After years of US population growth, it’s time for a pause | TheHill

Rare questioning of the conventional wisdom of growth strategies and raising of related issues:

In the long run, no substantial benefits will result from the further growth of America’s population. The gradual stabilization of the U.S. population through voluntary means would contribute significantly to America’s ability to solve its problems.

That statement from a half-century ago was the unequivocal central finding of the groundbreaking report by the U.S. Commission on Population Growth and the American Future, submitted to the president and Congress on March 27, 1972.

However, rather than moving toward a gradual stabilization, as was clearly recommended, America’s population over the past 50 years has grown to 334 million, an increase of 123 million (about 60 percent) since 1972.

In addition, America’s population is projected to continue growing over the coming decades. According to its main projection series, the Census Bureau expects the nation’s population to be close to 400 million around mid-century.

Preceding the commission’s establishment by several years, former President Richard M. Nixon remarked that “One of the most serious challenges to human destiny in the last third of this century will be the growth of the population… Whether man’s response to that challenge will be a cause for pride or for despair in the year 2000 will depend very much on what we do today.”

Nixon’s observations are even more prescient today. Given climate change, environmental degradation, biodiversity loss, pollution and congestion, population growth in America and the rest of the world remains among the serious challenges to human destiny in the 21st century.

Similarly and more recently, naturalist Sir David Attenborough remarked, “It’s not just climate change; it’s sheer space, places to grow food for this enormous horde. Either we limit our population growth, or the natural world will do it for us, and the natural world is doing it for us right now.”

Without a doubt, America’s population growth is a major factor affecting domestic demand for resources, including water, food and energy, and the worsening of the environment and climate change. There is hardly any major problem facing America with a solution that would be easier if the nation’s population were larger. On the contrary, population stabilization would help to resolve several.

Stabilizing the population would reduce pressures on the environment, climate and the depletion of resources and gain time for America to find solutions to its pressing issues. If the United States intends to address climate change, biodiversity loss, pollution, etc., it must consider how its population affects each issue.

In contrast to the commission’s central finding, some do not recognize the need to stabilize the population. Their reasons are largely based on profit, politics and power. They give little attention to the consequences of population growth on the nation’s future.

For instance, many economists contend that continued population growth is needed to fuel economic growth. Their “bigger-is-better” arguments simply ignore or dismiss the negative consequences for the country, which are threats to the wellbeing of today’s Americans as well as the long-term sustainability of the nation.

Others argue the nation would be “more happy” with more people. Slow population growth, they claim, hurts not only America’s economic growth but also the national mood. Concerns about climate change and the environment are omitted from their rhetoric.

Some advance nationalistic appeals for continued population growth, maintaining that the more patriotic one is the more one ought to believe in a large and growing America.

Another argument is the view that “America isn’t full” and can accommodate many more people, particularly more immigrants. Those advocates, however, rarely ever specify how large the population must become to be considered full nor do explain why America needs to be full.

Thousands of scientists worldwide take an opposing view. Among their major recommendations for governments to address the climate emergency is a call for the stabilization of the world population, or ideally, a gradually reduced population within a framework that ensures social integrity.

Gradually stabilizing America’s population will provide an exemplary model for other countries to emulate. Rather than racing to increase the size of their respective populations in a world with 8 billion humans and growing, nations would see America moving away from the unsustainable demographic strategy.

As American couples are having fewer children than in the past for a host of social, economic and personal reasons, the nation’s fertility rate is unlikely to return to the replacement level any time soon. And pro-growth calls for Congress or the administration to establish pro-natalist policies to raise fertility appear unlikely to be adopted.

Source: After years of US population growth, it’s time for a pause | TheHill

Manitoba town influences Alberta immigration strategy | The Star

Of note, too exceptions to the national trend, Morden and Brooks:

While many rural communities across Canada have shrinking or stagnating populations, a town in Manitoba has found a way to use immigration to help bolster its workforce and keep the town thriving.

In February, Alberta Premier Jason Kenney announced two new programs to help bring new Canadians into rural communities that were dwindling due to the trend of urbanization in the province.

The town of Morden, Man., has been using immigration to support the community’s population and economy for years, and Kenney said the programs being introduced in Alberta were influenced by the success seen a few provinces away.

“There has been a huge success. … Morden, Manitoba, has doubled their population over the last decade through smart use of the provincial immigration … program,” Kenney said.

“They actively promoted immigrants to settle there, and it’s really revitalized towns like that.”

Morden Mayor Brandon Burley said the program, now known as the Morden Community Driven Immigration Initiative, started informally around 10 years ago when the town, which is currently home to 9,929 people, struggled to fill jobs.

“It was designed to address labour shortage in the region,” Burley said.

At first the area was looking to fill highly skilled jobs, such as accountants, doctors, and dentists, but then started to find they also needed tradespeople and other people with specialized skills. The town then turned to the provincial immigration program to help bring newcomers into the community.

Source: Manitoba town influences Alberta immigration strategy | The Star

The immigration numbers bidding war is pointless – there are limits to how many migrants Australia can accept

Similar questions can be asked regarding current Canadian immigration levels:

Since late last year, various business lobby groups, the NSW government, management consultant KPMG, the Business Council and now a number of economists have been throwing numbers around, talking up the need for higher levels of immigration.

I have written previously on the facile nature of the immigration debate in Australia, on the part of both the groups calling for “immigration to be cut wherever possible” and the groups calling for a bigger Australia.

The problem is the debate focuses on targets and numbers for permanent migration, often confusing this permanent migration program with what matters for population which is net migration. At the same time, too little attention is paid to how migration targets would be delivered, the risks involved, and how the risks would be managed.

So let’s start with basics.

What matters is net migration

The official migration program reflects the number of permanent resident visas issued in any one year, irrespective of whether the person is already in Australia (perhaps for a long time on a different sort of visa) or has been living overseas.

Over the past 15 years, more than half of these permanent resident visas have been issued to people who have already been living long-term in Australia.

Net migration as calculated by the Australian Bureau of Statistics is a measure of long-term and permanent arrivals, including new people issued these visas, less departures of people who have been living long-term in Australia and intend to remain overseas for 12 out of the next 16 months.

It is blind to visa status or citizenship.


Net migration can fall sharply even when the migration program is large, as happened in 2014-15 when we had one of the largest permanent migration programs in Australia’s history, yet net migration fell to 180,000.

A sharp fall in net migration is usually associated with a weak labour market leading to large outflows of Australians, or Australians deciding not to return, as happened in 1975-76, 1982-83, 1991-92 and 2008-09.

On the other hand, even when the migration program is being cut, net migration can be forecast to rise. This is what happened in the 2019 budget, when Treasury forecast the highest sustained level of net migration in our history, after a year in which the migration program was cut from 190,000 to 160,000 per year.

How many migrants, and which ones?

Before discussing the various immigration targets that have recently been proposed, it’s useful to understand the government’s current forecasts and how it intends to deliver them – something surprisingly few do.

The 2021-22 program has been set at 160,000 per year. But Treasury’s 2021 Population Statement assumed to increase to 190,000 per year from 2023-24.


There is no official government commitment to this increase to 190,000 – and there probably won’t be ahead of the election. There has also been no indication of the composition of this larger program, or what might be needed to deliver it.

Planning documents say the 2021-22 migration program will be split evenly between the family stream and the skill stream. This is because the government is at last clearing the very large backlog of partner applications it (unlawfully in my view) allowed to build up.

If the planned 72,000 partner visas in 2021-22 are delivered, the government might only need to allocate around 50,000 places for partners in future years because it will have cleared much of the backlog it has allowed to build up, which will result in a future overall family stream of around 60,000.

This means that to deliver its total program of 160,000 from 2022-23, the government will need an extra 22,000 skilled migrants, and from 2023-24 when the total program increases to 190,000, an extra 52,000 skilled migrants.

The current skill stream planning level of 79,600 has four main components.

There is scope to boost the number of these visas by processing them faster. However, even with a very strong labour market, it is highly unlikely that demand would rise much above 35,000 per year, especially if a more robust minimum salary requirement and strong monitoring of compliance with employer obligations are re-introduced to minimise the risk of wage theft.

The passive investment subset of these visas, which provides visas to people who make a financial investment for a set period of time, is essentially a “buy a visa” scheme. It should be either abolished or modified to ensure active investment.

I resisted establishment of the passive investment component until I left the department of immigration in 2007. Long-term, removing it would cut the number of business innovation and investment visas to around 5,000 per year.

This visa is highly susceptible to cronyism and corruption and attracts few migrants who wouldn’t otherwise qualify for other more robust visa categories. It should either be abolished or pared back to a few hundred per year for highly exceptional candidates.

While the labour market is strong, there would be merit in increasing the allocation of places for these visas, as state governments are well placed to understand the needs of their jurisdictions. But it is unlikely they would be able to fill more than an additional 10,000 places per year, given the occupational targeting and employment criteria they have in place.

Once again, while the labour market is strong, there is scope to increase the size of this category, but there are also risks that would need to be managed.

As these migrants have no confirmed job and face a four year wait for access to social security, diluting criteria for this visa to increase the numbers would mean a rising portion would struggle to secure a skilled job.

Those with options may leave to another country where job prospects are stronger. Others would be forced to take whatever job they can, including at exploitative wages.

In my experience, increasing the size of this visa category to more than around 25,000 would involve substantial risks, especially if the labour market weakens once current stimulus measures are removed.

190,000 won’t be easy to deliver

In total, what I foresee gives us a skill stream of around 100,000. Together with a family stream of 60,000, that provides only enough to fill the existing program of 160,000 per year – not enough to increase it to the 190,000 proposed by Treasury or the 220,000 proposed by the Business Council of Australia.

Those proposing much higher levels of immigration need to demonstrate how they would be delivered and how the risks of what might be a weaker labour market would be managed.

And they need to acknowledge that the size of the migration program doesn’t determine net migration. That’s in large measure determined by the economy and how many Australians and migrants decide to leave, decide to stay overseas, or decide to return.

Source: The immigration numbers bidding war is pointless – there are limits to how many migrants Australia can accept

U.S. International Student Enrollment Dropped As Canada’s Soared

Striking comparison and highlighting of Canada’s advantage in post-graduate employment and pathway to permanent residency:

The number of international students enrolled at U.S. universities dropped prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, but enrollment soared at Canadian colleges and universities. A new analysis finds Indian graduate students in science and engineering have been the most likely to choose Canada over the United States because Canada makes it much easier to work in temporary status and gain permanent residence. The findings carry serious ramifications for the future competitiveness of U.S. companies and American universities.

“International student enrollment at U.S. universities declined 7.2% between the 2016-17 and 2019-20 academic years, before the start of the Covid-19 pandemic,” according a new analysis from the National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP). “At the same time, international student enrollment at Canadian colleges and universities increased 52% between the 2016-17 and 2019-20 academic years, illustrating the increasing attractiveness of Canadian schools due to more friendly immigration laws in Canada, particularly rules enabling international students in Canada to gain temporary work visas and permanent residence.”

The pandemic lowered U.S. enrollment further. The enrollment of international students at U.S. universities dropped 22.7% between the 2019-20 and 2020-21 academic years. Canada has not yet released comparable 2020-21 data but NFAP found other indicators that Canada also experienced lower enrollment in 2020-21 because of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Talented individuals possess a range of choices on where to live, study and work, and the findings are a stark reminder that immigration policies matter. The latest U.S. statistics analyzed are from a National Science Foundation tabulation of Department of Homeland Security international student data and exclude individuals on Optional Practical Training (OPT). The Canadian data are from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.

“The number of international students from India studying at Canadian colleges and universities increased 182% between 2016 and 2019 while at the same time, the enrollment of Indian students in master’s level science and engineering programs at U.S. universities fell almost 40%,” according to the NFAP analysis. “Indian student enrollment at Canadian colleges and universities increased nearly 300% between the 2015-16 and 2019-20 academic years.”

The more restrictive U.S. immigration system has affected the choices of Indian students. “Canada is benefiting from a diversion of young Indian tech workers from U.S. destinations, largely because of the challenges of obtaining and renewing H-1B visas and finding a reliable route to U.S. permanent residence,” according to Toronto-based immigration lawyer Peter Rekai.

While international students in Canada can gain permanent residence within one or two years, the Congressional Research Service (CRS)estimates it could take up to 195 years for Indian immigrants to get a green card in the United States in the employment-based second preference (EB-2). Canada has no per-country limit or low annual limits for employment-based immigrants as in the United States.

Canadian statistics on Indian immigrants are eye-opening. “The number of Indians who became permanent residents in Canada increased 115% between 2016 and 2020 and 2021,” noted the NFAP analysis. (The analysis took the average of 2020 and 2021 due to processing issues in Canada.) 

Other troubling findings for America’s tech future: “The enrollment of international students in master’s level computer sciences at U.S. universities has declined sharply over the past four to five years, fueled largely by the decline in graduate students from India in technical fields,” according to the NFAP report. “Between the fall 2016 and 2019, international students enrolled in master’s level programs in computer sciences at U.S. universities fell 20%, from 62,270 to 49,900. Between fall 2016 and 2020, the number of international students enrolled in master’s level programs in computer sciences at U.S. universities declined 39% or 24,040. 

“The story is similar in U.S. engineering programs. Between the fall 2016 and 2019, international students enrolled in master’s level programs in computer sciences at U.S. universities fell 29%, from 60,130 to 42,890. Between fall 2016 and 2020, the number of international students enrolled in master’s level programs in engineering at U.S. universities declined 52% or 31,070.”

Congress can change U.S. immigration laws in a positive direction and see more international students choose the United States as the place to study and make their careers. Maintaining the status quo is a recipe for stagnant or falling international student enrollment and less innovation and prosperity in the U.S. economy.

Source: U.S. International Student Enrollment Dropped As Canada’s Soared

Australia: gov plans could discourage int’l cohorts [students]

Indian and Chinese students also form about 50 percent of international students in Canada, although the share has shifted considerably: from 29.7 percent Indian and 2.3 percent Chinese in 2018 to 37.6 percent and 12.7 percent respectively in 2021:

The Australian government’s department of Education, Skills and Employment has proposed the establishment and publication of a diversification index which it describes as “an easy-to-understand measure… to improve transparency of diversity of international students at public universities”.

This would include a breakdown of domestic and international student enrolment data by country of origin. 

In 2020, 57% of Australian international students were from China and India, up from 46% in 2010. 

In a discussion paper released at the beginning of February, the Australian government warned of the need to manage “potential overexposure to particular markets”.

But the Group of Eight, which represents Australia’s leading research-intensive universities, said that while it welcomes the diversification of the sector, a different approach needs to be taken. 

“The risk is that Indian and Chinese students interpret an index as a sign that they are not welcome in Australia”

Vicki Thomson, chief executive of Go8, said, “Diversification should be a medium to long term strategy, and the risk is that Indian and Chinese students interpret an index as a sign that they are not welcome in Australia. The loss of these two large student cohorts would not only impact higher education and research, but also the broader bilateral relationships with these countries.”

Group of Eight universities, which include the University of Melbourne, the Australian National University, and the University of Sydney, enrol 38% of all international students across Australia. 

Thomson added that “international education is highly competitive and has become more so during the pandemic. Our closed borders have impacted our attractiveness as a higher education destination and this has been to the advantage of our competitors – UK, US and Canada.”

Go8 also called on the government to instead “support universities to rebuild and reshape the international education industry… through policy measures designed to promote the quality of Australia’s offerings to existing and new markets” including changes to scholarships and visas.  

The Australian government announced this week an investment of $10 million towards an International Education Fund.

Source: Australia: gov plans could discourage int’l cohorts

Globe editorial: Three things Canada must do to help Ukraine, and Ukrainians [immigration section]

The Globe, long an advocate for increased immigration and supporter of the Century Initiative and Business Council of Canada and other advocates, becomes realistic in noting that large scale increases in Ukrainian temporary and permanent immigration should be within the current high levels, not additional to them:

… Immigration: Unless by some miracle the war ends soon, a flood of refugees is coming. As of Thursday morning, the United Nations estimated that a million Ukrainians had left the country. The UN says as many as four million may leave – though if this war is anywhere near as destructive as in Chechnya or Syria, that is likely to be an underestimate.

In response, Canada must be generous and smart.

The Trudeau government said on Thursday that it will create a new visa category, allowing an unlimited number of Ukrainians to come to Canada to live, work or study for a period of up to two years. The government said it will also create an expedited immigration process for Ukrainians fleeing the country, and who have family in Canada.

Some have urged the government to simply drop the visa requirement and allow anyone from Ukraine to buy a plane ticket to Canada, no questions asked. That would be a mistake. The government says it worries about nefarious actors, including people who fought in pro-Russian militias, taking advantage of a zero-security approach. It’s right to worry.

Canada only allows visa-free travel for people from a limited number of countries where the risk of a vacationer choosing to overstay is low. But this program is not about Ukrainians holidaying in Canada – obviously not. It is about allowing people who are basically refugees to come to Canada for two years, after which, depending on the situation back home, many will surely apply to become refugee claimants or immigrants.

Canada always vets people before allowing them to relocate, temporarily or permanently, from overseas. There’s no reason to abandon that approach here.

In terms of immigration and refugee application made directly from Europe, Canada can and should welcome a large number of Ukrainians in the months to come. It’s a chance to make some lemonade, for Canada and Ukrainians, out of this lemon of a situation. However, given Canada’s housing crisis, and already high immigration levels, a big jump in immigrants from Ukraine should be counterbalanced by a temporary lowering of arrivals from other sources.

Canada should also do everything it can to entice the most educated and skilled Ukrainian exiles to choose our country. That would be good for us, and for them. More on all of this, next week.

Source: Globe editorial: Three things Canada must do to help Ukraine, and Ukrainians [immigration section]

Wagner: Work permit change urged for Afghans now needed for Ukrainians to come to Canada

More pressures:

Many thousands are leaving Ukraine with heartbreaking separations from spouses, parents and homes. Meanwhile, in Canada, a single change to work permits can support people in far larger numbers to come here after being forced from their homes. That change is waiving a rule that requires someone to prove they can leave Canada again.

All applicants to temporary visas must demonstrate their ability and willingness to leave Canada by showing they have somewhere else to go, even if they already applied for permanent residence, or intend to.

This is an old rule that predates Canada’s goal of retaining its international workforce, once they arrive, through permanent residence programs. If it’s arcane for others, it’s absurd and prohibitive for those in refugee circumstances.

Among the Afghans who left as the Taliban took power in August were lawyers, cooks, electricians, and software developers — skills needed across Canada — yet so many are in a humanitarian queue instead of here on work permits. The same barrier faces Ukrainians.

In effect, Canada’s largest immigration option is closed as soon as someone needs it most. In 2019, before the pandemic, Canada welcomed over 404,000 people on work permits, many of whom go on to become permanent residents. For comparison, the refugee resettlement target the same year was 46,450.

blob:https://multiculturalmeanderings.wordpress.com/27e4c896-162d-472c-8c0f-cf96eb3fe425

Only recently has the idea of using skilled immigration as an additional option to refugee resettlement gained traction globally and in Canada. Canada first launched the Economic Mobility Pathways Pilot in 2018 as a test to help people in refugee circumstances, who got job offers in Canada, to work through barriers, such as needing a valid passport and police certificates, which are impossible for many in displacement to get.

The test cases were a runaway success. But for all the pilot’s innovation, its main drawback is significant. The flexibility introduced, like accepting expired passports, only applies to permanent residence pathways and not to work permits and the barriers that come with them.

This disadvantages displaced talent for two main reasons: A lack of speed and space. Skilled immigration largely relies on a job offer and most employers can’t hire someone on a permanent residence timeline, which is eight months or longer. And only a portion of skilled immigration space is left open when work permits are off the table.

We analyzed 66 permanent residence pathways and found just 15 are free of a requirement for in-Canada work experience or points systems that reward it. In other words, 77 per cent of these pathways are either inaccessible by or disadvantageous to displaced applicants who can‘t access work permits.

Many people displaced by conflict have in-demand skills and, despite the timeline, incredible Canadian teams are already hiring and relocating them. More companies want to. We need to unlock these opportunities.

Work permits promise speed and scale. By waiving a single requirement and extending the flexibility now in place for displaced applicants under an innovative pilot, Canada can open a major route to safety and opportunity for Ukrainians, Afghans and others before them.

Dana Wagner is co-founder and managing director of TalentLift, a non-profit talent agency.

Source: Work permit change urged for Afghans now needed for Ukrainians to come to Canada

#COVID-19: Comparing provinces with other countries 2 March Update; Japan impact and policy changes

Overall decline in infections and deaths as omicron wave passes. The big news is that numbers from China have shown a significant increase in the past week, from 134,000 to 315,000 infections and from 4,936 to 5,380 deaths, perhaps reflecting suppression of numbers pre-and post-Olympics.

Vaccinations: Some minor shifts but convergence among provinces and countries. Canadians fully vaccinated 82.2 percent, compared to Japan 79.4 percent, UK 73.3 percent and USA 65.7 percent.

Immigration source countries are also converging: China fully vaccinated 88.3 percent (numbers have not budged over past four weeks), India 57.9 percent, Nigeria 4 percent, Pakistan 45.7 percent, Philippines 58.4 percent.

Trendline Charts:

Infections: Ongoing signs of omicron and other variants plateauing.

Deaths: Quebec continues to plateau with moderate increases in other provinces but G7 still not plateauing.

Vaccinations: No major relative changes.

Weekly

Infections: No relative changes. Infections per million in China have increased from 96 to 226 per million after relatively flat for over six months

Deaths: Major change again is with respect to China with deaths per million increasing from 3.5 to 3.9. Sweden is now ahead of Quebec.

COVID-19: New Immigration Rules Crack Open Japan’s Closed Door

In early December 2021, when the highly contagious Omicron variant started spreading globally, Japan slammed its border shut. In fact, except for the first months of the pandemic, it adopted a harsher border policy than during previous infection waves.

The country would essentially remain closed to all non-Japanese citizens other than existing residents.

Among the many stranded travelers were an estimated 150,000 international students who had enrolled in Japanese universities, but never made it into Japan after the borders closed in March 2020. Also affected were business people, foreign specialists and technical interns, the term used for foreign nationals who work on farms, in fishing, food processing, hotels, nursing homes or other industries faced with a serious labor shortage.

Japan’s isolationist approach was in tune with only a few other countries, such as China and Hong Kong. Australia and New Zealand  ーwhich previously had some of the strictest border rules, stopping even their own citizens from returning homeー have recently reversed their two year long isolation.

The Japanese government has been a lot more cautious. In the wake of criticism by industry leaders and academics it has now relaxed some of the entry rules. However, its general policy to ban most new entries has not changed. Tourists still remain shut out.

Nevertheless, there is some welcome positive news going into effect from March 2022.

Raised Cap on Daily Entries

In a first sign of hope, the current limit on arrivals at the Japanese border, capped to 3,500 (roughly the passenger load of 17 airplanes), has been raised to 5,000 from March 1.

Vaccination Status Matters

One of the biggest changes is that starting on March 1, Japan will distinguish between vaccinated and non-vaccinated travelers. This is a significant step for a country that was previously disinterested in vaccination status upon entry and has not adopted any kind of vaccination passport to use domestically.

Fully vaccinated travelers coming from high risk countries can isolate at home for seven days. This period can be shortened to three full days with a negative covid-test on day three.

Fully vaccinated arrivals from low risk countries have no quarantine obligation whatsoever.

Fully Vaccinated Means Three Shots

An arriving person only qualifies as vaccinated with proof of three shots. And the vaccines used need to have been approved by Japan.

Currently, there are only four approved shots: The COVID-19 vaccine from Pfizer, Moderna, Astra-Zeneca and Johnson & Johnson. Plus, the only recognized third shots are for Moderna and Pfizer.

…. New Visa Applications

Last not least among the big changes, schools and businesses can now apply for new visas on behalf of business partners, workers and students, if they pledge to monitor that the incoming person will follow any necessary quarantine rules and other measures imposed.

A new website has been set up by the Ministry of Health to facilitate applications, named ERFS or “Entrants, Returnees Follow-up System”. Once the application is approved foreign entrants will get a Certificate of Eligibility (COE), a necessary step to get a visa stamped into the passport at a Japanese embassy or consulate abroad.

Only organizations, not individuals can apply through this website. If you have a COE that has recently expired or is about to do so, a new policy on the period of validity for a certificate of eligibility may be of help as some COE holders may be eligible for an extension.

It is not clear if people who currently have an unexpired COE have to apply.

It also remains to be seen how quickly new visas will be issued and what kind of priorities will be given to whom. After two years of closed borders there is a significant backlog of old cases.

As a cap of daily arrivals remains in place, even though it has now been lifted to 5,000 persons daily, many people will still be in for a long wait.

Source: COVID-19: New Immigration Rules Crack Open Japan’s Closed Door

Europe’s different approach to Ukrainian and Syrian refugees draws accusations of racism

Of note. But important to distinguish whether the intent was more factual, e.g., “refugee wave we have been used to,” unfortunate contrasts “these people are intelligent” implying others are not, and more right wing deliberate anti-immigrant language.

That being said, the situation of many non-Ukrainians fleeing the invasion, is extremely disturbing:

They file into neighbouring countries by the hundreds of thousands — refugees from Ukraine clutching children in one arm, belongings in the other. And they’re being heartily welcomed, by leaders of countries such as Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Moldova and Romania.

But while the hospitality has been applauded, it has also highlighted stark differences in treatment given to migrants and refugees from the Middle East and Africa, particularly Syrians who came in 2015. Some among them say the language they are hearing from leaders now welcoming refugees has been disturbing and hurtful.

“These are not the refugees we are used to; these people are Europeans,” Bulgarian Prime Minister Kiril Petkov told journalists earlier this week. “These people are intelligent. They are educated people…. This is not the refugee wave we have been used to, people we were not sure about their identity, people with unclear pasts, who could have been even terrorists.

“In other words, there is not a single European country now which is afraid of the current wave of refugees.”

‘Racism and Islamophobia’

Syrian journalist Okba Mohammad says that statement “mixes racism and Islamophobia.”

Mohammad fled his hometown of Daraa in 2018. He now lives in Spain and with other Syrian refugees founded a bilingual magazine in Arabic and Spanish. He described a sense of déjà vu as he followed events in Ukraine.

He also had sheltered underground to protect himself from Russian bombs. He also struggled to board an overcrowded bus to flee his town. He also was separated from his family at the border.

“A refugee is a refugee, whether European, African or Asian,” Mohammad said.

The change in tone of some of Europe’s leaders who in the past have expressed among the most extreme anti-migration views in the bloc has been striking. They have shifted from “We aren’t going to let anyone in” to “We’re letting everyone in.”

Those comments were made only three months apart by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban. The first quote is from statements he made in December when he was addressing migrants and refugees from the Middle East and Africa. The second from comments made this week addressing people from Ukraine.

Some journalists, too, are being criticized for descriptions of Ukrainian refugees.

“These are prosperous, middle-class people,” an Al Jazeera English television presenter said. “These are not obviously refugees trying to get away from areas in the Middle East … in North Africa. They look like any European family that you would live next door to.”

The channel issued an apology saying the comments were insensitive and irresponsible.

CBS news apologized after one of its correspondents said the conflict in Kyiv wasn’t “like Iraq or Afghanistan that has seen conflict raging for decades. This is a relatively civilized, relatively European” city.

Reports of Nigerians, Indians and Lebanese stuck at borders

As more and more people scrambled to flee Ukraine, several reports emerged of residents, including Nigerians, Indians and Lebanese, getting stuck at borders. Unlike Ukrainians, many non-Europeans need visas to get into neighbouring countries. Embassies around the world were scrambling to assist their citizens in getting through.

Videos shared on social media under the hashtag #AfricansinUkraine allegedly showed African students being kept from boarding trains out of Ukraine to make space for Ukrainians.

The African Union in Nairobi said Monday that everyone has the right to cross international borders to flee conflict. The continental body said “reports that Africans are singled out for unacceptable dissimilar treatment would be shockingly racist and in breach of international law.”

It urged all countries to “show the same empathy and support to all people fleeing war notwithstanding their racial identity.”

Polish UN Ambassador Krzysztof Szczerski said at the General Assembly on Monday that assertions of race- or religion-based discrimination at Poland’s border are “a complete lie and a terrible insult to us.”

“The nationals of all countries who suffered from Russian aggression or whose life is at risk can seek shelter in my country,” he said.

Szczerski said people of some 125 nationalities had been admitted to Poland on Monday morning from Ukraine, including Ukrainian, Uzbek, Nigerian, Indian, Moroccan, Pakistani, Afghan, Belarusian, Algerian and more. Overall, he said, 300,000 people have arrived during the crisis.

Hostility toward Syrian refugees in Europe

When over a million people crossed into Europe in 2015, support for refugees fleeing wars in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan was relatively high at first. There were also moments of hostility — such as when a Hungarian camerawoman was filmed kicking and possibly tripping migrants along the country’s border with Serbia.

Still, back then, Germany’s then chancellor, Angela Merkel, famously said “Wir schaffen das” (“We can do it”), and the Swedish prime minister urged citizens to “open your hearts” to refugees.

Volunteers gathered on Greek beaches to rescue exhausted families crossing on boats from Turkey. In Germany, they were greeted with applause at train and bus stations.

But the warm welcome soon ended after EU nations disagreed over how to share responsibility, with the main pushback coming from Central European countries such as Hungary and Poland. One by one, governments across Europe toughened migration and asylum policies, earning the nickname “Fortress Europe.”

Just last week, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees denounced the increasing “violence and serious human rights violations” across European borders, specifically pointing the finger at Greece.

Last year, hundreds of people, mainly from Iraq and Syria but also from Africa, were left stranded in a no man’s land between Poland and Belarus as the EU accused Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko of luring thousands of foreigners to his country’s borders in retaliation for sanctions. At the time, Poland blocked access to aid groups and journalists. More than 15 people died in the cold.

‘Deeply embedded racism’

Meanwhile, in the Mediterranean, the European Union has been criticized for paying Libya to intercept migrants trying to reach its shores, helping to return them to abusive and often deadly detention centres.

“There is no way to avoid questions around the deeply embedded racism of European migration policies when we see how different the reactions of national governments and EU elites are to the people trying to reach Europe,” Lena Karamanidou, an independent migration and asylum researcher in Greece, wrote on Twitter.

Jeff Crisp, a former head of policy, development and evaluation at UNHCR, agreed that race and religion influenced treatment of refugees.

“Countries that had been really negative on the refugee issue and have made it very difficult for the EU to develop coherent refugee policy over the last decade, suddenly come forward with a much more positive response,” Crisp said.

Much of Orban’s opposition to migration is based on his belief that to “preserve cultural homogeneity and ethnic homogeneity,” Hungary should not accept refugees from different cultures and different religions.

Members of Poland’s conservative nationalist ruling party have echoed Orban’s thinking, saying they want to protect Poland’s identity as a Christian nation and guarantee its security.

These arguments have not been applied to their Ukrainian neighbours, with whom they share historical and cultural ties. Parts of Ukraine today were once also parts of Poland and Hungary. Over one million Ukrainians live and work in Poland and hundreds of thousands more are scattered across Europe. Some 150,000 ethnic Hungarians also live in Western Ukraine, many of whom have Hungarian passports.

“It is not completely unnatural for people to feel more comfortable with people who come from nearby, who speak the [similar] language or have a [similar] culture,” Crisp said.

In Poland, Ruchir Kataria, an Indian volunteer, told The Associated Press on Sunday that his compatriots got stuck on the Ukrainian side of the border crossing into Medyka, Poland. In Ukraine, they were initially told to go to Romania, hundreds of kilometres away, he said, after they had already made long journeys on foot to the border, not eating for three days. Finally, on Monday they got through.

Source: Europe’s different approach to Ukrainian and Syrian refugees draws accusations of racism

Québec loin de sa cible pour les réfugiés afghans

Of note (and not blaming the feds):

Six mois après la crise en Afghanistan, Québec peine à accueillir les 300 réfugiés afghans qu’il s’était engagé à recevoir, a constaté Le Devoir. Selon des chiffres fournis par le ministère de l’Immigration, de la Francisation et de l’Intégration (MIFI), à peine 89 d’entre eux se sont installés au Québec dans le cadre du Programme spécial pour les Afghans qui ont aidé le gouvernement du Canada au mois d’août dernier, alors qu’ils sont plusieurs milliers dans le reste du pays.

En comparant cette opération humanitaire à celle menée pour les Syriens en 2015-2016, où plus de 5000 réfugiés syriens avaient été accueillis par le Québec, force est d’admettre qu’elle n’a pas la même ampleur, admet Stephan Reichhold, directeur de la Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes (TCRI). « C’est quand même assez décevant. En août et septembre dernier, on pensait qu’on recevrait des milliers d’Afghans, la Ville de Montréal était hypermobilisée, et finalement très peu d’Afghans sont arrivés au Québec, dit-il. Au moins, [le gouvernement] aura essayé. »

Pour toute l’année 2021, hormis les 89 venus au Québec grâce au programme spécial du fédéral, 232 Afghans ont été admis comme réfugiés dans la province, à la suite de l’aboutissement de demandes de parrainages privés déposées au cours des années précédentes. La cible du gouvernement Legault pour 2021 est de 7500 réfugiés, toutes origines confondues.

Quant au gouvernement canadien, il disait la semaine dernière qu’il travaillait « d’arrache-pied » pour atteindre sa cible de 40 000 réfugiés afghans. Or, jusqu’ici, 7885 Afghans sont arrivés, soit 4600 dans le cadre du Programme spécial pour les Afghans ayant aidé le gouvernement et 3285 grâce à un autre programme humanitaire canadien destiné aux plus vulnérables (femmes leaders, personnes LGBTI, etc.).

Rétention difficile

Selon le MIFI, les réfugiés afghans venus au Québec dans le cadre du programme de réinstallation fédéral se sont surtout installés à Montréal, Longueuil et Brossard. Malgré le fait que Sherbrooke abrite la deuxième communauté afghane en importance, à peine 11 personnes, venues grâce au programme fédéral, y ont élu domicile, mais 52 réfugiés, entrés par la « voie régulière » que constituent les parrainages, s’y sont aussi installés. Alors que les premières familles arrivaient en septembre dernier, la directrice du Service d’aide aux néo-Canadiens (SANC) de l’époque, Mercedes Orellana, reconnaissait déjà qu’un nombre moins important que prévu allait s’installer en Estrie et au Québec en général.

À l’époque, une intervenante et interprète afghane du SANC s’était rendue à Toronto à la demande du MIFI pour tenter de convaincre les nouveaux arrivants de venir s’installer au Québec. Selon Mme Orellana, il était important de vérifier si la famille avait des attaches ou un intérêt particulier à venir s’installer dans une province comme le Québec qui a ses particularités, notamment la langue française. « C’est bien de vérifier, car ça va être un facteur de rétention pour plus tard », avait-elle indiqué. À l’étranger, le Canada est plus connu que le Québec.

Le MIFI explique aussi le déficit d’attraction du Québec par la popularité de grandes villes canadiennes. « Le Québec était prêt à accueillir plus de familles, cependant, il semble qu’une part importante des personnes réfugiées afghanes arrivées à ce jour ont préféré demeurer dans la grande région de Toronto, où des membres de leurs familles ou des proches étaient déjà installés », a déclaré Émilie Vézina, porte-parole du MIFI.

Un « manque d’ambition »

Le député de Québec solidaire et porte-parole en matière d’immigration, Andrés Fontecilla, estime que la cible d’accueil fixée était trop faible et ne reflétait pas les besoins. « Trois cents personnes nous apparaissaient très peu. À 4personnes par famille, ce n’est même pas 80 familles », a-t-il dit au Devoir. Il rappelle que, l’été dernier, accueillir les Afghans au Canada était une « urgence ». « On disait qu’on allait faire immigrer le plus grand nombre possible [d’Afghans]. Le résultat est vraiment décevant. »

Le député libéral Saul Polo déplore lui aussi le « manque d’ambition » du gouvernement du Québec. « Pour avoir été en contact avec un grand nombre de personnes afghanes, à Laval, mais aussi dans d’autres villes comme Sherbrooke, je peux dire qu’elles sont déçues et frustrées du manque d’ambition du gouvernement face à la situation afghane. Il semble que le gouvernement ne tient pas compte du fait que la communauté est prête à se mobiliser pour les accueillir et les intégrer. »

C’est ce qu’aimeraient justement faire Nancy Green-Grégoire et Clothilde Parent-Chartier, toutes deux membres de Tri-Parish + Friends for Refugees, un groupe de parrainage collectif (parrainage privé). Dans une lettre ouverte publiée en septembre dernier, elles demandaient que le parrainage collectif puisse être mis à contribution pour les Afghans, ce que les plafonds imposés ne permettaient pas. « Il y a des [gens] ici qui étaient prêts à parrainer et qui voulaient réagir rapidement, comme lors de la crise syrienne, mais ce n’était pas possible », rappelle Mme Parent-Chartier, en disant voir le parrainage collectif comme étant complémentaire au parrainage de l’État.

En 2020, le groupe a notamment parrainé une famille d’Afghans, réfugiée au Pakistan, qui n’est pas encore arrivée. Il a aussi déposé, le mois dernier, trois autres dossiers d’Afghans membres d’une même famille ayant fui au Pakistan, qui n’ont pas encore réussi à obtenir un statut officiel de réfugiés. « On ne sait pas s’ils vont répondre aux critères [du MIFI]. Vont-ils pouvoir bénéficier d’un traitement particulier alors que c’est très difficile pour eux d’obtenir une preuve du Haut-commissariat aux réfugiés ? » s’inquiète Mme Parent-Chartier.

Source: Québec loin de sa cible pour les réfugiés afghans