Good reminder of the scam that is the Quebec immigrant investor program and good for Richard Kurland for obtaining and analyzing the data that highlights just how much it is a scam.
Just as Quebec unduly benefits from the 1991 immigration accord that provides Quebec with greater funding per immigrant than other provinces, one that remains a fixed percentage of total settlement funding, irrespective of Quebec immigration levels, meaning that as Quebec decreases its immigration intake under the Legault government, the imbalance increases.
And good for the Conservatives under Jason Kenney for cancelling the federal program. When I analyzed citizenship data by immigration category, the lowest incomes (LICO prevalence) were reported by business immigrants as shown in the chart below (grouped under “Entrepreneur etc):
It’s time for Ottawa to end the honour system that allows nine of 10 wealthy immigrants to renege on their promise to live in Quebec.
Federal immigration officials have released information showing 91 per cent of the tens of thousands of applicants approved by Quebec’s Immigrant Investor Program in recent years have been exploiting a loophole in the plan, which critics consider a “cash-for-passport” scheme.
Immigration specialists say there are several ways Ottawa could enforce the formal promise, which investor immigrants make on three separate documents, stating that they intend to establish a home for themselves and their families in the Francophone province.
But the federal Liberals show no signs of clamping down on Quebec’s controversial program, which requires applicants give the province a $1.2-million interest-free loan for five years, even while the majority end up living in large English-language cities such as Toronto or Vancouver, where Statistics Canada found many buy high-priced homes.
The Quebec program’s glaring flaw also illustrates a wider problem for the country and its provinces, says Vancouver immigration lawyer Richard Kurland.That is, Ottawa does not seem interested in trying to make all would-be immigrants to Canada follow through on residing in their declared “intended province of destination.” There are taxation measures that could be introduced, Kurland said, that could ensure more immigrants follow through on their stated commitments.
Even though Quebec’s immigrant-investor program is set to re-open this summer, after being temporarily suspended to deal with a backlog of more than 5,000 applications, critics don’t want to see it start up again under the same rules.
“There are two reasons Quebec’s program has been a failure, leading to abuse of the system,” says Burnaby immigration lawyer George Lee, whose clientele is predominantly from China.“It’s freezing cold in Quebec in the winter, so (many) people from Asia find the weather intolerable,” said Lee.
“Secondly, language-wise, there’s a problem. Most people in China learn English rather than French. As a result, many of Quebec’s investor immigrants don’t ever even fly into Montreal or Quebec City. They just use the Quebec program as a bridge to get to English-speaking cities in Canada.”
Kurland, who obtained six years of recent data on the more than 25,000 investor immigrants and family members who have never fulfilled their stated promise to reside in Quebec, said a simple new tax measure would likely stop the exploitation.
All Ottawa has to do is delay granting permanent resident status to newcomers to Quebec (or any other province) until they file an income tax return as a resident of their declared province of destination, said Kurland, who has frequently travelled to Ottawa to advise Parliament on immigration policy.For his part, Lee realizes that residents of Canada have mobility rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But, like Kurland, he believes Ottawa could find ways to go further to ensure compliance to regional residency commitments than a misused honour system.
Lee worries Quebec doesn’t want to reform its immigrant-investor program.
“Quebec’s happy with the scheme,” he says, because the province gets substantial amounts of money injected into its coffers without having to provide new arrivals and their families with taxpayer-funded medical care, social services and education.The data obtained by Kurland under an access to information request shows that in 2017 only 342 of the 5,015 people approved under Quebec’s investor category actually had a primary residence in the province.
In 2018, just 518 of the 6,064 people approved were found to be living in Quebec. And up until October of last year, only 528 of the 4,136 approved were residing in the that province.
This chart shows over six years how nine of 10 applicants and their dependents approved as permanent residents under Quebec’s immigrant-investor program did not reside in Quebec. (Source: Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, via Richard Kurland)
Meanwhile, an internal federal immigration document, also obtained by Kurland, acknowledges growing criticism of “golden-passport” schemes such as the one that remains in Quebec, the only Canadian province ever granted separate immigration powers.
The Immigrant, Refugees and Citizenship Canada report from 2019 reveals that four of five of the foreign investors who give or loan various amounts of money to a Pacific Rim country (or its regional jurisdictions) in return for a visa or passport are from China.
Most such investors simply want “peace of mind, a way out when the home country is experiencing turmoil,” says the IRCC report, which grew out of an international conference in Miami on “citizenship-by-investment programs.”
The immigration report refers to how the federal Conservatives cancelled Canada’s long-running national investor-immigrant program in 2014. The government of the day found few of the wealthy applicants ever invested in businesses in Canada or paid a significant amount of federal income tax.
One survey. We shall see what the numbers show in the fall, both with respect to existing students as well as new ones.
But hard to see how the call for international students to access the Canada Emergency Student Benefit (CESB) would be supported by the government as called for by David Dingwal, president of Cape Breton University, given the likely outcry by many Canadians struggling through the pandemic and the other supports provided:
Most aspiring international students in a recent survey say the coronavirus pandemic is not stopping them from pursuing their post-secondary education abroad.
That being said, many would still prefer the face-to-face study experience over online learning, according to the survey conducted by international education specialists at IDP Connect, the B2B division of IDP Education.
Some 69 per cent of the 6,900 international student applicants surveyed intend to commence their studies as planned. Only five per cent said they would no longer continue studying. Most of the participants were from India, China, and Bangladesh, among other Asian countries, who were interested in pursuing study in Australia, Canada, United Kingdom, United States, and New Zealand.
The majority of people said they would prefer to defer their study plans until face-to-face classes were available, mainly because the online option lacks the international exposure most were hoping to gain.
The CEO of IDP Connect, Simon Emmett, noted that just over half of participants, 54 per cent, would be willing to defer their studies up to 12 months or less before pursuing other options.
“Thirty-one per cent of respondents stated they would be willing to start their course online and move to face-to-face learning at a later date, but by far the greatest preference was to defer to January 2021 if this meant face-to-face learning would be possible,” Emmett said in a media release.
Based on the results, IDP recommended that post-secondary institutions provide clarity on how and when face-to-face teaching will resume, and to prepare for large cohorts of students commencing face-to-face studies from January to May, 2021.
Survey participants got to rank destination countries on a scale of 1-10 based on their pre-conceived perceptions.
Though Australia and Canada were the preferred destination countries of the overwhelming majority of participants, Canada was highly regarded for its welfare of international students, and the economic stability of the nation. Canada was also seen as having the least prohibitive travel restrictions.
University activity as provinces loosen coronavirus restrictions
As Canadian provinces start pulling back coronavirus measures, some universities are also opening their facilities.
McGill University in Montreal, Quebec, will commence the first stage of its phase-in to operation on May 11, allowing some on-campus researchers to go back to work. Researchers will be required to follow the university’s directives, which includes adhering to safety protocols, being prepared to shut down in case of changes at the institution or government level, among others.
The University of Prince Edward Island will also allow researchers, faculty, and graduate students to conduct research on campus as of May 25. They are also allowing some key staff and the management team to meet on campus, while encouraging social distancing and working from home when possible. The second phase is set to begin June 15, upon evaluation of the first phase, where they may expand the number of people allowed on campus. The third phase, another expansion, is scheduled to begin August 1, where they will prepare for the fall academic semester.
How Canadians are helping international students
Canada is helping international students a number of ways such as increasing the number of working hours allowed from 20 to 40 for certain occupations, and opening up the Canada Emergency Response Benefit to them, which provides recipients $2,000 per month. Quebec will automatically extend the Quebec Acceptance Certificates of international students if they are set to expire before December 31, 2020.
For those international students who still fall through the cracks, advocates are pressuring the federal government to do more. David Dingwall, president of Cape Breton University in Sydney, Nova Scotia, recently called on the federal government to open up the Canada Emergency Student Benefit (CESB) to international students as well as Canadian students. Introduced in late April, the CESB will provide up to $1,750 in monthly income assistance to eligible students, but international students are excluded from the program.
“Eligibility for the Canada Emergency Student Benefit is aligned with the Canada Student Loans Program in that it is aimed at Canadian citizens and permanent residents,” a spokesperson with Employment and Social Development Canada wrote CIC News in an email.
Though Dingwall’s media release said the student benefit “acknowledges the contributions that [Canadian] post-secondary students make to our country,” he also said “it fails to recognize the contributions that international students make to Canada.”
Nova Scotia was home to 11,817 international students in October, 2019, according to the Association of Atlantic Universities.
“The impact on our small province is enormous,” Dingwall said in the release. “I am confident that Universities Canada and its members will continue to advocate for our international students.”
Which would likely benefit Canada and possibly other countries:
The Trump administration may soon propose another set of immigration restrictions, this time on H-1B visas for foreign-born scientists and engineers. Some observers view these public displays of limiting immigration as an effort to deflect criticism of the administration’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic. Before enacting new measures, analysts recommend the administration take into account the restrictions on H-1Bs already in current law, including the low annual limit for new H-1B petitions, and the high denial rates imposed by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). The latest data show H-1B denial rates are at record levels.
On April 22, 2020, the Trump administration issued a presidential proclamation that suspended the entry of most new immigrants for at least 60 days and ordered a 30-day review to recommend additional measures on temporary visas. Following the review, observers expect new restrictions on H-1B visa holders, F-1 students and others. A new restriction could take the form of suspending the entry of anyone on an H-1B visa coming from outside the country and/or imposing new conditions on their entry that would be difficult to satisfy.
Due to USCIS policies, the H-1B category remains highly restrictive, say attorneys, and the data support this contention. Denial rates rose from 6% in FY 2015 to 30% in the first quarter of FY 2020 for new H-1B petitions for initial employment, according to a new National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP) analysis. (H-1B petitions for “initial” employment are primarily for new employment, typically a case that would count against the H-1B annual limit.) In FY 2019, the denial rate for initial employment was 21%, while the rate was 24% in FY 2018, between 3 to 4 times higher than the FY 2015 denial rate (i.e., prior to the Trump administration.)
All 25 companies with the most approved new H-1B petitions saw their H-1B denial rates for initial employment increase from FY 2015 to the first quarter of FY 2020. (See Table 2.) Even large technology companies that had denial rates of only 1% in FY 2015 experienced much higher denial rates for H-1B petitions for initial employment in the first quarter of 2020: Amazon’s denial rate was 16%, Google’s was 14%, Facebook’s was 8% and Apple’s H-1B denial rate was 8%. Data for additional quarters will tell us how long this trend persists.
“As in earlier fiscal years, the highest denials rates are for companies that provide information technology or other business services to American companies,” according to the NFAP report. “The data indicate USCIS has established a different standard for deciding cases for companies that provide information technology (IT) services. This is the case even though, as attorneys point out, immigration law does not indicate a different standard for adjudications based on the type of firm or the location work will be performed.”
In the first quarter of FY 2020, the H-1B denial rate for initial employment increased by 20 percentage points or more compared to FY 2015 for 12 major companies that provide IT services or other business consulting services. Many of these and other companies hit by high denial rates are U.S. companies. (Data show the use of H-1B visas by Indian-based companies has declined significantly in recent years, see here.)
People who follow technology trends like Everest Group CEO Peter Bendor-Samuel say by providing technical talent many high-skilled foreign nationals and companies that offer services increase the competitiveness of American companies. “Digital transformations and digital platforms are just starting to take off and, as we look into the near future, the current skill shortages are going to grow as the demand for digital and IT skills explodes,” said Bendor-Samuel. “If this administration wanted to harm U.S. competitiveness, then restricting access to this vital labor would be an excellent approach.”
Advanced analytics and cloud computing are two elements of digital transformation. “Digital transformation is the integration of digital technology into all areas of a business, fundamentally changing how you operate and deliver value to customers,” explains the Enterpriser’s Project. “A business may take on digital transformation for several reasons. But by far, the most likely reason is that they have to: It’s a survival issue for many.”
Replacing outdated legacy information technology systems is a key element of digital transformation, notes the Enterpriser’s Project, which points out, “Often, it’s more about shedding outdated processes and legacy technology than it is about adopting new tech.” This sometimes leads to poorly managed transitions. “In a handful or so of cases in past years, H-1B visa holders were blamed for layoffs after some foreign nationals came on-site to manage the transition to new contracts – contracts that went out for bid and, industry professionals note, would have resulted in layoffs or at least a transfer of personnel whether or not the entity awarded the contract employed some H-1B visa holders,” notes the NFAP analysis. “In retrospect, these cases should have been recognized as attempts by companies to undertake digital transformations, transformations that unfortunately can leave longtime employees trained primarily on legacy systems in untenable career situations. Ongoing training efforts for such employees before being placed in these situations would offer the best career protection.”
Judges have ruled against several USCIS policies that have contributed to high denial rates, targeting restrictive agency interpretations of what qualifies as an H-1B specialty occupation, an employer-employee relationship and whether an H-1B employee must list all future work or contracts.
The March 10, 2020, decision in ITServe Alliance v. L. Francis Cissnawould allow any company that believes an H-1B petition was denied in a way ruled unlawful by Judge Collyer’s opinion to file a case in the District of Columbia, notes Jonathan Wasden of Wasden Banias, LLC. (See here.)
Following the 30-day review, the administration could recommend moving forward with an H-1B regulation already on the agenda (but not issued) that would: “[R]evise the definition of specialty occupation . . . revise the definition of employment and employer-employee relationship . . . [and] propose additional requirements designed to ensure employers pay appropriate wages to H-1B visa holders.”
Policymakers often ignore that due to a low annual limit, current immigration law already significantly restricts companies and their ability to employ high-skilled foreign nationals in technology fields. For the past 18 fiscal years, employers have exhausted the annual supply of H-1B visas due to those limits.
Under U.S. law, companies collectively can only use, in effect, 85,000 new H-1B petitions a year – an annual limit of 65,000 and an exemption of 20,000 from that limit for foreign nationals with a U.S. advanced degree. To put that number in perspective, 85,000 new H-1B petitions equals 0.05% of the U.S. labor force of 165 million.
In March 2020, employers sent in registrations for approximately 275,000 foreign-born professionals for the H-1B lottery – more than three times the annual limit of 85,000. That indicates the demand was at least 190,000 scientists, engineers and other professionals beyond current law, and likely would be higher if one included demand that might arise in later months.
It’s worth noting the sectors hardest hit by the economic downturn – airlines, hotels and restaurants – employ few H-1B visa holders. H-1Bs are typically the only practical way to hire a foreign national to work in the United States long-term. (H-1B professionals selected in the March lottery cannot start work until October 1, 2020, or later.)
A study by economists Giovanni Peri, Kevin Shih, Chad Sparber and Angie Marek Zeitlin looked at the last recession and discovered that denying the entry of H-1B visa holders due to the annual limits harmed job growth for U.S.-born professionals. “The number of jobs for U.S.-born workers in computer-related industries would have grown at least 55% faster between 2005-2006 and 2009-2010, if not for the denial of so many applications in the recent H-1B visa lotteries,” concluded the economists.
The Trump administration appears poised to enact new restrictions on foreign-born engineers and the ability of international students to work in the United States after graduation, even though the president has stated he favors “merit-based” immigration and these are the most highly skilled people admitted to America. Economists note the way to recover from an economic downturn is to attract more investors, entrepreneurs and highly productive individuals – not to drive them away to other countries.
As @JeffHemlin noted, Estonia’s population has been shrinking for the past 20 years making it harder to understand the economic rationale for the move:
Wednesday saw the so-called cluster law passed recently by the Riigikogu come into effect. One of the key bills in the package was amendments to the Aliens Act which requires third-country citizens without work to leave the country, Ruth Annus, head of the interior ministry’s citizenship and migration policy department, says that the main purpose of the amendment is to protect Estonian citizens and residents in the labor market, particularly the agricultural sector.
The changes just come into force only affect migrant workers, meaning those who are neither citizens nor residents, and are third-country nationals, i.e. non-EU, EEA or Swiss Confederation citizens, and who work in Estonia on a temporary basis.
Such individuals who have a long-term visa or visa-free stay for the purpose of employment who lose their jobs must find new employment “within a reasonable time,” or leave the country, Annus said in a press release issued Thursday morning.
A list of changes can be found at the bottom of this article.
Not directly related to emergency situation
The amend, while it formed part of the raft of laws issued in response to the coronavirus pandemic, is permanent and will not change when the emergency situation ends, Annus said. Nonetheless, unemployment rose from 14,000 to 50,000 since the emergency situation was declared, Annus said.
Restrictions on cross-border movement in the wake of the pandemic have also hampered employers from taking on additional foreign labor as springtime approached.
The amend will mitigate the risk of foreigners who lose their jobs in Estonia remaining in the country, or the Schengen Zone as a whole, “without purpose”, she said. Her reasoning for this was that foreigners staying in Estonia or elsewhere in the EU may also commit other offenses.
The move will also protect Estonians and residents of Estonia in the labor market, she said.
In practice the change mostly affects the agricultural sector, and comes with a transitional period intended to help employers to adapt to the new situation and find suitable employees among the Estonian population, Annus said.
Anecdotal evidence from agricultural sector
According to Annus, farmers have said several times in the media that they have had large numbers of candidates for vacancies over quite some time, many of them without direct experience.
A beauty worker reportedly started working milking cows at the start of the emergency situation (declared on March 12-ed.), fulfilling a long-held desire in so doing, and two music students came back to Estonia during the pandemic, and applied for a job on a local farm.
While further details of these cases were not provided, Annus said they were certainly not the only examples.
At the same time, such posts were best suited to Estonians, she said.
“The Estonian person is smart and adaptable. I am sure that in the current situation, employers and job seekers will find each other better, and the Estonian people will appreciate working in agriculture more.”
As reported on ERR News, rural affairs minister Arvo Aller (EKRE) was of the same mind as Annus on the issue, seeing as many Estonians entering the agricultural sector as possible, including students and school children.
Farmers who have recently spoken to the media about the situation have said agricultural work cannot be done by just anybody but needs to be done by people with experience. They have also said many Estonians do not want to relocate away from cities and their families to work in the countryside.
President criticized changes
On Monday, President Kersti Kaljulaid criticized amendments to the Aliens Act saying it is not reasonable to change visa terms mid-way through.
“The amended terms and conditions affect already issued visas too. The legislature must develop rules for workers entering Estonia from non-member states, but lawmaking should rely on the principle of legal clarity. So, if the country has issued visas pursuant to particular terms and conditions, it is not reasonable to retroactively amend them. A confident country does not operate like this,” she said.
The president emphasized these conditions would remain in force even after the crisis period which would later hinder businesses and economic recovery.
“This will make the difficult situation that so many companies already find themselves in even more complicated. The issue has been raised both by separate businesses and business umbrella organisations. Several industry sectors now have the crucial need to engage foreign staff, especially qualified workers and seasonal labourers from abroad, and this need must be addressed if we want to keep the economy and family income growing. Thus, applying additional foreign labour force restrictions will only increase the economic decline in Estonia and prevent the recovery of our economy and expansion of employment options,” Kaljualid said.
Statistics: Who will be most affected?
Last month ERR News asked the Ministry of the Interior which sectors and how many people would be most affected by the changes.
A spokesperson for the ministry said: “It is not possible to say how many people in Estonia will lose their jobs in the nearest future because of the crisis in economy caused by COVID-19 disease.
“There are 18,540 valid short-term employment registered as the state of 6th of April. This is not the number of foreigners actually temporarily staying in Estonia right now, but the number of foreigners who have right to work here on short-term basis.”
The spokesperson also gave ERR News a breakdown of the top 5 sectors which visas have been issued to, which is displayed below. Of the top five, most short-term registrations have been issued in the construction sector and the least in agriculture.
Aliens Act amendment facts
Short-term migrant workers in Estonia can work under general conditions for a maximum of 12 months out of 15 months, or in seasonal work for 9 months out of 12 months.
Employers must register short-term employment of a migrant worker with the Police and Border Guard Board (PPA).
Agricultural employers can retain workers hired and in Estonia by March 17, until July 31.
After July 31, temporary migrant workers have one month to arrange their departure from Estonia, though the PPA will assess each case on its individual merits.
Migrant workers whose maximum permitted period of short-term employment has already been reached and who are not continuing to work in agriculture must leave Estonia as soon as possible.
Visas will not be revoked overnight, though an alien currently jobless will be given a “reasonable” amount of time (generally taken to be one month-see above) to either find a new employer or arrange to leave the country.
If departure is not possible at present while the emergency situation continues and borders are closed, the alien has 10 days to leave the country once the situation is declared closed. The current expiry date for the emergency situation is May 17.
Those affected should approach their home country’s foreign mission in Estonia for assistance, Annus said.
Current employers can also provide assistance to help third country nationals return home once their contract is up.
Interesting reference to Canada and recommendation to adopt a more selective immigration approach as per Canada:
A new report by the national auditor has recommended that France “modernise” its immigration policy and increase the number of deportations of illegal immigrants, saying it could learn from Canada’s immigration system.
The Cour des Comptes (in its role as an auditor of government action) says France’s immigration system needs an update.
The report examines the government’s efforts to ensure controlled immigration, respect the right of asylum and foster the integration of immigrants already living in France.
It concludes there is a need for “more realistic and tangible objectives”.
Asylum applications
The time frame for registering asylum applications set by the government has, for some years, been tighter than the legally binding time frame, according to the authors of the report.
The auditors said the government had deliberately shortened the registration time limit in the belief that a speedier processing of asylum applications would deter unfounded claims for asylum.
But the report singles out the so-called “accelerated applications” which are supposed to be processed within 15 days but in reality can take 121 days.
Expulsion of illegal immigrants
The audit judged the government’s attempts to send illegal immigrants home as “not very effective” and suggests “the necessary money and resources” must be made available “to increase the number of assisted departures of illegal immigrants”.
France receives fewer legal immigrants than other major western countries, says the report, which is critical of what it judges to be unnecessary bureaucracy for immigrants.
The auditor notes that in 2018, of immigrants granted residency in France, 75 percent were given the right to remain for one year but nearly all of those who then applied for an extension were successful.
To improve the system, the Cour des Comptes recommended more frequently granting residency rights for longer periods and allowing automatic extensions when reasonable.
Quotas
The report advocates a more selective immigration system, intended to fill gaps in the job market, and looks to the Canadian system as a model.
It proposes experimenting with a quota system to allow greater numbers of people to fill jobs in sectors in need.
Interior Miniser Christophe Castaner gave a lukewarm response to the idea, suggesting its recommendations were more suited to a country with serious shortages of labour.
“That is not the situation here. In France, we need to ensure there is work for those already living here, whether they are French or foreign”, he asserted.
The Gulf countries and Saudi Arabia are struggling to contain the COVID-19 outbreak among migrant worker populations on whose labor the countries rely.
Even amid stringent lockdowns, the disease has continued to spread through migrant communities, with many workers living in cramped labor camps, where they share bunk beds in tightly packed rooms.
In Saudi Arabia, non-Saudi residents comprised 76% of the more than 3,000 new confirmed coronavirus cases this week, according to the country’s Health Ministry.
Official figures in Gulf countries, where more than half of the population are foreigners, also suggest the disease is spreading fastest through migrant communities.
“This is not surprising,” said Ryszard Cholewinski, a senior migration specialist with the International Labor Organization. “You’ve got the perfect storm, where migrants live and work in conditions that are more conducive to the spread of COVID-19.”
These oil-rich countries have long attracted migrants from Southeast Asia and Africa who help in sectors including construction and energy. Some 35 million foreign migrants live in the countries in the Gulf Cooperation Council, as well as in Jordan and Lebanon, according to the United Nations labor agency.
Qatar is relying on migrant labor to help construct a gleaming stadium and other facilities for the 2022 World Cup. Rights groups say the workers’ living area compound in Doha has poor toilet facilities, little access to running water and cramped dormitories.
Amid the coronavirus pandemic, the Qatari government locked down parts of the compound, announced it would provide better sanitation and limit the number of people sleeping together to four per room.
Bahrain is reportedly using schools as extra housing to separate workers. Charities in the United Arab Emirates say they are seeking out empty buildings where migrants can isolate. Kuwait’s government granted amnesty and resettlement funds for undocumented immigrants in the country.
Gulf governments and Saudi Arabia have also said they are providing free COVID-19 testing and treatment for foreign workers.
But Cholewinski said some migrant workers, especially those whose residency papers may have expired, may not be using this service because “they fear arrest and deportation, even if the stated objective is not to do that.”
Denmark’s immigration ministry says more migrants left Denmark in 2019 than entered, with the minister in charge of the matter calling the official figures ‘wonderful’.
It was the first time since 2011 that net migration – the difference between immigration and emigration – was negative.
Mattias Tesfaye said: ‘Whenever possible, it is only natural for refugees to travel back to their homeland. I am glad that we can give people protection while it is needed. But I’m also happy every time a refugee can return home’.
Net immigration to Denmark has been falling since 2015. Last year, a net 730 people left the Scandinavian country of 5.8 million.
The figures released by the Immigration Ministry showed that the main groups of people who left last year were Somalis, Syrians, Iraqis and Bosnians – while people from Eritrea, Iran and Afghanistan sought shelter in the country.
Eva Singer of the Danish Refugee Council, a nongovernmental organisation, said the drop should not be attributed to Danish immigration policy but to the fact that fewer people have been able to reach Denmark, in part because of Turkey closing its border to the European Union.
Denmark in recent times has grabbed international attention for its strict stand toward immigrants.
The current Social Democratic minority government has taken a softer, albeit tough stance than the previous centre-right government that had the parliamentary support of the anti-immigration Danish People’s Party (their leader Kristian Thulesen Dahl is pictured)
The current Social Democratic minority government has taken a softer, albeit tough stance than the previous centre-right government that had the parliamentary support of the anti-immigration Danish People’s Party.
Across Europe, the surge of more than million refugees and economic migrants that arrived in 2015 prompted a populist backlash that gave a huge boost to anti-migrant parties and drained votes from mainstream parties, particularly left-wing parties with welcoming migration policies.
Many newcomers from Africa, Asia and the Middle East headed to wealthy nations in northern Europe with generous taxpayer-supported welfare systems.
Thousands transited via Denmark to reach neighbouring Sweden, which took in 163,000 migrants that year alone – the largest number per capita of anywhere in Europe.
Canada will need to have a healthy debate on how fast and how quickly to resume the current immigration levels plan as we ease out of the pandemic.
Given the economic impact, it is likely that some trimming of projected levels will be required over the next few years before resuming steady annual increases.
And as I have argued before, plans need to start factoring anticipated effects of AI and automation and, equally important, consider the lessons being learned about the importance of lower-skilled but essential workers.
Going back to “business as usual” would be unrealistic as well as a missed opportunity to rethink some of the current immigration assumptions.
And the issue is not “open or closed” options but rather the degree of openness:
As Canadians continue to battle COVID-19 by staying in their homes or working on the front lines in the hospitals and clinics, my thoughts turn to a hopeful end of the crisis and a return to normalcy. But the new normal may well be different from the old.
For most of its history, Canada has been an open country. We welcome immigrants at one of the highest rates in the world and despite many challenges, we do a good job of helping newcomers be part of Canadian society. We invest in integration at all three levels of government, and the high-touch system generally delivers the policy objectives of the government of the day. We know that newcomers’ success leads to collective success economically and socially.
But will “open Canada” still exist once the crisis is averted and the borders are reopened? That is a choice we as a nation will have to make.
Certainly this question will be a big one for Canadians and for governments to grapple with. The uproar over medical supplies we sent to China (which has since been repaid by the Chinese government) might be indicative of a “battening down the hatches” mentality. Many will want to keep our borders closed or extremely tightened as US President Trump did recently, temporarily banning immigration to the US. They will argue that the spread of pandemics has roots in the movement of people. Travel will become more restricted, health screenings will be enhanced and there will be a growing push to limit newcomers out of fear of spreading disease.
As someone who was an immigrant, and has worked on immigration issues my entire adult life, I am worried this perspective will prevail. I can understand if it does. But can we afford less immigration?
Before the pandemic, most of the economic models said that Canada needs large numbers of newcomers to help deal with an aging population. Let me make this real for you. In the 1970s, there were roughly 13 seniors per 100 working age people, according to the Century Initiative. But by 2036, there will be close to 40 seniors per 100 workers. Our birth rate is simply not high enough to meet that demand. Many have said we will need workers at all ends of the spectrum – from scientists and professors, to trade workers and caregivers. Immigration and immigrants will need to continue to be part of the solution for Canada to thrive, grow and prosper.
On top of that demographic problem, all Canadian governments, municipalities, provinces and the federal government, are spending billions of dollars to help people struggling with job loss, to help charities provide much needed services on the front lines and support businesses that have limited or no demand for their services. Depending on how long the COVID crisis lasts, we could add over $100 billion to the national debt. How are we going to pay for that down the line? One way would be to continue to welcome newcomers so we can expand our economy to pay our debt, fill essential jobs and generate a constantly growing tax base to pay for our severely stressed social programs.
The pandemic also shows that coordinated global action is needed more than ever. Yes, countries should focus on their own people during this time of crisis, but what is becoming painfully clear is that we need a united global response. What affects one country will affect another. We need global action to deal with such large and ever present threats to humanity. No system of closed borders will stop the spread of viruses like this one. We need international cooperation and international preparedness to truly deal with the next pandemic. It is not whether this will happen again but when. We need to be prepared.
But these arguments are tough to accept when fear is ever present. This pandemic will change the national psyche, and how we respond is an open ended question. We will have a choice to make. Open or closed? This will be the defining issue of our time.
Another example how socioeconomic and immigrant status affects COVID-19 infection rates:
Early on in the coronavirus pandemic, Singapore was praised as a shining example of how to handle the new virus. The World Health Organization pointed out that Singapore’s aggressive contact tracing allowed the city-state to quickly identify and isolate any new cases. It quickly shut down clusters of cases and kept most of its economy — and its schools — open. Through the beginning of April, Singapore had recorded fewer than 600 cases.
By the end of April, however, the case count exceeded 17,000. And not only is all of Singapore now under a strict lockdown, but it has the most coronavirus cases in Southeast Asia.
The vast majority of these cases are in the overcrowded dormitories that house more than 300,000 of Singapore’s roughly 1 million foreign workers — and the number of cases is expected to continue to rise in the coming weeks.
“We have started our testing with the dormitories where there were a high number of cases detected,” Singapore’s health minister, Gan Kim Yong, said in a virtual press briefing this week.
Singapore ordered a lockdown on April 7 in response to an uptick in cases in the general population — and then began to find a significant number of cases in the dorms.
Gan says Singapore is now testing more than 3,000 migrant workers a day but hopes to expand that number. The virus is spreading so rapidly in the dormitories, however, that the Health Ministry hasn’t been able to test all of the suspected cases.
“For dormitories where the assessed risk of infection is extremely high, our efforts are focused on isolating those who are symptomatic even without a confirmed COVID-19 test,” Gan says. “This allows us to quickly provide medical care to these patients.”
Singapore is a small city-state with a population of just under 6 million inhabitants. On a per capita basis, it’s the second-richest country in Asia.
But its economy relies heavily on young men from Bangladesh, India and other countries who work jobs in construction and manufacturing. Singapore has no minimum wage for foreign or domestic employees. The foreign workers’ salaries can be as low as US$250 per month, but a typical salary is $500 to $600 a month.
Speaking to the media, Gan credited extensive screening in the dorms with finding many workers who are infected with SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, but who didn’t appear sick.
“So far, the majority of the cases here have had relatively mild disease or no symptoms. And they do not require extensive medical intervention,” Gan said. “About 30% require closer medical observation due to the underlying health conditions or because of old age.”
As of this week, only a handful of the migrant workers — fewer than two dozen — were in intensive care units.
The city-state is setting up thousands of what it calls “community care beds” in convention centers and other public buildings to isolate and treat coronavirus patients. The hope is that most of the cases can be managed by medical staff in these temporary wards, rather than in hospitals. So far the city has 10,000 community care beds and plans to expand to 20,000 by mid-June.
It’s no surprise that the migrant workers are now being infected, says Mohan Dutta, a professor at Massey University in New Zealand who has done research on these migrant laborers. He says conditions in the dorms put the workers at significant risk of catching a respiratory disease like COVID-19. There are 12 to 20 bunk beds per room.
And even though some of the workers are deemed “essential,” most are no longer allowed to leave the dormitories. “There is little room to move around. They have little room to store their things, which really contributes to this sense of the rooms being unhygienic,” says Dutta.
Dutta, who founded CARE, the Center for Culture-Centered Approach to Research and Evaluation, at the National University of Singapore in 2012, with a focus on marginalized communities, has just published a paper on migrant workers in Singapore during this pandemic.
He says many of them told him they are concerned about whether they’ll get paid during the lockdown (Singapore’s Ministry of Manpower insists they will) and about the overcrowding and lack of sanitation facilities in the dormitories.
Dutta says that in many dormitories, 100 workers share a block of five toilets and five shower stalls.
“There is this sense of panic and fear, and part of that is related to this sense of not being able to move outside of the room,” he says. “Everyone is pretty much stuck in the room at such close proximity.”
Singapore’s Health Ministry has moved aggressively to try to address the coronavirus outbreaks in the housing blocks. The government is trying to find alternative accommodations for people in the hardest-hit dorms, but Dutta says it’s impossible to come up with safe, short-term lodging for more than 300,000 workers.
But he does believe there could be long-term changes that would help the workers. And Dutta hopes this outbreak will force Singapore to examine how it treats this often overlooked population, bringing major changes in how foreign workers are housed and treated.
Meanwhile, the explosion of cases in Singapore over the last three weeks has remained primarily among foreign workers. For example, on May 1 there were 11 new cases reported among Singapore’s permanent residents and 905 new infections among the workers residing in the dorms.
Michael Merson, the head of the SingHealth Duke-NUS Global Health Institute in Singapore, says it’s unlikely the outbreaks in the dormitories will spill over to the rest of the city.
“There’s very little mixing between the foreign workers and the rest of the population,” Merson says. He’s confident that Singapore’s health officials will be able to isolate the infected workers and give them, in his words, “the best medical care possible.”
Nonetheless, the Singaporean government has extended the lockdown for the entire city-state until at least June 1.
Seems a bit pig-headed and contrary to the intent of the measures:
When Canada closed its border mid-March due to the pandemic, John Alan Aucoin and other Canadians were unequivocally assured their spouses from abroad would be allowed into the country despite the travel bans.
Little did they know it would come with a catch. Canada Border Services Agency actually had its own rules when applying the government order.
Aucoin didn’t expect his American wife, Adrienne Berg Yorinks, to have trouble coming home to Cape Breton. The couple’s only concern returning from Florida was being able to drive through Maine and New York with those states in lockdown.
But like many foreigner nationals married to Canadians but yet to become permanent residents, Yorinks was refused entry at the border. The couple have been separated for weeks now, one in Florida, the other in Nova Scotia, not knowing when the border will reopen.
“Adrienne was not on a shopping trip. It was not an optional travel. She’s travelling to our primary home with me, a Canadian,” said Aucoin, who met his now wife in 2014. They wed in 2018.
“The fact is Canadian families are being separated notwithstanding of our prime minister’s assertions.”
On March 16, when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced the border would be closed to non-Canadians, he made exceptions for immediate family members of Canadian citizens and permanent residents. The travel ban, as stated in the government’s orders, was to curtail the spread of COVID-19.
However, since April, a growing number of foreign spouses and children of Canadians have been refused admission into Canada because their travels are deemed “non-essential and optional” by Canadian border agents at airports and land border crossings, said lawyers.
“The Order-in-Council is very clear that immediate family members of a Canadian citizen or permanent resident are exempted from the travel restrictions,” said Barbara Jo Caruso, a former chair of the Canadian Bar Association’s immigration division.
“It appeared the border was open for a period of time, and then they started tightening it in early April. And now nobody gets in except if (the travel) is of essential nature.”
On Good Friday, after being on the road for hours driving back from Juno Beach, Fla., Aucoin, a retired lawyer, and Yorinks, an artist and author, arrived at the border crossing between Calais, Maine and Saint Stephen, N.B. at 5:30 a.m. A border agent refused to let Yorinks in because her travel was deemed non-essential.
When the couple returned to the United States border entry, American officials refused to let Aucoin in because Washington’s COVID-19 travel ban doesn’t have provisions to exempt foreign spouses accompanying Americans.
“It’s been a roller-coaster for us, and we have tried to keep our spirits up,” said Aucoin, who had consulted a lawyer, obtained a notarized statement from the Justice of Peace who married them in Cape Breton and drafted a quarantine plan upon arrival. Yorinks ended up having to drive home to their winter home in Florida by herself.
Immigration lawyer Rafeena Rashid, who used to represent the federal Justice Department and now has her own practice, said her clients — a British and Canadian couple — boarded a government repatriation flight to Toronto Pearson airport April 13 after Global Affairs Canada cleared them.
However, the border agency seized the British husband’s passport and sent him back to the U.K. the next day. The couple are still separated.
“It is very clear that one thing is said to the public while something else is done behind the scenes by CBSA,” said Rashid. “CBSA absolutely has no oversight. Zero. Who’s CBSA to come up with its own criteria that’s not based on the law?”
In response to the Star’s inquiry, the border agency referred to a provision in the government’s COVID travel orders that says: A foreign national, including a Canadian’s immediate family member, is banned from entry if they seek to enter for an optional or discretionary purpose, such as tourism, recreation or entertainment.
However, an internal instruction for front-line border agents obtained by the Star revealed that Canada Border Services Agency actually has set criteria beyond that.
The guidelines include, among other criteria, a ban against a “foreign national coming to Canada to temporarily reside with spouse or immediate family during the pandemic.”
The immigration department last week also posted on its website examples of what are deemed discretionary: visit family on vacation; spend time at a secondary residence; attend a funeral; and birth of a grandchild.
What is not discretionary, it says, is for people to spend the pandemic period with their Canadian family member to ensure each other’s health, safety and well-being. “It would be beneficial to all parties, as the reunification of family members is a key point of the Order in Council,” it notes. “This allows for families to be together during this difficult time.”
Lawyers said the border agency’s own rules go against the spirit of the government order.
“There’s a consistent reference to essential travels, and they don’t see keeping a family together in crisis as essential,” said lawyer Erin Simpson, who has filed a court challenge against a border agency decision to deny one of her client’s entry to Canada.
Nadia Drost of Toronto said her Italian journalist husband, Bruno Federico, was denied entry at Pearson airport on April 22 and sent back to New York City, where he had travelled for an assignment for a documentary about COVID-19. The two had already booked an Airbnb for his 14-day quarantine.
“It’s wrong that border officers are following secret guidelines that are different from what the public is privy to,” said the 42-year-old Toronto woman, also a journalist. “We need oversight of CBSA in the way they interpret the government order. They’ve got to square up.”
Multicultural Meanderings 