policies?

The justice minister, Furukawa Yoshihisa, announced in April that he wants to create a new policy called ‘subsidiary protection’ to support people, including Ukrainians, who are escaping war in their homelands but do not meet the requirements to be recognized as refugees in Japan.

But he also indicated the ministry would continue to support government policies proposed last year that would strengthen the agency’s power to deport people, including asylum seekers, as a way to deal with long-term detention. The government had withdrawn the proposal amid strong public opposition in the wake of Wishma’s death.

“At present, ‘fleeing conflict’ is not a sufficient reason to be recognized as a refugee in Japan, which has one of the strictest screening processes in the world,” says Takahashi Wataru, a human rights lawyer and researcher on immigration laws for the Japan Federation of Bar Association. “Less than 1 percent of applicants are granted refugee status. The government appears to be using what looks like a positive move as a cover to pass its former plan, which aims to strengthen its deportation policy and continues to evade discussing the core of the issue. The government needs to reform its strict screening process to recognize the refugee status of people fleeing war, including Ukrainians, and end long-term detention of asylum seekers.”

The UNHCR has said that measures for subsidiary protection should not replace or undermine the refugee protection system of asylum seekers.

The opposition parties proposed their own plan in early May. It recommends setting up an independent expert committee to examine refugee applications, make a court order necessary for detention, and limit detention-period extensions to six months.

The system of indefinite detention has drawn criticism from the UN’s Human Rights Council for being inhumane. At the same time, Japanese politicians and businesses have said they are willing to embrace a more diverse society — partly due to the country’s severe labor shortage. But the confusion over immigration has only sown anxiety among non-Japanese residents.

Public awareness is on the rise, in part because of Wishma’s death, Ash’s documentary and the invasion of Ukraine. Any changes that take place are likely to happen slowly, but these factors may add momentum for reform.

Source: Opening the ‘Black Box’ of Japan’s immigration system

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , ,

Canadian politician wants to improve Super Visa for parents and grandparents: Bill C-242

2022/05/21 Leave a comment

Will likely be well received by visible minority communities. Will be interesting to see whether Liberal members support or propose amendments for the bill as super visas reduce some of the pressures on parents and grandparents immigration:

Canadian Member of Parliament Kyle Seeback is proposing a new bill to support parents and grandparents coming to Canada.

The proposed changes would affect the Super Visa for parents and grandparents. Currently, the Super Visa allows parents and grandparents of Canadians to visit for two consecutive years without having to renew their status. The visas themselves permit multiple entries to Canada over the course of 10 years. Much like the Parents and Grandparents Program, it requires the Canadian child or grandchild to meet a minimum income requirement set by the government. It also requires parents and grandparents to have medical insurance coverage with a Canadian company.

Seeback is a member of the Conservative Party and sits on the Standing Committee for Citizenship and Immigration. He proposed Bill C-242 calls for three major changes to the Super Visa.

Firstly, Seeback wants parents and grandparents to be allowed to stay for five consecutive years without having to renew their visa.

Second, the bill proposes that Super Visa applicants be allowed to purchase medical insurance from countries other than Canada. Seeback says this could save families thousands of dollars in insurance costs per year.

Finally, it also proposes that the government reduce the low-income cut-off for Canadians wishing to host their parents and grandparents. Although Seeback said he thinks the income test for this category should be eliminated entirely, he does not think it is the right time for it.

“The view of bringing a parent or a grandparent to stay with you is an economic burden is wrong,” Seeback said, “What I actually found… is that when a parent or grandparent comes it enhances the economic well-being of that family… It can be that they’re providing some reduction of daycare costs because the parent or grandparent is there to help with the family.”

So far, the bill has passed its first and second readings and is now being studied by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. The standing committee is comprised of elected federal government officials. Their mandate is to monitor federal policy relating to immigration and multiculturalism, as well as oversee the immigration department and refugee board. They conduct studies and make recommendations to guide immigration policy.

The bill will need to pass the committee before the third reading. It will only become law after it passes the third reading and consideration of the Senate. The Governor General will then have to grant the bill royal assent, only then will it come into force.

Ashti Waissi, a spokesperson from Seeback’s office, told CIC News the NDP and Bloc parties will support the bill upon its third reading, but it is uncertain whether C-242 will get Liberal support.

Committee members questioned Seeback’s bill, specifically relating to the item on insurance. Seeback introduced the idea of allowing parents and grandparents to purchase insurance internationally while pointing out it can cost between $1,700 CAD and $4,600 CAD per year for someone in their early seventies with no pre-existing medical condition.

“This doesn’t mean you can go to any insurance company anywhere in the world,” Seeback told the committee, “I’m encouraging the minister to set up a framework for the ground rules for when an insurance company would qualify so that people can purchase insurance outside of the country.”

Concerns over allowing Super Visa holders to come to Canada with their own insurance arise from the fact that should a foreign insurance company be unable to cover a medical bill, the onus could fall onto a Canadian taxpayer.

In responses to questions posed by committee members, Seeback said he has confidence the government can set up a framework to ensure foreign insurance companies can cover medical costs in case Super Visa holders get sick. He noted that Canada currently has a framework for determining which international doctors can give medical clearance certificates, he says something similar should also be possible for insurance companies.

Although he said he did not know how quickly the framework could be set up, he said it would be “worth the wait.”

“It will be so great for Canadian families,” Seeback said.

Source: Canadian politician wants to improve Super Visa for parents and grandparents

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , ,

Koop: Foreign-worker changes could spell trouble

2022/05/20 Leave a comment

Yet another warning note and reminder of how the Conservatives had to backtrack in 2013-14 given the abuses of the program by employers preferring temporary foreign workers than Canadian residents:

CANADA has been welcoming temporary foreign workers since 1973, but the programs that facilitate this have often been criticized for abuse and mismanagement. Recent changes introduced by the federal government that will expand the number of foreign workers could lead to even more such criticism, as every indication is low-income Canadians will suffer because of the government’s reforms.

Programs that welcome low-skill foreign workers can be of great assistance to employers in very tight labour markets where employees are hard to come by. But the danger of unchecked growth is that these workers typically are willing to accept lower wages and worse working conditions than Canadian workers, which can lead to wage suppression for Canadians or even displacement.

In 2013 and 2014, as the number of foreign workers swelled, abuses of these workers were covered widely in the Canadian media. In some cases, foreign workers were underpaid, or their working conditions were odious; in others, corporations recruited them despite high local unemployment rates. The result of this media coverage was several restrictions introduced by prime minister Stephen Harper’s government designed to slow growth in the number of low-skill foreign workers.

Since then, Ottawa has been besieged by fancy corporate lobbyists intent on loosening these restrictions. In April, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government finally caved, agreeing to reverse the 2014 restrictions. These changes, which have already taken effect, will likely lead to a spike in the number of low-skill foreign workers in Canada.

In particular: the cap on the total number of foreign workers in several sectors was boosted from 10 to 30 per cent. There is no limit on the number of foreign workers that can be employed in the agriculture, caregiving, and fish and seafood processing sectors. Crucially and inexplicably, employers will now be able to hire foreign workers in regions where the unemployment rate exceeds six per cent.

The problem with expanding access to low-skill foreign workers is that doing so short-circuits market forces that should benefit Canadian workers. When labour markets are tight, employers must compete for the applicants available. The result is higher wages, better benefits and more attractive working conditions.

Employers also have to expand their searches and be more open to applicants they may previously have passed over; for example, disabled Canadians, recent immigrants and refugees, apprentices and young Canadians.

Canadian workers should be benefiting from these market forces. But, to the contrary, post-pandemic wage growth is very low. Indeed, inflation has meant that real Canadian wages may in fact be declining. Low-wage workers — including working class-families, single mothers, and immigrants and refugees just starting out in Canada — are hit hardest by inflation since any marginal increase in costs is felt most acutely by these vulnerable Canadians.

Opening access to foreign workers will present an opportunity to business, but it will likely prolong the pain already faced by working-class Canadian families as wage growth continues to stagnate. Economists Fabian Lange, Mikal Skuterud and Christopher Worswick argue convincingly that the government’s recent reforms will further undermine wage growth despite the tight labour market. They ask, “Does relying on foreign guest workers to fill low-wage job vacancies make sense in this environment?”

Well, it makes perfect sense for corporations.

A few months ago, it was revealed that Tim Hortons, the ubiquitous coffee chain, was facing a staffing crisis that was directly related to low wages. Emails obtained by BNN Bloomberg show that managers at 22 high-traffic suburban chains, mostly surrounding Toronto, were panicked by a lack of workers to handle the post-pandemic return of motorists picking up coffee on the way to work.

As these franchises’ profits have increased, the solution to their staffing problem was obvious: increased wages and enhanced benefits to draw potential workers back from other sectors. But Tim Hortons was among the corporations that protested the most loudly when the government restricted the use of temporary foreign workers in 2014. Should anyone wonder how the coffee chain and other corporations will address staffing shortages now that the Harper-era reforms have been reversed?

When provided with an opportunity from the federal government to suppress labour costs, why wouldn’t employers take it? Workers hoping for relief in this sector may be out of luck.

This raises the question: who is looking out for these Canadian workers? New Democrats fancy themselves the party of workers, but Jagmeet Singh recently dragged his party into a confidence-and-supply agreement with the Liberal government that scrapped the old restrictions. Should voters hold him as well as the Liberals accountable in the next election?

Royce Koop is a professor of political studies at the University of Manitoba and academic director of the Centre for Social Science Research and Policy.

Source: Foreign-worker changes could spell trouble

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , , , ,

Quebec should ‘ideally’ aim for 100000 immigrants per year, says CPQ

2022/05/19 Leave a comment

Not surprising. Just as in English Canada, some of the biggest boosters of increased levels are from the business community, both large and small:

Quebec should aim to welcome 100,000 immigrants per year, according to the Conseil du patronat (CPQ).

The number is almost twice the threshold set by the Quebec government.

The CPQ made the request in a white paper on immigration made public Monday.

A little over a week ago, the Conseil du patronat, along with employer organizations, had instead suggested a threshold of 80,000 newcomers per year to alleviate labour shortages.

But in its white paper, the CPQ now believes that Quebec should ideally aim for 100,000 immigrants.

According to recent data, there are no less than 240,000 positions to be filled throughout Quebec. The economic community is pushing the Legault government to admit more immigrants.

Despite the government’s current efforts to fill jobs, nearly a quarter of the current vacancies cannot be filled, which represents 300,000 jobs over the next five years, the CPQ calculates.

Immigration is “both unavoidable and fully necessary,” the employers’ organization argues.

Source: Quebec should ‘ideally’ aim for 100000 immigrants per year, says CPQ

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →