IRCC’s immigrant settlement funding by province/territory for 2021-22

Not much new but useful to have this overview, which again highlights the disproportionate share allocated to Quebec:

…IRCC settlement funding by province and territory

The memo shows that Mendicino approved the following 2021-22 allocation by province and territory (except Quebec). Note that all figures are rounded and also include spending projections obtained from IRCC’s publicly available 2021-2022 departmental plan:

  • Ontario: $407.2 million
  • Alberta: $124.1 million
  • British Columbia: $119 million
  • Manitoba: $46.6 million
  • Saskatchewan: $41.3 million
  • Nova Scotia: $17.2 million
  • New Brunswick: $14.6 million
  • Prince Edward Island: $6.2 million
  • Newfoundland and Labrador: $5.2 million
  • Yukon: $1.3 million
  • Northwest Territories: $1.1 million
  • Nunavut: $608,000
  • Sub total: $784.4 million
  • Other allocations: $46 million
  • Dedicated IRCC Initiatives: $46.2 million
  • Quebec (Not included in the memo): $650.3 million via the separate annual grant it receives from IRCC
  • Resettlement services (Not included in the memo): $145.7 million
  • Grand total (Not included in the memo): $1,672.6 billion

Sources: IRCC memo and IRCC’s Departmental Plan 2021-22.

Screenshot 1: Settlement Funding Allocation (Click on image to enlarge):

ircc settlement funding allocation 2021-2022
Source: IRCC

IRCC’s settlement funding formula

One possible reason IRCC has stopped sharing this information publicly is due to the controversy it garners among provinces, territories, and the service provider organizations. These stakeholders are in constant negotiations with IRCC on identifying the most appropriate funding levels for their respective jurisdictions. IRCC acknowledges the controversial nature of this process in the memo.

The memo outlines that the allocation of funding by province and territory is based on a federal Cabinet approved National Settlement Funding Formula. The formula allocates funding for each jurisdiction based on the three-year average proportion of immigrant landings by jurisdiction. It also gives additional weight to refugees to account for their unique settlement needs (refugees tend to require more settlement services than economic and family class immigrants). Quebec is not subject to this formula since its grant is calculated based on the formula outlined in the Canada-Quebec Accord relating to Immigration and Temporary Admission of Aliens signed in 1991. Due to Quebec’s special status as Canada’s only French-speaking province, it has more authority than any other jurisdiction to select immigrants. It also receives more IRCC settlement funding than any jurisdiction and has more flexibility to use the funding.

Screenshot 2: The National Settlement Funding Formula (Click on image to enlarge):

ircc settlement funding formula

Source: IRCC.

Settlement funding per capita

As indicated in Screenshot 2, IRCC determined the 2021-22 allocations based on immigrant landings in each province and territory in 2017, 2018, and 2019. This results in the following settlement funding amounts per capita:

  • Nunavut: $16,432
  • Quebec: $13,541
  • Northwest Territories: $4,622
  • Yukon: $4,194
  • Newfoundland and Labrador: $3,428
  • New Brunswick: $3,072
  • Ontario: $3,033
  • Alberta: $2,913
  • Manitoba: $2,862
  • Nova Scotia: $2,857
  • Saskatchewan: $2,691
  • Prince Edward Island: $2,684
  • British Columbia: $2,671

Sources: IRCC; Author’s calculations. The methodology is: Allocations for each province and territory divided by annual average of each province/territory’s immigrant intake between 2017-2019.

IRCC’s memo states that smaller jurisdictions receive capacity building funding to allow them to increase the scale of their services. This may explain why jurisdictions with low newcomer intakes including Nunavut, the Northwest Territories, Yukon, Newfoundland and Labrador, and New Brunswick are at the top of the list. Ontario gets more than the provinces west of it due to it having the highest refugee intake in the country.

Quebec leads all provinces due to the generous settlement formula identified in the Canada-Quebec Accord. Among its provisions, the formula dictates the grant amount can only increase over time.

What does this all mean?

IRCC goes to great lengths to help immigrants succeed. This is demonstrated by its settlement program accounting for nearly half of the department’s annual $3.6 billion budget. Canada is the largest funder of immigrant settlement services in the world.

At the same time, IRCC has the difficult task of identifying how to distribute its settlement funding across the country in a manner that takes into consideration the needs of each jurisdiction. This results in an imperfect process that is subject to intense scrutiny and debate among Canada’s governments, settlement provider organizations, researchers, and the media.

Quebec enjoys the most funding in absolute terms as well as the second most per capita even though its provincial government was elected in 2018 on a mandate to reduce immigration. The province’s settlement funding formula was agreed to in 1991 based on the expectation that Quebec’s immigration levels would increase over time to help compensate for its aging population and low birth rate. However the election of the Coalition Avenir Quebec (CAQ) party in 2018 highlighted a flaw in the formula, as Quebec has since seen its annual grant from IRCC continue to rise as its newcomer intake declined by 22 per cent in 2019 compared to 2018.

Conversely, Alberta, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island (PEI) and the Northwest Territories have each seen their settlement allocations decline this federal fiscal year due to recent declines in their newcomer arrivals. Decreasing allocations to jurisdictions when their newcomer levels decline may seem fair, but it also creates operational challenges. Namely, lower IRCC funding to a province or territory could come at a time when that jurisdiction sees an increase in their newcomers (and hence, strains their ability to deliver settlement supports to newcomers). In addition, decreased funding means that service provider organizations may need to scale back their operations which sometimes entails laying off staff.

IRCC recognizes such challenges, which is why the memo notes that IRCC will make a one-time transfer to their Western Canada operations to top-up the funding provided to Alberta. The purpose of the top up is to ensure that Alberta can continue to provide high quality settlement supports to its newcomers.

Finally, IRCC recognizes that further investments will be needed to support future newcomers. The memo states the department anticipates more settlement funding to become available as it looks to welcome more newcomers through its Immigration Levels Plan. The 2021-2023 levels plan is the most ambitious in Canadian history as it seeks to welcome over 400,000 new immigrants per year. Since its founding in 1867, Canada has welcomed 400,000 immigrants in a year just once, in 1913. As such, the memo indicates an expectation the allocation for all provinces and territories (excluding Quebec) will increase by another $100 million for the 2023-24 federal fiscal year. This suggests the department’s total settlement spending will reach some $2 billion annually within the next few years.

Source: IRCC’s immigrant settlement funding by province/territory for 2021-22

COVID-19 Immigration Effects: July update

This update is somewhat delayed given IRCC only released the operational processing series of data (applications, citizenship, and visa) on October 4. August Permanent Residents admissions just under 38,000, slightly lower than July.


General observations:

  • IRCC’s 2021 strategy to meet the target of 400,000 new immigrants through transitioning temporary residents (students and workers) to permanent residency continues.
  • Of note, applications from Afghans increased more than sixfold in July, from 337 to 2,078
  • Temporary Residents IMP remained stable whereas Temporary Residents TFWP declined (reduced number of agriculture workers)
  • The number of study permit applications and study permits both increased significantly
  • Asylum claimants remained stable at the sharply reduced level due to travel and border restrictions
  • Settlement service web interest has yet to recover from pre-pandemic levels
  • The number of new citizens remain at about half of pre-pandemic levels
  • There was a doubling of visitor visas issued reflecting summer travel, with visas from Indian nationals increasing more than seven times, compared to Chinese nationals only doubling.

No more immigration: PM says Britain is in period of adjustment

Will see whether this holds up, or ongoing shortages force a change (see Doug Saunders Bare shelves, empty pumps: Britain’s self-inflicted Brexit wound):

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said on Sunday he would not return to “uncontrolled immigration” to solve fuel, gas and Christmas food crises, suggesting such strains were part of a period of post-Brexit adjustment.

At the start of his Conservative Party’s conference, Johnson was again forced to defend his government against complaints from those unable to get petrol for their cars, retailers warning of Christmas shortages, and gas companies struggling with a spike in wholesale prices.

The British leader had wanted to use the conference to turn the page on more than 18 months of COVID-19 and to refocus on his 2019 election pledges to tackle regional inequality, crime and social care.

Instead, the prime minister finds himself on the back foot nine months after Britain completed its exit from the European Union – a departure he said would give the country the freedom to better shape its economy.

“The way forward for our country is not to just pull the big lever marked uncontrolled immigration, and allow in huge numbers of people to do work … So what I won’t do is go back to the old failed model of low wages, low skills supported by uncontrolled immigration,” he told the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show.

“When people voted for change in 2016 and … again in 2019 as they did, they voted for the end of a broken model of the UK economy that relied on low wages and low skill and chronic low productivity, and we are moving away from that.”

It was the closest the prime minister has come to admitting that Britain’s exit from the EU had contributed to strains in supply chains and the labour force, stretching everything from fuel deliveries to potential shortages of turkeys for Christmas.

“There will be a period of adjustment, but that is I think what we need to see,” he said.

But while the government plans to issue thousands of temporary visas for foreign truck drivers and poultry workers, Johnson was clear he would not open the taps of immigration, again shifting the responsibility to businesses to lift wages and attract more workers.

Shortages of workers after Brexit and the COVID-19 pandemic have sown disarray in some sectors of the economy, disrupting deliveries of fuel and medicines and leaving more than 100,000 pigs facing a cull due to a lack of abattoir workers.

Conservative Party chair, Oliver Dowden, said that the government was taking measures to hire more truck drivers in general and that the government had started training military tanker personnel to start fuel deliveries on Monday.

“We will make sure that people have their turkey for Christmas, and I know that for the Environment Secretary George Eustice this is absolutely top of his list,” he told Sky News.

But the overwhelming message from the government was that businesses must step up to solve supply chain issues and to entice more British workers with higher wages.

“I don’t believe in a command and control economy so I don’t believe the prime minister is responsible for what is in the shops. This is why we have a free enterprise economy,” foreign minister Liz Truss told an event at the conference.

“I’m sure that the goods will be delivered into our shops.”

But rather than the reset Johnson hoped to preside over in the northern English city of Manchester, the conference looks set to be overshadowed by the crises and criticism of the government’s withdrawal of a top-up to a state benefit for low-income households.

The main opposition Labour Party is set to focus on the removal of the uplift, hoping to undermine those Conservative lawmakers who won over its traditional supporters in northern and central England.

Johnson may also come under fire for breaking with the Conservatives’ traditional stance as the party of low taxes after increasing some of them to help the health and social care sectors.

“We don’t want to raise taxes, of course, but what we will not do is be irresponsible with the public finances,” he said. “If I can possibly avoid it, I do not want to raise taxes again, of course not.”

Source: No more immigration: PM says Britain is in period of adjustment

Immigration adds 1.4 to 1.5 years to U.S. life expectancy, study says

Interesting study for both first and second generation immigrants, and the factors influencing shorter lifespans of non-immigrants:

If immigrants to the United States formed their own country, their pre-COVID-19 life expectancies would exceed or match those of the world’s leaders in longevity -; Swiss men and Japanese women. A new study by USC and Princeton researchers estimates that immigration adds 1.4 to 1.5 years to U.S. life expectancy at birth. In 2017, foreign-born life expectancy reached 81.4 and 85.7 years for men and women, respectively. That’s about 7 and 6.2 years longer than the average lifespan of their U.S.-born counterparts.

Demographers knew that immigrants lived longer. The main question that we set out to answer was, How much is this really contributing to national life expectancy trends? Our results show that they’re making an outsized contribution to national life expectancy.”

Arun Hendi, the lead author of the study and assistant professor of sociology and public affairs at Princeton University

The study was published in the September 2021 issue of SSM Population Health, by Hendi and Jessica Ho, an assistant professor of gerontology and sociology at the USC Leonard Davis School of Gerontology. Their work provides new insights on how immigrants contributed to national life expectancy trends over nearly three decades, from 1990 to 2017.

The research suggests that immigrants are responsible for approximately half of the recent U.S. gains in life expectancy. Moreover, the gap in life expectancy between foreign-born and native-born residents is widening.

In fact, the researchers say, Americans’ life expectancy would steeply decline if it weren’t for immigrants and their children. Under that scenario, U.S. life expectancy in 2017 would have reverted to levels last seen in 2003 -; 74.4 years for men and 79.5 years for women -; more closely resembling the average lifespans of Tunisia and Ecuador.

Study shows diverging trends during the last decade

Prior research has shown that between 2010 and 2017, overall U.S. life expectancies saw an unprecedented stagnation. The plateau has been largely attributed to drug overdose deaths among adults in their prime working ages and slowdowns in the rate of improvement in cardiovascular disease mortality. But this new study shows that immigrants experienced life expectancy gains during this period, while the U.S.-born population experienced declines.

“If it weren’t for immigrants, our national life expectancy stagnation that we experienced since 2010 would instead be a national decline in life expectancy,” Ho said. “For them to have that large an impact is unexpected because they represent a relatively small proportion of the U.S. population.”

In addition, while the immigrant advantage was already present in 1990, the research shows that the difference between immigrants and the U.S.-born has widened substantially over time, with the ratio of American-born to foreign-born mortality rates nearly doubling by 2017.

“When compared to immigrants’ life expectancy, the U.S.-born are doing poorly. Much of this is related to their very high mortality at the prime adult ages,” said Ho, an expert in the social determinants of health and mortality. “Low mortality among prime-aged immigrants doesn’t just help the foreign-born -; it helps the U.S.-born too. Prime-aged adults are likely to be in the labor force and raising children. This means that they contribute to higher tax revenues and slower population aging.”

Hendi says this is particularly relevant today because those prime adult ages are where the country is losing years of life due to drug overdose mortality and other preventable causes of death.

“The fact that immigrants are doing well suggests that there is a capacity to thrive in the U.S., but the U.S.-born aren’t fulfilling that potential,” he said.

Immigrants are a small but influential share of the U.S. population

Immigrants make up under 15% of the U.S. population, up from around 8% in 1990 but still a small percentage of the total. Hendi and Ho cite healthy behaviors and the changing selectivity of the immigrant population as factors that may contribute to their influence on total life expectancy.

“Immigrants tend to be healthier in part due to the selective migration of those who have the health, resources and stamina to migrate to the U.S., and this selectivity may have grown stronger,” Ho said.

The researchers highlight the role of increases in high-skilled immigration, which is partly reflected in changes in countries of origin as immigrant streams shift from Mexico to places like India and China. They also note that there may be pro-longevity characteristics of immigrant populations, regardless of country of origin, including a lower propensity to drink, smoke and use drugs than U.S.-born residents.

“Many of America’s immigrants come from lower-income, less-developed nations, leading some to worry that these immigrants bring their home countries’ high-mortality conditions with them and thus drag down America’s national average longevity,” Hendi said. “But the results say just the opposite. Far from dragging down the national average, immigrants are bolstering American life expectancy. A big part of the story appears to be that immigrants take fewer risks when it comes to their health.”

The study additionally found that the children of foreign-born residents retain some life expectancy advantage but do not fare as well as their parents.

Hendi and Ho used data from the National Vital Statistics System and the U.S. Census Bureau to estimate life expectancy levels among foreign-born, U.S.-born and total populations between 1990 and 2017.

The team plans to examine COVID-19’s impact on immigrant life expectancies. A January 2021 study by USC and Princeton researchers found the COVID-19 pandemic had significantly affected life expectancy, with stark declines in life expectancy among Black and Latino populations. A separate USC study last July of a large diverse group of Medicaid enrollees found Latino patients had starkly higher odds than whites of testing positive for COVID-19 as well as higher odds of hospitalization and death.

Source: Immigration adds 1.4 to 1.5 years to U.S. life expectancy, study says

Le Pen Joins French Conservatives Seeking Immigration Referendum

Here we go again, with a race to the bottom:

After trying to moderate her image for months, far-right leader Marine Le Pen went back to basics by casting a national conversation about immigration as a battle for the soul of France and renewing a pledge to hold a referendum on the issue if she defeats Emmanuel Macron next year.

“The April 2022 election will be about our civilization,” Le Pen said during a press conference on Tuesday. “Will France remain France, or be brushed aside by the uncontrolled torrent of massive migration flows that will wipe out our culture, our values, our way of life.”

Le Pen said she’d consult the French about changing the constitution to “drastically” reduce immigration. She pledged to introduce a law that will prevail over international treaties and allow her to breach European Union legislation if a majority of citizens backs the idea.

“What we are offering is a ready-for-use solution,” she said.

Several presidential hopefuls on the traditional right are seeking tougher rules on who is allowed to live in the country, including Michel Barnier and Xavier Bertrand.

And though Macron ran as a centrist in 2017, he has since become more conservative and his government has also talked about the need to control immigration. On Tuesday, it said it will reduce the number of visas granted to Algerians, Moroccans and Tunisians to protest their countries’ refusal to facilitate the return of nationals in “an irregular situation” in France.

But Le Pen’s harsher tone may be more the result of the threat posed by ultra-right media personality Eric Zemmour, who has been publicly toying with a run. He has previously demanded a referendum to overhaul immigration law as well as a short-term moratorium on entries. He links immigration to terrorism.

Le Pen is placing second in surveys of voting intentions, after Macron, though polls show support for Zemmour rising and cutting into her voter base. If Zemmour joins the crowded contest, he’d likely increase the chances Le Pen would be knocked out of the second round and throw the race wide open.

During the press conference, Le Pen said she wants to make it illegal for people from different countries to live in closed communities as a way of preserving their traditions and ban undocumented people from regularizing their situation. The Schengen accord, which allows free circulation for people in Europe, would need to be renegotiated, she said.

Source: Le Pen Joins French Conservatives Seeking Immigration Referendum

#COVID-19: Comparing provinces with other countries 29 September Update

The latest charts, compiled 29 September as overall rates in Canada increase slightly due to the variant. Canadians fully vaccinated 71.5 percent, higher than USA 56.4 percent and the UK 67 percent).

Vaccinations: Alberta ahead Prairies, Japan ahead of California and USA. China fully vaccinated 73.1 percent (unchanged), India 16.9 percent.

Trendline Charts:

Infections: Continued trend of pronounced uptick in G7 less Canada (driven largely by USA). Continued sharp rise in Alberta particularly notable as has been extensively covered in the media.

Deaths: Canada less Quebec now ahead of Canada (reflecting rise in Alberta and Prairies), Philippines ahead of India.

Vaccinations: Impact of Alberta backtracking and imposing a vaccine mandate continues to show increase, now slightly better than Prairies but still significantly lower than other provinces.

Weekly

Infections: UK ahead of Sweden, Prairies ahead of Quebec, Canada less Quebec ahead of Canada:

Deaths per million: Canada less Quebec ahead of Canada, and all provinces save Quebec, Philippines ahead of India:

France cuts back visas for Maghreb nationals over immigration policy

Playing hardball and politics:

France will slash the number of visas available to nationals from Maghreb countries because of their governments’ refusal to take back illegal migrants sent home by the French authorities, government spokesman Gabriel Attal said on Tuesday.

Immigration is becoming a key campaign issue for the French presidential election set for April next year, with right-wing and far-right parties challenging centrist President Emmanuel Macron’s policies. Macron has not yet said whether he will stand for re-election.

Attal said the French government would halve the number of visas available to nationals from Algeria and Morocco and reduce those for Tunisians by almost a third.

“It is a decision that is made necessary as these countries do not accept back nationals whom we do not want and cannot keep in France,” he told French Europe 1 radio.

Far-right leader Marine Le Pen said on Monday she would call a referendum proposing drastic limits on immigration if she is elected president next year.

Le Pen said on France 2 television the referendum would propose strict criteria for entering French territory and for acquiring French nationality, as well as giving French citizens priority access to social housing, jobs and social security benefits. read more

In 2017, she made it to the second round of the presidential election, but was defeated by Macron, who won more than 66% of the vote.

Source: France cuts back visas for Maghreb nationals over immigration policy

GUNTER: Liberals to make immigration to Canada much easier

Actually, IRCC can largely meet the increased levels through the current approach of transitioning temporary residents in Canada, primarily students and workers, to permanent residency, as we are seeing currently. And the changes are more about interpretation of the rules, than wholesale elimination. Sloppy and tendentious:

The Trudeau Liberals are planning to remove nearly all grounds the Immigration department uses to exclude applicants, the Toronto Sun has learned.

It has been the Trudeau government’s goal since 2020 to increase Canada’s intake of immigrants and refugees by nearly one-third to 400,000 annually.

How they plan to achieve this elevated level is outlined in an internal draft document sent to immigration and refugee judges — documents that have been exclusively shared with the Sun.

In an email sent to staff and adjudicators on Sept. 20, Richard Wex, the Liberals’ appointee as chairperson and chief executive officer of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, laid out a massive expansion of the reasons immigrants can be allowed to enter and stay in Canada.

Under the new guidelines, contained in a document marked “Draft” and covered by solicitor-client privilege, civil service officers who do an initial screening of immigration and refugee claims, plus the immigration and refugee judges who hear appeals of the officers’ decisions, are instructed to accept any applicant who has an “intersectional” claim.

Intersectionality is defined as two or more of “race, religion, indigeneity, political beliefs, socioeconomic status, age, sexual orientation, culture, disability, or immigration status,” that “impact an individual’s lived experience of discrimination, marginalization or oppression.”

No longer will claimants need to prove, for instance, that they face torture or death if forced to return to their home countries. Nor will they have to satisfy the UN’s definition of a “refugee.”

Now, if they merely claim they have been discriminated against or persecuted for being poor and old, or Indigenous and holding political views targeted by some developing country’s strongman, in the Liberals come.

One of the principal tasks of the immigration officers and judges is to determine whether a claimant is telling the truth.

The Trudeau Liberals have that covered, too.

Chairperson Wex instructs his staff and judges to remember that trauma — whether physical or emotional — can cause people to recollect information or incidents incorrectly. Therefore, if applicants provide evidence that turns out to be false, it may not be because they’re lying.

Rather they might just be misremembering due to the lingering stress caused by a trauma. Don’t exclude them.

Staff and adjudicators are instructed to give applicants the benefit of the doubt. Unless the officer or judge involved has incontrovertible proof an applicant is lying, the claimant should be admitted. His or her claims of discrimination are to be accepted by default and his or her application approved.

Their falsehoods might just be the side effect of some traumatic experience that is impeding the applicant’s ability to provide evidence that would benefit him or her.

Wex describes a traumatic event as one that elicits “intense feelings of fear, terror, helplessness, hopelessness, and despair” that is perceived “as a threat to the person’s survival.”

Adjudicators must employ “a ‘Do No Harm’ approach” during hearings, to lead with “compassion, cultural humility, and patience in order to avoid retraumatization” of an applicant.

These new rules render examining refugees’ claims pointless.

Adjudicators, essentially, must now say yes to everyone who makes it to Canadian soil and claims (not proves, merely claims) they are a victim of two more of a broad range of abuses — some invisible and mild.

Already, 22 of just over 300 adjudicators already admit 100% of the claimants appearing before them. (The median acceptance rate across the country is about 70%.)

Accepting 100% of claims is an impossibly high rate, unless these 22 judges are deliberately looking to admit anyone and everyone. Most of the 22 are Liberal appointees. Now it would appear they are to be the models for all the other adjudicators.

ching this video on http://www.youtube.com</a>, or enable JavaScript if it is disabled in your browser.</div></div>

Claimants, on average, wait two years for their cases to be heard. During that time, their medical, dental, and even internet is paid for by taxpayers. Sometimes, their housing and food, too.

And now there’s almost no chance they will be sent out of Canada because what applicant and his or her immigration lawyer isn’t going to be capable of thinking up some “interconnectedness” of discriminations or “trauma,” or both?

That’s how the Liberals intend to turn 300,000 or so immigrants a year into 400,000 almost overnight.

Just get rid of all the rules and — presto — a boom in newcomers.

How long do you think it will take for word to get out around the world that Canada, which is already one of the countries most open to immigration, is removing all barriers and throwing the doors open wide?

Source: GUNTER: Liberals to make immigration to Canada much easier

Daphne Bramham: ‘Political Drano’ needed to unclog Canada’s refugee system

Of note:

Canada’s refugee system is in chaos, a victim of its own success and Canadians’ eagerness to help.

Even before Afghanistan fell to the Taliban, it struggled with a backlog of close to 65,000 refugees with permanent resident cards languishing in over-crowded United Nations camps and in countries eager to move them along.

Many are Syrians, who were promised a Canadian home during the 2015 federal election that resulted in an extraordinary effort to settle 25,000 within 100 days.

Also among those waiting are people on Canada’s priority list to help — torture victims, members of persecuted minority groups, people with disabilities, single mothers, and unaccompanied minors.

Afghanistan’s rapid descent has bumped their arrival here even further back, making what was an untenable situation worse. The only solution to unclogging it is “political Drano,” says Chris Friesen.

Friesen is the chief operating officer of Immigrant Services Society of B.C. who helped coordinate Operation Syria in 2015. He says that, as difficult as that was, “this is much worse.”

What he means by political Drano is not just an immediate infusion of money for the processing and settlement of Afghans. It’s more money to fulfill promises of safe haven already made.

It means enhancing the highly successful Group of Five program where citizens can privately sponsor and support the full cost for refugee families’ resettlement for the first year, including rent, shelter, transportation, spending money, food, clothing and household essentials.

There are so many applications already in that queue that — like the refugee queue itself — Friesen said it would take “upwards of two years” for an application filed today to sponsor an Afghan family to make it to the top of the pile.

Like health-care during a pandemic, refugees are triaged. And, right now, few people are at more risk than Afghan human rights activists, judges, journalists and translators who worked with the Canadian military. They are being hunted by the Taliban doing door-to-door searches.

So far, the Canadian response has been muddied because of the federal election.

The immigration minister is still able to sign special permits for Afghans to use as exit visas, but it was impossible for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to get extra money to match the Liberals’ campaign promise to evacuate and settle 20,000 Afghans. The resources have had to come from other programs.

Emergency evacuations have unique problems and costs. Normally, refugees are screened by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees before joining the queue for Canada. Even before now, the Canadian process was taking up to two years, with some of that due to COVID restrictions.

There has been no time for that process now. Instead, Afghans are fleeing using special permits issued on the recommendations of various trusted sources and being processed for permanent residency in hotels in Toronto and Calgary, while they quarantine for two weeks under pandemic protocols.

But even that has had unforeseen problems. A measles outbreak was discovered when the first group of Calgary-bound Afghans landed in the United States. They are now quarantined for 28 days and will have to quarantine another 14 days when they get to Canada.

“It’s all very intense,” said Friesen.

On any given day, there is no way to know when, let alone how many, Afghans might arrive. Some come on government-sponsored flights, while others arrive with the help of non-profit groups. 

No targets have been set for how many will go to each province. The working assumption is that it will follow the traditional patterns. For B.C., that’s 10 per cent of the total. But, as of this week, only 78 families and 300 individuals will have arrived.

The intense public glare is adding another layer of stress for those on the front lines. Public interest was high with the Syrians, but Friesen said interest in the Afghans is “astronomical”.

After 20 years of civil society engagement with Afghanistan, Canadians have made personal connections with the country and its people. They have engaged through non-profit groups supporting women, building schools and libraries, as well as through international professional organizations.

As well, deep loyalties were forged with Afghans who helped journalists and soldiers during Canada’s nearly 15 years of military presence. Plus, there are close to 125,000 Afghan-Canadians.

Many of these Canadians have been fielding desperate pleas for help from their friends and colleagues. In turn, they are asking what the government is doing to help.

Among the loudest voices are some of Canada’s 40,000 veterans — 540 live here, including the founders of Veterans Transition Network. It is raising money to shelter and support Afghan interpreters and their families as they await evacuation.

That is in addition to its ongoing work supporting veterans — some of whom already have post-traumatic stress that may have been triggered by the Taliban’s resurgence.

Every day, already over-stretched staff of settlement services across the country and at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada are diverted from their primary roles to field calls from corporations and individuals offering help.

It is more than most can deal with since among the things that IRCC hasn’t been able to do is hire more staff or provide money for the provincial welcome centres.

For now, Friesen said what ISSofBC urgently needs is help finding affordable housing so that refugee families already here can move out of its Welcome House to make room for new arrivals.

It all sounds like a dreadful mess until you realize that what is driving it is something quite rare and precious — Canadians’ desire to be good global citizens and provide safe haven to desperate strangers.

It is goodwill that could easily be frustrated and squandered unless the government acts quickly to unclog the pipeline. And that can only happen with both strong leadership and cooperation within the new minority parliament.

Source: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjoyvvN757zAhVDtTEKHU22CK4QFnoECAIQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fvancouversun.com%2Fnews%2Fdaphne-bramham-political-drano-needed-to-unclog-canadas-refugee-system&usg=AOvVaw03EOafEVuCfVr5H-M_VvkB

Britain’s newest immigrant group is unlike any that came before

Of interest (Canada is focussing on younger Hong Kongese):

On a sunny afternoon hundreds of Hong Kongers, many so new to Britain that they have not lost the habit of outdoor mask-wearing, have gathered in Beddington Park in the south London borough of Sutton. Trish Fivey, the mayor, gives a short speech welcoming them. Sutton is already multicultural, she says. She looks forward to another group joining the mix.

It is a fine sentiment. But the Hong Kongers are quite different from other immigrants, including other ethnic Chinese. Many have a distinct legal status and are socially atypical. They live in specific places, which they chose in a novel way. They have created distinctive self-help groups. In just a few months, they have begun to rewrite Britain’s immigrant story.

Cantonese speakers have settled in Britain for decades, though not in great numbers. Some early migrants ran Chinese restaurants, which were ubiquitous enough by 1945 to let George Orwell describe them as standard destinations for natives seeking good cheap meals. But the latest rush began recently. In June 2020 Beijing passed a national-security law that criminalised much political activity in Hong Kong. Seven months later the British government created a new visa that enabled many Hong Kongers to settle. By the end of June this year 65,000 people had applied.

Source: Britain’s newest immigrant group is unlike any that came before