Asylum claims being filed in Canada continue to rise slightly despite pandemic

The overall trend, however, is overwhelming lower than pre-COVID as shown in the chart above (June data to be added):

The number of asylum claims being filed in Canada continues to rise slightly despite ongoing global travel restrictions.

The latest figures from the Immigration Department show 1,500 claims for refugee status were filed in Canada in June, up from 1,400 in May.

For the first time since April — the first full month of major travel restrictions designed to slow the spread of COVID-19 —  refugee claims were filed at airports. There were also multiple claims at marine ports.

Also slightly on the rise were the number of people stopped by the RCMP trying to cross irregularly into Canada: 32 in June, up from 21 in May.

Currently, Canada is turning back those who show up at unmarked border crossings, one of several measures being taken at the border in response to the pandemic.

How many people will continue to attempt to enter Canada irregularly may change in the coming months, in the wake of a Federal Court decision Wednesday that the Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and the U.S. violates the charter.

The agreement is the reason just over 3,000 people this year have tried to cross irregularly into Canada in order to file for asylum. Under the deal, they would be turned away at formal border points.

They can still, however, lodge a claim once they are inside Canada.

But Federal Court Justice Ann Marie McDonald said Wednesday that elements of the law underpinning the agreement violate the constitutional guarantee of life, liberty and security.

Under the agreement, which took effect in 2004, Canada and the U.S. recognize each other as safe places to seek protection.

That means Canada can turn away those who arrive at land ports of entry along the Canada-U.S. border on the basis they must pursue asylum in the U.S., the country where they first arrived.

In the long-running court case, the applicants, who are citizens of El Salvador, Ethiopia and Syria, arrived at a Canadian land entry port from the U.S. and sought refugee protection but were refused.

They had argued in court that when returning ineligible refugee claimants to the U.S., Canada exposes them to risks in the form of detention and other rights violations.

In her decision, McDonald concluded the consequences ineligible claimants may face upon return to the U.S. are “inconsistent with the spirit and objective” of the refugee agreement and amount to a violation of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the charter.

The judgement, however, was suspended for six months to allow the government to find a solution.

Talks between Canada and the U.S. to update the Safe Third Country Agreement have been underway for a while, and rights advocates in both countries have urged Canada to use the ruling as opportunity to push them forward.

“Human Rights First notes that the Trump administration’s treatment of asylum seekers is now even worse than it was at the time evidence was submitted in this case,” the non-partisan American group said in a statement.

“In light of the court’s decision and this ongoing deterioration, Human Rights First urges the Canadian government to take this opportunity to withdraw from the ‘safe third country’ agreement.'”

The government can’t sit on its hands and do nothing, said Queen’s University professor and immigration law expert Sharry Aiken.

She said the agreement should be suspended immediately, as the while the court was only dealing with the legality of the deal, it continues to impact refugee claims.

“In my view the Canadian government has a responsibility to act immediately to prevent further violations of our constitution and the international human rights commitments to which Canada has agreed to be bound,” she said.

“It also means that it would be unconscionable for the government to appeal this ruling and seek a stay of the ruling.”

Current travel restrictions in place to slow the spread of COVID-19 appear to have placed downward pressure overall on asylum claims.

By the end of June 2019, 26,725 claims were filed, compared with 16,865 asylum claims filed so far this year.

The rise in June of this year was due to an increase in people already in Canada making claims at government offices, as opposed to those requesting asylum immediately upon arrival in Canada.

Source: Asylum claims being filed in Canada continue to rise slightly despite pandemic

Canada’s travel rules unfair to first-year foreign students, U.S. parents say

Given the ongoing and unfolding disastrous handling of COVID-19, no surprise that the border remains largely closed. And no surprise that US parents are pressing their case for more flexibility:

Parents of students in the United States who hoped to begin their university studies in Canada this fall are frantically trying to convince the federal government to relax rules that make it next to impossible for their kids to enter the country.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada has closed the door to students with study permits granted after March 18, the day Canada and the U.S. announced a ban on non-essential cross-border travel, while students with pre-existing valid permits will be allowed in.

Some parents say that discriminates against first-year students, most of whom didn’t have time to get their permits approved before the deadline after receiving an offer of acceptance from Canadian schools.

“The way things are right now, the only ones that are not able to come into Canada are the freshmen, and that makes no sense to anyone,” said Anna Marti, a resident of New York whose daughter was expecting to launch her post-secondary career in September at McGill University in Montreal.

“They’re the ones that are going to get their study permits after March 18.”

The total number of COVID-19 cases in the U.S. passed the 4 million mark Thursday, with nearly 144,000 deaths to date. Premature reopenings, an uneven and cavalier approach to physical distancing in parts of the country and a partisan divide over mask requirements have helped to fuel a surge in cases. Some experts are projecting a death toll in excess of 200,000 by November.

Canada, by comparison, has reported 112,000 total cases and 8,870 fatalities so far.

“There are no measures in place to provide for expedited processing of study permit applications,” Canada’s immigration department said in an update posted late last week.

“Foreign nationals who had a study permit application approved after March 18, 2020 … may not be exempt from the travel restrictions (and) they should not make any plans to travel to Canada until the travel restrictions are lifted, as they will not be allowed to travel to or enter Canada.”

Marti and others have signed an online petition urging Ottawa to reconsider the study-permit rule, arguing that it’s unfair to only allow foreign students with older permits — many of whom spent the summer in the U.S., where the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic has been escalating in recent weeks — into the country.

The rule also unfairly punishes students in those parts of the country where the virus is less severe, such as Marti’s home in the tri-state area of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, she said.

New York City was a major epicentre for the initial U.S. outbreak back in April, prompting an aggressive response led by Gov. Mario Cuomo that helped to beat back the virus. People in the state have taken the threat more seriously as a result, Marti said.

“We’ve all been through hell,” she said.

“My daughter has not seen her friends in months. To quote Gov. Cuomo, she’s New York smart — she’s out there with her mask, always keeping social distance, and she’s telling me all the time, ‘I don’t understand this. There’s zero chance that we could be a risk.'”

Immigration Minister Marco Mendicino announced last week the government would prioritize study permits for students who have submitted a complete application online. Students will also be able to apply time spent studying online toward their eligibility for a work permit in Canada, provided at least 50 per cent of the program is completed in Canada.

The March 18 threshold for study permits has been in place since the border restrictions were originally imposed, said Kevin Lemkay, a spokesman for Mendicino. Since then, Ottawa has introduced “more flexibility” for students, Lemkay said, including priority processing and a two-stage process for students who are unable to obtain all the necessary documentation.

“Our government knows that international students bring tremendous economic, cultural and social benefits to Canada,” he said.

“We understand that students and post-secondary institutions were eager for certainty, and these measures were taken with that in mind. We hope to have more to say soon.”

The Change.org petition, which has more than 3,000 signatures, calls on the federal government to define all international students as essential travellers. It says students unable to enter Canada will lose access to vital educational resources, research facilities and income opportunities, and may not feel safe remaining in their home countries.

Some McGill employees who expect to be in proximity with students from the U.S. next month have raised concerns about why the school is permitting any international students on campus when the bulk of the course work can be handled online.

The university says the changes to course delivery are strictly temporary and that there will be an on-campus experience for students who are able to attend in person.

“Although the fall semester may look somewhat different than usual, the university is working with faculties to develop on-campus student life and learning activities, respecting careful safety protocols, for students who will be in Montreal in the fall term,” spokeswoman Shirley Cardenas said in a statement.

Those activities will be “replicated” for students who remain outside of Canada, she added.

“All international students entering Canada are required to quarantine for 14 days and are subject to monitoring, verification and enforcement by public health authorities. Individual accommodations will be available for any student needing to self-isolate.”

Source: Canada’s travel rules unfair to first-year foreign students, U.S. parents say

Brain Waste among U.S. Immigrants with Health Degrees: A Multi-State Profile

Good in depth study by MPI. Suspect similar patterns in Canada:

The coronavirus pandemic that swept into communities across the United States beginning in Spring 2020 has placed enormous strain on health-care systems and highlighted the work of both U.S.- and foreign-born health professionals. But even as the need for testing, treatment, and care is high, an estimated 263,000 immigrants and refugees with at least a four-year degree in a health field have largely been sidelined, either employed in jobs that require no more than a high school diploma or out of work.

U.S. and State Data

This spreadsheet offers estimates of immigrants and refugees with health-related undergraduate degrees who are underemployed or unemployed, both nationwide and in selected states. It includes details on their race/ethnicity, legal status, degree majors, origin countries, and the languages other than English that they speak. Click here.

This fact sheet offers the first state-level profile of this untapped pool of immigrant health professionals. Using data from the U.S. Census Bureau and U.S. Department of Labor, it provides estimates of the number and key characteristics of underutilized immigrants with health degrees, including their English proficiency, the other languages they speak, their top fields of study, and the legal statuses they hold.

Among the key findings of this analysis are that these immigrants are widely distributed across the United States, not concentrated in traditional immigrant-gateway states. There is also considerable overlap between the languages other than English that they speak and those spoken by Limited English Proficient populations in the states where they live, making them a potentially valuable resource in providing linguistically and culturally competent care.

Source: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/brain-waste-immigrants-health-degrees-multi-state-profile

‘Canada cannot turn a blind eye’: Federal court says Safe Third Country Agreement with U.S. violates charter

The big news this week, with the question will the government accept or appeal this decision given that defending the STCA with the Trump administration would be different under a possible Biden administration:

In a ruling that lambastes the American government’s detention of asylum-seekers and chastises Canadian officials as complicit, this country’s Federal Court has ruled the so-called Safe Third Country Agreement is unconstitutional.

The ruling is being hailed as a major victory for refugee rights — and drawing calls from advocates for Ottawa to immediately and unilaterally suspend the agreement with the United States.

“Security of the person encompasses freedom from the threat of physical punishment or suffering,” Justice Ann Marie McDonald wrote in her 62-page decision, which was released Wednesday.

“The accounts of the detainees (in the U.S.) demonstrate both physical and psychological suffering because of detention, and a real risk that they will not be able to assert asylum claims.”

Under the bilateral pact, Canada and the U.S. each recognize the other country as a safe place to seek protection.

That means Canada can turn back potential refugees who arrive at land ports of entry along the Canada-U.S. border on the basis they should pursue their claims in the States, the country where they first arrived.

The agreement, which took effect in 2004, was originally touted by officials in both countries as a way to curb “asylum shopping.” However, critics have long argued that the U.S. asylum system is cruel and inhumane — critiques that have grown louder and more pronounced during the Trump administration.

In its judgment, the court found it unconstitutional to ban would-be claimants from attempting to enter either country at official border crossings. The court gave Ottawa six months to respond and fix the policy to make sure it complies with the Canadian charter before declaring the accord invalid.

“The evidence demonstrates that the immediate consequence to ineligible STCA claimants is that they will be imprisoned solely for having attempted to make a refugee claim in Canada,” McDonald said. “The ‘sharing of responsibility’ objective of the STCA should entail some guarantee of access to a fair refugee process.”

Refugee advocates urged the Liberal government to move quickly to suspend the agreement, which the terms allow.

“Refugee claimants turned away at the Canada-U.S. border face grave human rights violations in the United States, notably atrocious conditions in immigration detention,” said Alex Neve, Secretary General of Amnesty International Canada, one of the parties.

“Under no circumstances should the government consider appealing this ruling. It is time to stop pretending that all is right when it comes to protecting the rights of refugees in the U.S. Not one more refugee claimant should be turned away at the Canada-U.S. border.”

Mary-Liz Power, spokesperson for Public Safety Minister Bill Blair, would not say whether the government planned to appeal the court decision.

“We are aware of the Federal Court’s decision and are currently reviewing it. Although the Federal Court has made its ruling, that decision does not come in effect until January 22, 2021. The Safe Third Country Agreement remains in effect,” Power said in an email.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s anti-migrant policies have spurred an influx of so-called irregular migrants skirting asylum restrictions by crossing outside of Canada’s official ports of entry, where restrictions have applied.

More than 50,000 asylum seekers have come here that way via the U.S. over the past two years. Once here, after passing initial medical and security screenings, refugees can work and access health-care pending a decision on their asylum claims.

“When the Trump administration attempted to impose their travel ban in January 2017, it was obvious that the Liberal government could no longer count on the United States to live up to its international and humanitarian obligations,” said NDP immigration critic Jenny Kwan.

“Contrary to what Minister Blair has said in the past, this (ruling) proves that refugees are not simply ‘asylum shopping.’”

After Trump’s election in November 2016 with an anti-immigration agenda, Canadian and U.S. non-governmental organizations and refugee lawyers started their effort to challenge the legality of the asylum restrictions.

In 2017, they connected with a Salvadoran woman in the U.S. who sought asylum after she was raped and threatened by the notorious Mara Salvatrucha gang in El Salvador, and agreed to be the lead litigant. The other litigants included a Syrian family of four and a young Ethiopian woman, all of whom were denied access to asylum in Canada. The three Canadian rights groups, including the Canadian Council for Refugees and the Canadian Council of Churches, also enlisted nine other witnesses

During the hearing in November, the court reviewed evidence that showed detainees in the U.S. had no access to phone calls and legal counsel or translators; have been lost due to transfers between detention centres; and sometimes were held in solitary confinement.

“The court could hardly fail to be moved by the testimonies of the appalling experiences of people in the U.S. immigration detention system, after Canada closed the doors on them,” said Dorota Blumczynska, president of the Canadian Council for Refugees.

“Their experiences show us and convinced the court that the U.S. cannot be considered a safe country for refugees.”

The court decision also called out Canadian officials’ responsibility.

“Canada cannot turn a blind eye to the consequences … in its efforts to adhere to the STCA. The evidence clearly demonstrates that those returned to the U.S. by Canadian officials are detained as a penalty,” Justice McDonald wrote.

Queen’s University immigration law professor Sharry Aiken said it’s “reasonable” to expect an influx of refugee claimants at official ports of entry from south of border in light of the ruling, though it may not happen immediately due to the COVID-19 border restrictions.

“The court ruling itself does not address the current (pandemic) context but the implications of the ruling signal that Canada should step up immediately to protect the rights of claimants approaching Canada for asylum,” Aiken said.

“Canada has proven itself more than capable of adequately addressing spikes in the numbers of asylum seekers. Constitutional rights are not about the numbers, in any event.”

Source: https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2020/07/22/canadian-court-says-safe-third-country-agreement-with-us-violates-charter.html

Canada tells most international students not to come until travel ban is lifted

Effect on economy will be significant:

International students have been told not to make travel plans to Canada until after Ottawa’s border restrictions are lifted.

In the latest update of its program guidelines, the federal immigration department said Tuesday that international students will not be allowed to enter Canada if they have received a student visa after the country’s border lockdown on March 18.

Even those who have a valid study permit from that date or earlier will be denied entry unless they can prove their travel is “non-discretionary or non-optional.”

“While many Canadian college and university campus locations are closed, classes are generally continuing online. Travel will be deemed discretionary or non-discretionary depending on individual circumstances,” said the advisory.

In 2019, more than 650,000 international students studied in Canada at the post-secondary level. The sector contributed more than $21 billion to the Canadian economy through students’ spending and tuition fees, which are two to three times higher than their domestic peers. The largest cohort of the students usually arrives in the fall.

To ensure Canada remains a competitive destination of choice for international education during the pandemic, the federal government is allowing students to count the time spent pursuing their studies online abroad toward their eligibility for a post-graduation work permit.

If they have submitted a study permit application and if at least half of their program is completed in Canada when the border reopens, they will be eligible for the work permit, which many international students count on as an ultimate pathway for permanent residence.

“The pandemic has had a significant impact on international students and the Canadian institutions and communities that host them. This is why we have implemented a series of measures to support them,” Immigration Minister Marco Mendicino said earlier.

“We value the contribution of young people seeking a high-quality education in Canada, and we’re making every effort to minimize how current challenges affect their plans and dreams for the future.”

Despite the special COVID-19 measures, international students have complained that schools still require the same hefty tuition fees for online programs, which present other challenges regarding time-zone differences. Some students may have to stay up for their class in the wee hours from their home countries.

Sarom Rho, a migrant student worker organizer, said Ottawa has been tone-deaf to the needs of international students, who have been asking for a tuition freeze and work permit extension, among other things that could help them through the pandemic.

“International students are disappointed with these announcements,” said Rho of Migrant Students United. “The government’s response is geared towards maintaining international enrolment and fees as a source of revenue to keep schools operating. It’s disavowing its responsibility to the quality of education for these students.”

According to the immigration department’s updated guidelines, border agents have the final say in admitting arriving students.

Students must prove their presence in Canada is necessary for their continued participation in their program, such as in labs and workshops, or prove that pursuing online studies is not an option for their school or program or not possible from their home country, for example, due to internet restrictions or bandwidth limitation.

Like all travellers, international students who enter Canada must undergo the necessary health checks and self-quarantine for 14 days upon arrival.

Some universities and colleges have issued support letters to incoming international students advising them to take extra precautions before travelling to Canada because students are responsible for the costs of returning to their home countries.

At the University of Saskatchewan, for example, students are recommended to provide border agents support letters from the administration saying that “your studies cannot be completed online and you are expected to to start on-site.”

Hongkongers lose taste for overseas property elsewhere amid BN(O) offer

Interesting given possible impact on Canada for those with BNO passports (those without will, of course, continue to have interest in Canada as the implementation of the law continues):
Interest in overseas property in other countries has plunged among Hongkongers looking to emigrate, after the United Kingdom unveiled its path to citizenship for residents eligible for British National (Overseas) passports, immigration consultants said.

Applications for emigration to Canada and Taiwan, which had recorded the most interest following the introduction of the national security law, were the most affected by the UK’s announcement, said Raymond Chong, managing director at StarPro Immigration Consultancy. The company had received “several hundred enquiries per month” following the passage of the law by Beijing, but “some had withheld” their applications to other countries once the BN(O) option was revealed, Chong said.

“After the BN(O) [policy] was revealed, enquiries for properties outside the UK plummeted by more than half. Enquiries about BN(O) passports and the UK have skyrocketed, rising by four to five times,” he said.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced the plan on July 1, paving the way for three million Hong Kong residents who are eligible for BN(O) passports to live and eventually settle in the UK. The BN(O) path is a much cheaper and faster way to emigrate and involves fewer procedures than other immigration programmes, StarPro’s Chong added.

An online survey of 300 Hong Kong residents conducted this month by Midland Immigration Consultancy found that about three in five BN(O) passport holders now had a greater desire to emigrate.

An increase in emigration from Hong Kong is also likely to drive up home prices in the UK, said Jan Hong, senior principal director at Centaline Immigration Consultants. He added that a recent stamp duty relaxation in the UK until the end of March 2021 would also boost the market.

The increase in transactions involving UK property would come at the expense of property deals elsewhere, where prices would see less upwards pressure, said StarPro’s Chong. “Hong Kong funds will shift to the UK,” he said. “But foreign property purchases [by Hongkongers] do not usually account for a large portion of housing transactions in these countries, so the impact will be limited.”

Portugal, a favourite destination among Hong Kong residents looking to invest in property abroad because of its golden visa scheme, has seen fewer enquiries of late. Overseas buyers are believed to have contributed to a surge in housing prices, which, however, fell by about 14 per cent in March because of the coronavirus outbreak, according to the country’s National Statistics Institute. Its property market has recovered gradually over the past three months, according to property data company Confidencial Imobiliario.

And a minority of Hong Kong residents – especially those without BN(O) passports – is still expected to choose Portugal, because they are not required to live there and can get passports through the country’s golden visa scheme. These passports will allow them to remain in Hong Kong, while their children can study in primary and secondary schools in the UK for free after getting Irish residency, thanks to a European Union and UK policy.

Elsewhere, interest in property in Cyprus and Greece has sustained despite the UK’s BN(O) policy. The absence of a requirement to live in Cyprus, another former British colony, and the promise of good weather add to its appeal, said Pantelis Leptos, director of The Leptos Group.

Investors qualify for Cypriot citizenship through the Cyprus Investment Programme, on purchase of property worth €2 million. They can sell the property after five years.

Another option is permanent residency, which is available to investors who purchase property worth 300,000 in Cyprus, and 250,000 in Greece. But owners need to keep the property as long as they want to keep their residency.

Source: Hongkongers lose taste for overseas property elsewhere amid BN(O) offer

Immigration Policy and the Global Competition for AI Talent

Some really interesting cross-country comparisons, highlighting the gap between the current US approach and other countries:

This paper analyzes policies relevant to four categories of immigrants: students in AI-related fields of study, workers in AI-related industries, distinguished AI workers (that is, individuals internationally renowned for their achievements in AI), and AI entrepreneurs. These groups represent the range of backgrounds and experience levels that nations need to compete in AI. We explore trends that, taken together, may be making the U.S. immigration system less attractive to these groups relative to other countries’ systems:

  • Within the last five years, the UK, Canada, France, and Australia have adopted major immigration reforms to attract talent in AI and other technical fields. The United States has not.
  • Despite growing job opportunities, recent graduates and others may be restrained from contributing to the U.S. AI workforce to their full potential—partly due to current caps, backlogs, and sponsorship processes at the expense of the employer for temporary work visas and permanent residency. In contrast, Canada’s new immigration policies quickly bring in skilled migrants and integrate graduates into the workforce. The UK is proposing similar changes to ease and expedite the immigration process for technically skilled migrants.
  • The United States’ per-country quotas on permanent residency—which remain unchanged for decades—have created a significant bottleneck, especially for Indian nationals who make up the 25 percent of Silicon Valley’s technical workforce. The other countries in this analysis forego quotas on permanent residency status and allow immigrants who meet permanent residency requirements to apply.
  • Although data is scarce and important trends are in nascent stages, empirical indicators suggest that some new AI-focused immigration policies in other countries are successful.
  • The United States has long attracted immigrant entrepreneurs with its innovative culture, but does not offer an entrepreneur visa. Entrepreneur visas offered by other countries in this analysis have largely failed due to unrealistic and vague metrics for business success or long processing times. The United States could learn from the mistakes of competitor countries and design its own visa to increase its immigrant entrepreneur population and create jobs for Americans.

The United States historically and presently benefits from a strong baseline of technological innovation through existing institutions. Immigration trends alone are unlikely to eliminate the U.S. advantage in the near term. However, the global landscape is shifting, and restrictive immigration policies threaten to undermine U.S. AI progress in the long term. To ensure America remains competitive for AI talent in the coming years, U.S. policymakers should consider reforms to current immigration statutes, regulations, and agency guidance. Other countries’ immigration reforms suggest three main lessons:

  • Improve temporary visa options for skilled workers. The structure of the H-1B temporary work visa prevents AI talent from contributing to the United States to their full potential. In particular, workers seeking permanent residency while on H-1B status—a process that could take years or decades—would need another sponsorship if they wished to switch positions or employers. Further, the H-1B lottery occurs only once a year, forcing employers to wait until the annual draw on April 1 to learn whether critical employees have been selected. In contrast, Canada has no cap on the number of work permits that can be provided year-round and issues these permits in as little as two weeks.

  • Expand opportunities for permanent residency. Allocating permanent residency status based on decades-old caps and immigrants’ countries of origin, rather than the skills they bring to the United States, has created a bottleneck for highly skilled AI workers who wish to contribute to the U.S. AI workforce in the long term. Specifically, the employment-based green card wait time for Indian nationals, who make up 25 percent of Silicon Valley’s technical work force, is 89 years. There are no formal caps or quotas on permanent residency in the UK, France, Australia, and Canada. Instead, immigrants are eligible to apply once they have lived or worked in the country for a set number of years.

  • Expand opportunities for entrepreneurs. While each of the other four countries in this analysis offers some form of an entrepreneur visa, initial results suggest they have been relatively unsuccessful. The United States should strengthen AI innovation by adopting an entrepreneur visa informed by the flaws of competitor nations to better attract and retain AI entrepreneurs.

Canada will have to rely on immigration as global fertility rate plummets: study

More on demographic trends, without asking whether there are policy alternatives to increased immigration or accounting for the likely impact of increased automation and AI:

Canada’s current openness to immigration must continue if the country wants to maintain one of the world’s largest economies for the rest of the century, according to a new study projecting global population and economic trends between now and 2100.

The study, which was published Tuesday in The Lancet, primarily focuses on an anticipated decline in the world population as fertility rates fall in the second half of the 21st century.

It forecasts that the global population will peak in 2064 at 9.73 billion people. By 2100 – less than two generations later – that number will be nearly one billion lower, and nearly three-quarters of the 195 nations included in the study will not be producing enough children to maintain their workforces.

“Once global population decline begins, it will probably continue inexorably,” the researchers behind the study wrote.

The study predicts that Canada’s population will peak later in the century, at nearly 45.2 million in 2078, and fall slightly to 44.1 million by 2100.

According to the researchers, a declining population is “potentially good news” for the battle against climate change, but not enough on its own to save the planet from serious environmental effects.

Shrinking populations can also cause economic damage, as fewer people are available to work. One way to offset this is by accepting large numbers of immigrants to make up the difference, as Canada has been doing for decades.

The researchers expect Canada to become an even more prominent immigration hub over the next 80 years, forecasting us to have the world’s highest net migration rate – immigrants minus emigrants – by 2100, ahead of Turkey and Sweden. This would happen despite the current “steady stream” of migrants drying up somewhat, as developing nations improve their education systems and quality of life.

All that immigration would see Canada replacing Russia as the world 10th-largest economy by 2030 and remaining there for the rest of the century, even as Nigeria and Australia bump Brazil and Italy out of the top 10, according to the forecast.

“As long as these immigration policies continue, our reference scenario showed sustained population growth and workforce expansion … with concomitant economic growth,” the researchers wrote.

“The optimal strategy for economic growth, fiscal stability, and geopolitical security is liberal immigration with effective assimilation into these societies.”

In countries where immigration is not used to maintain the workforce and GDP, the researchers wrote, governments may instead look to create incentives for parents to have more children, such as baby bonuses and paid parental leave. They warned that there is also a “very real danger” that “some states might consider adopting policies that restrict female reproductive health rights.”

Not taking any action to maintain the size of the workforce could leave countries in a position where they have to significantly increase taxes or run the risk that health insurance and social security programs could collapse, the researchers said.

The study was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and carried out by researchers at the University of Washington.

NOT SET IN STONE

In addition to their overall projections, the researchers looked at what would happen if the worldsped up or slowed down its progress on meeting the United Nations’ sustainable development goals (SDG) regarding female educational attainment and contraceptive need. “Many countries are not on track” to achieve those goals, they said.

These factors make a significant difference in the forecasts. Slower movement toward those goals would result in a global population of 13.6 billion and still rising in 2100, the researchers found, while the pace required to fully meet the SDGs by 2100 would see the world’s population peak in 2046 and fall to 6.29 billion by the end of the century as fertility rates plummet.

The differences are less stark in Canada, where migration is expected to have a much larger impact than global fertility patterns on population trends. The study forecasts that with slower progress toward SDGs, Canada’s population would peak in 2086 at just over 46.1 million – less than one million more than the projection based on the current pace. Meeting the SDGs by 2100 would have a bigger impact, with the population peaking around 42 million in the mid-2050s and dropping to 37 million by 2100.

The researchers say these large variations show the effect political policies can have on long-term population and economic outcomes.

“Understanding potential patterns in future population levels is crucial for anticipating and planning for changing age structures, resource and health-care needs, and environmental and economic landscapes,” they wrote.

Other highlights from the study’s projections of the world in 2100 include:

  • The five largest countries, by population, will be India, Nigeria, China, the U.S. and Pakistan

  • China will have barely half of its current population, while India’s will be down by roughly 300 million and the American population will be relatively unchanged

  • Japan, Spain, Italy and 20 other nations will lose half or more of their 2017 population

  • Nearly half of the world’s population will be in Africa as the population of the sub-Saharan part of the continent triples

  • Life expectancies will continue to rise, albeit slowly, nearing 89 years in the most advanced countries

  • The mean age of a human, which was 32.6 in 2017, will be at 46.2

  • There will be more than six times as many people over the age of 80 as there were in 2017

  • The number of children under the age of five will be 41 per cent lower than it was in 2017

  • Although China will eclipse the U.S. as the world’s largest economic power by 2035, the U.S. will retake that title in 2098

Source: Canada will have to rely on immigration as global fertility rate plummets: study

Trump administration rescinds rule barring foreign students from taking all classes online

A rare but welcome reversal of the Trump administration’s anti-immigration policies:

Facing eight federal lawsuits and opposition from hundreds of universities, the Trump administration on Tuesday rescinded a rule that would have required international students to transfer or leave the country if their schools held classes entirely online because of the pandemic.

The decision was announced at the start of a hearing in a federal lawsuit in Boston brought by Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs said federal immigration authorities agreed to pull the July 6 directive and “return to the status quo.”

A lawyer representing the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said only that the judge’s characterization was correct.

The announcement brings relief to thousands of foreign students who had been at risk of being deported from the country, along with hundreds of universities that were scrambling to reassess their plans for the fall in light of the policy.

Under the policy, international students in the U.S. would have been forbidden from taking all their courses online this fall. New visas would not have been issued to students at schools planning to provide all classes online, which includes Harvard. Students already in the U.S. would have faced deportation if they didn’t transfer schools or leave the country voluntarily.

Immigration officials issued the policy last week, reversing earlier guidance from March 13 telling colleges that limits around online education would be suspended during the pandemic. University leaders believed the rule was part of President Donald Trump’s effort to pressure the nation’s schools and colleges to reopen this fall even as new virus cases rise.

The policy drew sharp backlash from higher education institutions, with more than 200 signing court briefs supporting the challenge by Harvard and MIT. Colleges said the policy would put students’ safety at risk and hurt schools financially. Many schools rely on tuition from international students, and some stood to lose millions of dollars in revenue if the rule had taken hold.

Harvard and MIT were the first to contest the policy, but at least seven other federal suits had been filed by universities and states opposing the rule.

Harvard and MIT argued that immigration officials violated procedural rules by issuing the guidance without justification and without allowing the public to respond. They also argued that the policy contradicted ICE’s March 13 directive telling schools that existing limits on online education would be suspended “for the duration of the emergency.”

The suit noted that Trump’s national emergency declaration has not been rescinded and that virus cases are spiking in some regions.

Immigration officials, however, argued that they told colleges all along that any guidance prompted by the pandemic was subject to change. They said the rule was consistent with existing law barring international students from taking classes entirely online. Federal officials said they were providing leniency by allowing students to keep their visas even if they study online from abroad.

Source: Trump administration rescinds rule barring foreign students from taking all classes online

Trans woman required to identify as ‘male’ by Immigration Canada: ‘It was agony’

As a refugee claimant only, based on their foreign passport. If their claim is accepted, Canadian documents allow for gender identity.

Given the apparent inconsistencies between the IRB and IRCC regarding the policy and its implementation, expect this will change but given the large numbers of temporary residents (students, workers) this would apply to, implementation may be more complex than it would appear:

The last thing Naomi Chen’s wife said to her before she fled Hong Kong was “don’t cry too much — Canada is the place where you can live as who you are.”

But this, it turns out, was untrue for Chen, a trans woman who says she was persecuted in Hong Kong because of her gender.

After arriving in Toronto Chen made a refugee claim and was then told by Canadian immigration officials she must be identified as “male” on her refugee protection claimant document, her only valid piece of identification in Canada.

Global News has agreed to use a pseudonym for Chen because of fears she could be persecuted if sent back to Hong Kong.

“I was stunned. I was crying. I was distressed,” Chen said. “This is not something I expected.”

According to government policy, all information on an asylum seeker’s immigration documents “must reflect what is indicated on their foreign passport.”

This is true even in cases such as Chen’s, where a person receives hormone therapy, has undergone sex reassignment surgery, and where their lived gender no longer conforms with the sex they were assigned at birth.

It’s also true for all temporary resident documents issued by the government, including work and study permits.

“It’s discrimination,” Chen said.

Since coming to Canada, Chen has felt isolated and dreads leaving her apartment because she might be asked to show her ID that says she’s a man, essentially outing her as a trans woman.

She also said being misgendered by the Canadian government makes her feel less valued than other people.

“I’m so afraid to live as a woman here,” she said.

Right to self-identify

The Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on: sex, race, national or ethnic origin, sexual orientation and gender identity.

The Ontario Human Rights Code also prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex or gender identity.

“A person’s self-defined gender identity is one of the most basic aspects of self-determination, dignity and freedom,” reads an Ontario Human Rights Commission policy on preventing discrimination based on gender identity and expression.

“For legal and social purposes, a person whose gender identity is different from their birth-assigned sex should be treated according to their lived gender.”

The federal government allows citizens, permanent residents and refugees whose claims are accepted, meaning they’re allowed to stay in Canada permanently, to change their sex or “gender identifier” on official travel documents, such as a passport or permanent resident card, by completing a one-page form.

Yet for refugee claimants whose cases have not yet been decided — even those whose claims are based solely on alleged persecution due to their status as an intersex or LGBTQ2 person — the only way they can change their documents to reflect their lived gender is if they first change the information on their foreign passport, according to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada’s policy.

But this is impossible in Chen’s case because she fled Hong Kong due to the persecution she experienced there, including the alleged theft of her business by family members after she came out as a trans woman.

Chen married a woman in Hong Kong before she transitioned. And because same-sex marriage is illegal in Hong Kong, even if she were able to change her original passport, which she can’t, she fears this would invalidate her marriage.

“It’s simply unconscionable that the Canadian government would knowingly contribute to a process that discriminates against individuals based on their gender identity and gender expression,” said Chen’s lawyer, Ashley Fisch.

Fisch also believes the government’s policy violates Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms by failing to provide “equal treatment under the law” for trans and gender diverse refugee claimants and by perpetuating the types of hardships they’re forced to endure in other countries.

“I just feel sorry for the poor woman,” said Amanda Ryan, outreach committee chair for Gender Mosaic, an Ottawa-based trans support organization.

Ryan believes recent changes to federal human rights law could be a basis for extending the right to self-identify to refugee claimants and temporary residents. She said education — both in and outside government — is key to expanding protections for the trans community.

“When you start talking to people and they start learning about trans issues, there’s an awful lot of sympathy and understanding for us,” Ryan said.

“People that don’t have to deal with a trans person simply don’t have that information. That’s ignorance in the true sense of the word.”

Trans and intersex refugees at greater risk

After arriving in Canada and undergoing initial screening to determine if they are eligible to make an asylum claim, would-be refugees are given their refugee ID, which must conform with their foreign passport.

Claimants must then submit their formal claim to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB).

The required paperwork asks claimants what sex appears on their foreign passport. However, contrary to Immigration Canada’s policy, claimants are told they can self-identify on IRB documents if their passport does not conform with their lived gender.

IRB adjudicators are instructed to refer to claimants by their preferred pronouns, including in written decisions, even if this does not match their foreign passport. The Board’s guidelines also acknowledge that not recognizing a person’s lived gender can lead to serious consequences.

“Trans and intersex individuals may be particularly vulnerable to systemic discrimination and acts of violence due to their non-conformity with socially accepted norms,” the guidelines say.

Dr. June Lam, a psychiatrist at the adult gender identity clinic at Toronto’s Centre of Addiction and Mental Health, said misgendering trans and gender diverse people can contribute to negative mental health outcomes, including increased suicidal thoughts and actions.

“It’s like we’re recreating the systemic oppression that they’re trying to escape by coming to Canada,” Lam said.

“These barriers really reinforce that even our society views their life, their identity as less valuable.”

While Lam believes Canada is generally a much safer place for LGBTQ2 people than many other countries around the world, he said being forced to use an ID that outs someone as having a different birth-assigned sex than their lived gender puts them at greater risk of physical and psychological harm.

He also cites research that found having a government-issued ID that reflects a person’s lived gender significantly reduces the likelihood of suicidal thoughts and actions among trans and gender diverse people.

“It’s almost like transgender folks have to proove themselves over and over again before our government and our society believes they are who they are,” he said.

Policy sometimes ignored

When Chen was first issued her refugee ID she was told in person by the Canada Border Services Agency that it must conform with her Hong Kong passport, in accordance with government policy.

Chen’s lawyer then sent a letter to the government requesting the ID be reissued with her correct gender, but the request was denied.

“We regret to inform you that refugee claimants are not able to request a change in gender,” a manager from Immigration Canada wrote.

But nearly identical requests have been accepted in the past, said Adrienne Smith, a Toronto immigration lawyer who specializes in LGBTQ2 refugee claims.

Smith knows this because the letter Chen’s lawyer sent the government was based on a template she wrote several years ago. Smith said she’s used this letter on multiple occasions to persuade immigration officials to issue documents in a claimant’s lived gender.

“It just doesn’t make any sense,” Smith said. “A trans refugee claimant shouldn’t need to have a lawyer that understands trans-specific issues in order to get access to a basic right.”

Global News asked the government to explain why refugee claimants’ documents must reflect the information on their foreign passports and whether this policy systemically discriminates against trans and non-binary asylum seekers. The government did not answer either of these questions.

The government also did not say whether it believes that insisting that non- Canadian citizens and temporary residents be issued documents that don’t align with their lived gender violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

“Everyone should be free to lead happy and authentic lives in Canada, regardless of how they identify, or who they love,” said Kevin Lemkay, a spokesperson for Immigration Minister Marco Mendicino.

Lemkay said the minister has made reviewing gender identity requirements for government-issued documents a priority. This includes the refugee protection claimant document.

The government has also passed legislation, including changes to the Canadian Human Rights Act, that make it illegal to discriminate based on gender identity and expression, while introducing the “X” gender marker on passports and permanent resident cards.

“We remain steadfast in our dedication to inclusion and equality,” Lemkay said.

Despite being misgendered by the government, Chen is determined to remain in Canada. She believes Canada is a place where she can live a life free from the type of persecution she experienced in Hong Kong.

She also hopes that one day she’ll be reunited with her wife — who was denied an entry visa to Canada because of questions about the purpose of her visit, and who does not have a Hong Kong passport, which would exempt her from visa requirements — and that they’ll be able to live together in a same-sex marriage.

“I came to Canada for the freedom of my soul,” Chen said.

Source: Trans woman required to identify as ‘male’ by Immigration Canada: ‘It was agony’