Interesting counter to anti-immigration positions in “heartland” states:
One evening last fall, Jawad Rahimi held forth in his downtown bodega as a steady stream of hockey fans en route to a St. Louis Blues game mingled with his neighborhood regulars.
A native of Afghanistan who arrived 16 years ago as a refugee from Azerbaijan, Rahimi has become a fixture in a city center beset with vacant homes and abandoned buildings. A typical day brings a steady flow of customers who come for beer, snacks or just to banter in his St. Louis corner store.
“I think they’re addicted to me,” he said, nodding to the patrons who traded friendly banter with him as they bought snacks and drinks and lottery tickets.
Indeed, St. Louis – and more than a dozen other cities in heartland states which were as often as not carried by Donald Trump in 2016 when curbing immigration was a central plank of his campaign – is hooked on Rahimi and those like him who are serving as economic props for sometimes troubled urban areas.
A dentist by training, the 46-year-old worked in an embroidery shop as he learned English before opening his store. He is now raising two daughters here.
“St. Louis was a good place to start,” he said.
Between 2010 and 2018, if not for the influx of 15,000 foreign-born residents who arrived here, St. Louis’s chronic population shrinkage would have been more than double the 10,000 recorded in that span.
Moreover, a Reuters analysis of census data covering that period shows immigration reversed what would have been outright population declines in 18 cities, including Detroit, Milwaukee and Akron, Ohio, rust belt manufacturing towns in swing states where the 2020 presidential election will be decided.
In St. Louis and elsewhere, immigrants are helping arrest population decline in urban areas caught on the losing end of an internal U.S. trend. Increasingly, people and jobs are concentrating in a few dozen high-performing metropolitan areas, leaving others struggling to maintain population, economic growth rates, or both.
Nationally, the United States recorded its lowest immigration level since the great financial crisis in 2018 as Trump made slowing immigration a top priority – at one point declaring the country “full.” At 202,000, the increase in foreign-born residents in 2018 was about a third of the average since 2010.
(GRAPHIC: Slowing population growth and a slower economy – here)
To officials in this Midwestern town, that poses a challenge: where to find the bodies needed to fill those empty homes, start businesses and keep the population from shrinking even faster?
For Betsy Cohen, the answer is simple: More Jawad Rahimis.
“When those numbers fall, it is hard to have the growth in the region we want,” said Cohen, executive director of the St. Louis Mosaic Project, whose aim is to make St. Louis’s immigrant population the fastest growing in the country.
“Every person counts,” Cohen said. “All skill lines. All families. We need people.”
PUSHING BACK
If the immigration debate nationally focuses on visceral issues like border security and family separation, cities like St. Louis are pursuing a different narrative – of immigration as needed to stabilize often struggling local economies and downtowns.
After Trump gave governors the right to reject refugees, only one state, Texas, did so. The issue is tied up in court, but many Republican state leaders have rendered it moot by saying they would still welcome refugees.
In a January letter to the State Department, Missouri Governor Mike Parson said the new arrivals would inevitably become “patriotic and productive fellow Americans.”
Pittsburgh, Buffalo and a host of other places, largely in the northeast and industrial Midwest, have also relied on immigrants to ease their overall population loss, and the economic drag that goes with it.
At its root, annual expansion in an area’s gross domestic product is based on the number of people working and how productive they are. Productivity growth has been disappointing since the 1990s.
Though the U.S. unemployment rate is low and many previously sidelined adults have started working again, underlying growth in the labor force has averaged below 1% annually since the 2007 to 2009 financial crisis. It is being pinched at both ends, with the population aging, and overall fertility rates well below the replacement level.
At the same time, the country’s economic geography features a widening divide between places that are adding disproportionate numbers of people and jobs, and those that see their college graduates and mid-career professionals leave town.
It can become self-reinforcing, economists Adam Ozimek, Kenan Fikri, and John Lettieri wrote in a report last year for the Economic Innovation Group. Smaller populations leave a smaller tax base, leading to a decline in services and real estate values, fewer business starts – and fewer reasons to stay.
The one factor that’s somewhat controllable is immigration, the organization noted, suggesting that like Australia and Canada the United States could expand immigration with visas targeted “to places confronting chronic population stagnation or loss as a means of boosting economic dynamism and fiscal stability.”
BETTER AT THEIR STORY
There has been a push in the Midwest in particular to acknowledge regional population decline as relevant to the national immigration debate.
In a 2017 report, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs noted the “extreme native population loss” in Midwestern cities of people aged 35-44, a group entering their prime earning years. The 1.4 million person decline in that group between 2000 and 2015 represented a fall of 24%, eased at least somewhat by the arrival of 313,000 foreign-born residents of that age.
The 12-state region from the Dakotas to Missouri and Ohio, “is home to dozens of metropolitan areas that have come to be increasingly defined by immigration and rely on immigration as a source of population stability… The foreign-born now play a critical role in offsetting regional workforce gaps.”
In Chicago’s Pilsen neighborhood, the dynamic is on display. Initially the home of Czech and other eastern European immigrants whose churches still spire over local homes and shops, the area was in decline during the 1970s and 80s. The people who stayed were the Latino immigrants who have anchored a neighborhood revival.
Marcos Carbajal, 36, left a career with Northern Trust Bank to put his MBA from Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management to what he feels will be better use – building his dad’s Michoacan-style barbecue stand, Carnitas Uruapan, from a 45-year-old neighborhood staple into a recognizable citywide brand, and possibly beyond.
“The first generation struggles to move up and traditionally the second generation has better access to education, a better job… better positioning,” he said.
The family has kept the building on Chicago’s W. 18th Street occupied and on the tax rolls since the 1970s, and with 38 employees, a second location now open, and a third “in our sights,” Carbajal said their footprint and economic impact, is expanding. “The food has not changed, the recipe has not changed but we are getting better at telling our story.”
Good for the ACLU for launching a lawsuit and the research and study behind it:
from the can’t-really-call-it-an-‘option’-if-there-are-no-alternatives dept
A couple of years ago, a Reuters investigation uncovered another revamp of immigration policies under President Trump. ICE has a Risk Classification Assessment Tool that decides whether or not arrested immigrants can be released on bail or their own recognizance. The algorithm had apparently undergone a radical transformation under the new administration, drastically decreasing the number of detainees who could be granted release. The software now recommends detention in almost every case, no matter what mitigating factors are fed to the assessment tool.
ICE is now being sued for running software that declares nearly 100% of detained immigrants too risky to be released pending hearings. The ACLU’s lawsuit [PDF] opens with some disturbing stats that show how ICE has rigged the system to keep as many people detained as possible.
According to data obtained by the New York Civil Liberties Union under the Freedom of Information Act, from 2013 to June 2017, approximately 47% of those deemed to be low risk by the government were granted release. From June 2017 to September 2019, that figure plummeted to 3%. This dramatic drop in the release rate comes at a time when exponentially more people are being arrested in the New York City area and immigration officials have expanded arrests of those not convicted of criminal offenses. The federal government’s sweeping detention dragnet means that people who pose no flight or safety risk are being jailed as a matter of course—in an unlawful trend that is getting worse.
Despite there being plenty of evidence that immigrants commit fewer criminal acts than natural-born citizens, the administration adopted a “No-Release Policy.” That led directly to ICE tinkering with its software — one that was supposed to assess risk factors when making detention determinations. ICE may as well just skip this step in the process since it’s only going to give ICE (and the administration) the answer it wants: detention without bond. ICE agents can ask for a second opinion on detention from a supervisor, but the documents obtained by the ACLU show supervisors depart from detention recommendations less than 1% of the time.
The negative effects of this indefinite detention are real. The lawsuit points out zero-risk detainees can see their lives destroyed before they’re allowed anything that resembles due process.
Once denied release under the new policy, people remain unnecessarily incarcerated in local jails for weeks or even months before they have a meaningful opportunity to seek release in a hearing before an Immigration Judge. While waiting for those hearings, those detained suffer under harsh conditions of confinement akin to criminal incarceration. While incarcerated, they are separated from families, friends, and communities, and they risk losing their children, their jobs, and their homes. Because of inadequate medical care and conditions in the jails, unmet medical and mental-health needs often lead to serious and at times irreversible consequences.
When they do finally get to see a judge, nearly 40% of them are released on bond. ICE treats nearly 100% of detained immigrants as dangerous. Judges — judges employed by the DOJ and appointed by the Attorney General — clearly don’t agree with the agency’s rigged assessment system.
There will always be those who say, “Well, don’t break the law.” These aren’t criminal proceedings. These are civil proceedings where the detained are tossed into criminal facilities until they’re able to see a judge. This steady stripping of options began under the Obama administration but accelerated under Trump and his no-release policy.
ICE began to alter its custody determinations process in 2015, modifying its risk-assessment tool so that it could no longer recommend individuals be given the opportunity for release on bond. In mid-2017, ICE then removed the tool’s ability to recommend release on recognizance. As a result, the assessment tool—on which ICE offices across the country rely— can only make one substantive recommendation: detention without bond.
The ACLU is hoping to have a class action lawsuit certified that would allow it to hold ICE responsible for violating rights en masse, including the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause. Since ICE is no longer pretending to be targeting the “worst of the worst,” the agency and its deliberately-broken risk assessment tool are locking up immigrants who have lived here for an average of sixteen years — people who’ve added to their communities, held down jobs, and raised families. These are the people targeted by ICE and it is ensuring that it is these people who are thrown into prisons and jails until their hearings, tearing apart their lives and families while denying them the rights extended to them by our Constitution.
Practical advice from US immigration lawyers. Have not seen any indication of any impact on Canadian immigration but welcome comment from any Canadian immigration lawyers:
As employers prepare plans to handle possible alternate employee work arrangements in light of the 2019 Novel Coronavirus outbreak, it is important to keep in mind how these plans and policies—including telework policies—may affect foreign national employees working pursuant to US work visas.
H-1B Employees
Telework Arrangements May Necessitate Amended or New H-1B Petitions
It is US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policy, based on case law, that an amended or new H-1B petition must be filed whenever there is a move to a location outside the area of intended employment. Once an employer properly files the amended or new H-1B petition, the H-1B employee can immediately begin to work at the new place of employment. Approval of the amended or new H-1B petition is not required in order for work to commence at the new site.
USCIS has made it clear that a new Labor Condition Application (LCA) and amended or new H-1B petition are not required in the following circumstances:
A move within an “area of intended employment”: Where the H-1B employee moves to a new job location within commuting distance, a new LCA is not required, provided there are no other changes in the terms and conditions of employment.
Although a new LCA and H-1B petition are not required, the employer must post the previously certified LCA in two conspicuous locations at the new work location and update the corresponding public access file.
Short-term placements: Under certain circumstances, an H-1B employer may assign an H-1B employee at a new worksite outside the area of intended employment for up to 30 days in a one-year period, and in some cases 60 days in a one-year period (where the employee is still based at the “home” worksite), without obtaining a new LCA. In these instances, a new LCA and H-1B petition are not required, provided there are no other changes in the terms and conditions of employment.
We note that short-term placement is not available where there is already an LCA covering the area of intended employment for the occupational classification. The short-term placement provisions provide H-1B employers with flexibility in assignments to afford enough time to obtain an approved LCA for a worksite outside the area of intended employment where the H-1B employer intends to have a continuing presence.
Non-worksite locations: Where the H-1B employee is going to a non-worksite location (e.g., going to a location to participate in employee developmental activity, or the job is primarily at one location but requires occasional travel for short periods to other locations) and there are no material changes in the authorized employment, a new LCA and H-1B petition are not required.
Our Recommendation
Before finalizing telework arrangements for H-1B employees, we recommend that employers first review the change in work location with their immigration counsel to confirm whether a new LCA and amended or new H-1B petition are required.
F-1 (Student) Optional Practical Training Employees
Telework Arrangements May Require Updates to Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) Records
The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) requires that international students on any type of optional practical training (OPT) report changes, including changes in their employment, to their designated school officials (DSOs) to properly annotate their SEVIS records and maintain their student status.
Additionally, every six months, students benefiting from a two-year science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) OPT extension must work with their DSOs to confirm that their SEVIS records accurately reflect their employers’ addresses and the status of their employment, among other things. STEM OPT students and their employers are obligated to report to their DSOs any material changes to, or material deviations from, Form I-983, the formal training plan for STEM OPT students.
Our Recommendation
Once a telework arrangement is finalized for an F-1 OPT employee, we recommend that the employer remind the F-1 OPT employee to communicate the changes to his/her DSO to ensure that his/her SEVIS record is updated appropriately.
Other Situations
Other Work Visas such as L-1, E-1, E-2, E-3, TN, and O Visas
The above-listed visa classifications do not have geographic limitations in terms of work location. Unless a change in work location creates a material change in the job duties of an employee in one of these classifications, there is no need to notify USCIS about the change.
Should it become impossible to carry out the duties described in the foreign national’s visa petition, we recommend that you consult with immigration counsel to discuss appropriate steps.
Employees Working Remotely from Outside the United States
There may be situations in which foreign nationals who are outside the United States may be unable to return. For example, limited staffing at certain US embassies and consulates abroad may lead to delays in visa application processing times, which could require a foreign national employee to remain abroad for longer than originally anticipated.
While abroad, foreign national employees can work remotely and remain on US payroll without any legal implications with respect to US immigration laws. While US immigration laws are not an issue, we recommend that employers consult counsel to determine whether there are any US tax implications or tax implications in the foreign location as a result of such an arrangement.
Additionally, we note that working remotely from a country other than the foreign national’s country of citizenship may require prior approval from the local immigration authorities. We recommend that employers consult their global immigration counsel to discuss appropriate steps.
Of note, not to mention Chinese government repression of minorities such as the Yuighurs:
While China is struggling with the coronavirus pandemic, the country’s Ministry of Justice has sparked another controversy over some proposed changes in China’s immigration policy. The policy proposed by Chinese officials has been slammed by Chinese internet users on the country’s social media outlets WeChat and Weibo since the ministry began seeking public consultations through departmental websites and social media in late February.According to the proposed clauses listed by the Chinese Ministry Of Justice, the new legislation aims to attract high-income foreign nationals to permanently live in China. In order to qualify, applicants need to have made major contributions to China’s science, technologies, sports, or cultural sectors. Experts in specific subjects may also qualify for permanent residence status in China. Foreign nationals whose incomes are six times higher than local residents can also apply after working in China for four consecutive years, or eight consecutive years if their incomes are less than six times but more than three times the average income of local residents.
The latest proposed changes to China’s immigration system are designed to attract a limited number of experts, specialists, and high-income individuals who can contribute significantly to China. Yet Chinese internet users are not showing any signs of support. There were more than 70,000 comments under the original Ministry of Justice Weibo post, which later got censored because of the backlash. The ministry closed down comments on the post announcing the legislative proposal for granting permanent resident status to foreign nationals. According to reports from the Beijing News, the topic generated billions of reads on the Chinese social media platform Weibo.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) regime is attempting to win back some support on this issue from the public through its state media outlets. Following the online anger, China Daily issued an op-ed about the importance of attracting foreign talents to develop the country’s economy and technology. CGTN, another English-language state media outlet, also published an op-ed calling for “a more open and inclusive society.” However, the overwhelming voices of dissent are dominating the spotlight.
Immigration has always been a challenging issue in Chinese society. The CCP’s past policies and records are making it difficult for the Chinese government to argue in favor of immigration, even for the purpose of attracting elite talents from other countries. According to an Initium News report, the majority of people in Chinese society believe that foreign nationals have been granted privileges and special status that they do not deserve. Some critics point out the unequal treatment between local Chinese and foreign nationals, accusing the Chinese government of opening up immigration while still having population planning policies to restrict the number of children Chinese nationals can have.
It is also important to note the prevalence of hatred and racism among the voices speaking against China’s plan to attract foreign talents. From questioning the loyalties of individuals from a different race to propagating stereotypes about other ethnic groups, many internet users seem to be opposing the Chinese government’s immigration proposals not because of the potential impacts of the policies, but rather because of racial biases and prejudices. Such attitudes are all too common. In 2017, a Chinese legislator attempted to bring up a proposal to conduct stringent and swift measures to eliminate the black communities in China’s Guangdong province. Pan Qinglin, a member of China’s Political Consultative Conference, claimed that “Africans have a high rate of AIDS and the Ebola virus.” Pan further suggested that China will change from a “yellow country” to a “yellow and black country” if black communities continue to exist in China.
While some argue that those reactions are rooted in the country’s closed cultural background, it is obvious that China’s propaganda strategy has also played a huge part in fueling nationalism and anti-foreign sentiments. In 2016, Chinese President Xi Jinping added the importance of promoting “cultural confidence” as a major propaganda theme. The cultural confidence portion began to advocate for stronger recognition of China’s cultural strength and traditional values. Adding to the propaganda efforts promoting the country’s political system, the CCP’s messages have been actively instigating nationalism that shows little respect for other cultures around the world.
In 2018, a short program show on China’s CCTV Chinese Spring Festival Gala had an actress dressed in blackface. Ironically designed to demonstrate China’s positive influence in Africa, the skit featured several disturbing scenes that sparked controversies. In addition to having a Chinese actress in blackface and wearing fake buttocks, the program also made cast members of African descent dress in animal costumes to perform “African dances.”
China Central Television, also known as CCTV, is one of the most important propaganda outlets in China. Its annual Spring Festival Gala is recognized as an essential channel to set out the country’s core propaganda messages of the year.
This was not the only occasion where the Chinese government found its representations to be endorsing racism. In July 2019, Chinese diplomat Zhao Lijian made inappropriate comments about black and Hispanic communities in the United States on Twitter: “If you’re in Washington, D.C., you know the white never go” to certain a part of the city “because it’s an area for the black & Latin.” Zhao later deleted the tweet after getting called out for his racist remarks. Instead of getting fired or receiving any kind of disciplinary measures, Zhao was later promoted by China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and now serves as the ministry’s new spokesperson.
From greenlighting a show that featured blackface and enhanced biases on national state media to promoting a diplomatic official who openly propagates hatred against other ethnic groups, it is evident that the Chinese government is fueling the country’s propaganda message with a narrow-minded nationalism at the cost of respecting equality and justice. It should not be a surprise, then, that many Chinese are outraged at the idea of allowing foreigners of different races and ethnicities to become permanent residents in China.
Through years of promoting nationalism and unity, Chinese propaganda has in fact put up a significant barrier for its government to implement effective immigration policies to attract foreign talents to reside and work in the country. While China often praises its own political system for being efficient and effective, its propaganda strategies are now, ironically, impeding the government’s own legislative agenda.
Over the years, there has been a steady stream of German politicians and officials coming to Canada to learn about Canadian immigration policies and programs.
Immigration Minister Marco Mendicino was in Germany this week to share what Canada has learned from an immigration program that helps newcomers find jobs and learn about life in Canada before they arrive.
At the invitation of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Mendicino took part in a summit looking at best practices for integrating migrants. Canada was the only foreign country the Germans invited to take part in the summit.
“Our friends in Germany see Canada as a role model, as a country that has achieved success,” Mendicino told CBC News.
Canada’s pre-arrival settlement services provide newcomers with information and supports, including employment assistance, while they’re still overseas. The goal of the program is to better prepare immigrants to ease into Canadian society by educating them about life in Canada and navigating roadblocks they could encounter.
An internal government audit in 2018 found that while the program was valuable in helping newcomers, it had a low uptake due to a lack of widespread awareness about the services available. It concluded there was a “missed opportunity.”In response to that finding, the government set aside $113 million to raise the profile of the program. Mendicino said a recent survey showed that 85 per cent of people who used the services said the program helped them find them a job, and about 88 per cent said the program helped them get foreign credentials recognized in Canada.
Boost for productivity, growth
“If we are able to facilitate integration by speeding up the processes and helping immigrants to land a job, then that will contribute to productivity and growth. It will mean that one more job vacancy is filled and that will contribute to a stronger economy as a whole,” Mendicino said.
The minister said Canada’s pre-arrival settlement services program has been around for about 20 years, undergoing various refinements and adjustments over that period.
Describing Canada and Germany as “like-minded countries,” Mendicino said the two nations have shared values and an understanding that solid integration of immigrants leads to better outcomes for both the newcomers and the country’s economy.
Canada has been praised in past on the world stage for programs that attract and retain workers to communities outside large urban centres, and that link immigration to labour gaps.”What we’re discovering is that some of our strongest G7 partners like Germany are starting to look at Canada as a role model, so that tells me that we certainly have been recognized for having a specific expertise in this area,” he said.
Programs that assist in successful immigration and attract skilled workers are key to meeting the economic challenges of the future, Mendicino said.
“We will really benefit from continuing to grow our country and our economy through immigration, and that’s part of the narrative that I shared with our friends in Germany,” he said.
There are three major reasons why voters have become more likely to back far-right parties in Europe
Over the last three decades, far-right parties in Europe have tripled their vote share, from about 5% in the early 1990s to more than 15% today. About one in six Europeans now vote for parties such as Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (previously National Front) in France, Matteo Salvini’s League in Italy, or Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz in Hungary. This is one of the most striking outcomes of a new edition of the PopuList, a research collaboration supported by the Guardian, which launches on Tuesday.
Political scientists have demonstrated that the single most important reason why people vote for far-right parties is their attitude towards immigration. In other words, those who support these parties tend to do so because they agree with them that immigrants are “dangerous others” who form an economic and/or cultural threat to their own native group. This in itself is not remarkable – it just shows that many supporters of far-right parties are rational voters in the sense that they opt for outlets that express ideas they agree with and deem important.
What is remarkable, however, is that people’s attitudes towards immigration have not changed much over the years. On average, people have become neither more positive nor more negative about the influx of immigrants. This confronts us with an interesting puzzle: how is it possible that the electoral successes of far-right parties have increased so much, while at the same time the main determinant of far-right support – anti-immigration sentiment – has remained relatively stable? Let me mention three developments that can help us understand what is going on.
First, far-right parties have learned how to better mobilise voters. Until the turn of the millennium, most far-right parties were generally conceived of as beyond the pale. Voters associated them with fascism and violent anti-democratic skinheads. This has changed as many far-right parties have succeeded in moderating their images. A good example is Le Pen’s “detoxification” strategy. She cut connections to extremists, changed her party’s tarnished name and distanced herself from her father, the more radical previous leader and founder of the party. It is important to emphasise, however, that although various far-right leaders have succeeded in moderating their party’s reputation, when it comes to their actual programmes most of them have remained as radical as ever.
Mainstream parties have also played an important role in this process of reputation moderation. They have legitimised the ideas of far-right parties by incorporating watered-down versions in their own political programmes. Many academic studies have shown that when it comes to their positions on immigration and integration, mainstream parties have moved towards the far right. The Dutch prime minister, Mark Rutte, for instance, wrote a letter to all citizens in the Netherlands, in which he argued they had to actively defend the country’s values against people who refused to integrate or who acted antisocially. “Behave normally or leave,” was one of his letter’s core messages. Similar strategies have been employed by mainstream parties in Austria, Denmark and France.
Second, it is not only political parties that have adapted their behaviour – voters have also changed. Not so long ago the average voter was loyal to their political party; a typical social democrat remained a social democrat forever, and did not even consider voting for a conservative or liberal party. Yet processes of individualisation and emancipation have made people much more whimsical when it comes to their electoral behaviour. Slowly but steadily, loyal voters became floating voters, and many of them started to switch between parties – in particular in multi-party democracies. These voters often have a “choice set” of several parties to which they feel attracted, and base their eventual choice on things such as election promises, the performance of party leaders, or parties’ past behaviour in parliament. Voters have started to actually vote, and have thereby become available for mobilisation by far-right parties.
Third, the issue of immigration has become increasingly salient. As a consequence of the large societal impact of immigration-related events such as, for instance, the refugee crisis and the Brexit referendum, journalists have become obsessed with the topic. It has become one of the most widely debated issues in the European media. As a result, citizens are increasingly exposed to immigration-related news and discussions, and this has probably activated their ideas about the topic. In other words, although voters have on average barely changed their ideological positions, the issue of immigration has become more important to them. Most importantly, it is likely that this increased salience has also made their attitudes towards immigration more consequential for their voting behaviour.
To sum up, voters with anti-immigration attitudes have become increasingly likely to vote for far-right parties because these parties have managed to create a more moderate reputation; more voters have become available for far-right mobilisation; and the core issue of these parties – immigration – has become more salient. There is a much better match now between the supply and demand sides of anti-immigration politics.
On the one hand this is good news for democracy, because it gives those who previously felt neglected a political voice. On the other hand it is bad news, because several of the ideas of the far right are incompatible with core democratic values such as pluralism and the protection of minority rights. What this means in practice can be observed in countries including Hungary and Poland, where far-right governments are destroying their (formerly) liberal democracies.
Let us therefore hope that the exponential growth of far-right parties’ vote share will soon come to a halt. A little far right is good for democracy. But too much is disastrous.
More pressures from within Quebec regarding more immigration, this time on the part of students and the relatively low number studying in Quebec:
Le nombre d’étudiants étrangers qui entrent au pays a doublé en quatre ans. L’Ontario en profite à plein. Le Québec ? Si peu que la province risque de perdre la course aux talents internationaux.
Selon les données d’Immigration Canada, le Canada a délivré 256 000 permis d’études à des étrangers en 2019, le double d’il y a quatre ans.
La moitié des candidats acceptés au pays étudie en Ontario. Le Québec, pour sa part, accueille seulement 12 % des titulaires de permis d’études, moins que le poids de sa population de 22,5 % dans le Canada.
Cette sous-représentation n’est pas sans conséquence, puisque l’attraction et la rétention des étudiants étrangers constituent un axe stratégique en vue de créer de la richesse et de soulager un tant soit peu la pénurie de main-d’œuvre à moyen terme. Le ministre de l’Immigration du Québec, Simon Jolin-Barrette, a décliné notre demande d’entrevue en nous invitant à communiquer plutôt avec Ottawa.
« La réalité, c’est que l’écart se creuse entre le Québec et les autres provinces dans la course aux talents », déplore Christian Bernard, économiste à Montréal International, organisme de prospection des investissements directs étrangers, qui fait aussi la promotion de Montréal comme ville étudiante internationale.
M. Bernard rappelle que le Canada est en compétition avec la plupart des pays occidentaux dans cette course aux talents.
D’après les chiffres obtenus par La Presse, 51 % des étrangers voulant étudier au Québec se sont vu refuser leur permis d’études par le gouvernement canadien en 2019, contre 38 % dans le reste du pays.
Outre la barrière de la langue française, qui réduit le nombre de demandes à son égard, le Québec est pénalisé par le refus du Canada de laisser entrer au pays un fort contingent d’étudiants francophones en provenance d’Afrique.
Selon Immigration, Réfugiés et Citoyenneté Canada (IRCC), les raisons courantes pour refuser une demande sont que « le demandeur n’a pas prouvé qu’il a assez d’argent pour subvenir à ses besoins pendant ses études ». Ou qu’« il n’a pas convaincu l’agent des visas qu’il quittera[it] le Canada à la fin de sa période d’études », explique, dans un courriel, Peter Liang, conseiller en communication d’IRCC. Pour certains pays, un examen médical est également requis. Dans tous les cas, le candidat ne doit pas avoir de dossier criminel.
« Ce qui est désolant, ajoute Christian Bernard, de Montréal International, c’est la contradiction entre, d’une part, les critères mis de l’avant pour délivrer ou non le permis d’études et, d’autre part, la volonté de tous les paliers de gouvernement qui déploient des initiatives et qui investissent des sous avec l’intention d’attirer et de retenir davantage d’étudiants internationaux au Canada et au Québec. »
Le 31 janvier, l’organisme a recommandé que le Canada réduise le taux de refus des étudiants francophones dans une étude sur la connectivité de la métropole, produite conjointement avec la Chambre de commerce du Montréal métropolitain.
Accepter deux fois plus d’étudiants dans l’espoir de pourvoir les places disponibles
Au trimestre d’automne 2019, à l’Université de Sherbrooke, 37 des 102 places réservées aux étudiants étrangers admis au bac en régime coopératif avec stages de travail rémunérés n’ont même pas pu être pourvues, les étudiants admis ayant été refusés par Immigration Canada. L’institution avait pourtant admis 189 étrangers au départ pour que soient pourvues ces 102 places.
À l’Université Laval, le taux d’inscription des étudiants internationaux préalablement admis a décliné depuis 2014. Il se situait à 67 % en 2018, dernière année pour laquelle la donnée est disponible. « En nombre absolu, le nombre a augmenté de 1100 à 1400 étudiants internationaux. Ce qui nous préoccupe, c’est qu’en pourcentage, ça baisse. On a des étudiants qui ne peuvent pas venir chez nous faute d’obtenir leur permis d’études à temps », dit Yan Cimon, vice-recteur adjoint aux affaires externes, internationales et à la santé et directeur des affaires internationales et de la francophonie.
Ces bourses d’exemption de droits de scolarité pour la francophonie du Sud, au nombre de 235 par an, ont été créées par le premier ministre Philippe Couillard lors du Sommet de la Francophonie tenu au Madagascar en 2016.
En raison de refus de permis d’études, le réseau des cégeps est incapable d’atteindre son objectif, datant de 2012, de 5000 étudiants internationaux. Les 48 cégeps publics accueillent actuellement 4300 élèves étrangers au diplôme d’études collégiales.
Dans le reste du Canada, les collèges d’enseignement professionnel formaient 151 000 étrangers en 2017, d’après un document de 2018 du Bureau canadien de l’éducation internationale. C’est 35 fois plus qu’au Québec.
« On cherche à mieux faire connaître aux agents d’immigration le réseau collégial, avance M. Tremblay, en guise de solution. On leur dit que ça se peut qu’un diplômé universitaire d’Afrique veuille suivre après coup une technique dans un cégep. Il y a un grand attrait pour les formations techniques qui ne sont pas très présentes dans le système d’éducation en Afrique. »
« Dans un contexte de pénurie de main-d’œuvre, l’intégration des étudiants internationaux au réseau collégial représente la solution à la régionalisation de l’immigration, qui est un problème au Québec depuis 40 ans », soutient le patron de la Fédération des cégeps.
Les Africains refusés par dizaines de milliers
Les données d’Immigration Canada montrent que les taux de refus sont particulièrement élevés pour les demandeurs des pays africains, principal réservoir de locuteurs francophones, après la France.
La proportion de refus atteint 90 % pour les Guinéens, 82 % pour les Camerounais, 77 % pour les Algériens et 75 % pour les Sénégalais.
Depuis cinq ans, 16 000 étudiants algériens et 5300 Sénégalais se sont ainsi vu refuser l’entrée au pays.
« Nous n’arrivons pas à nous expliquer cette situation, écrit dans un courriel René Gingras, DG du Cégep de Rivière-du-Loup. Nous espérons qu’il y aura déblocage bientôt. Nous pourrions ainsi accueillir plus d’étudiants qui parlent français, qui s’intègrent dans notre région et qui répondent aux besoins du marché du travail. »
De leur côté, les collèges et universités anglophones du reste du Canada ne rencontrent pas ce problème. Ils recrutent les étudiants de pays anglo-saxons, de pays comme le Japon, la Chine, l’Inde et la Corée du Sud, tous plus riches que les pays africains. Les taux de refus y sont beaucoup plus faibles.
« Les demandes du monde entier sont examinées de façon uniforme et en fonction des mêmes critères. Il n’y a absolument aucune discrimination dans notre processus d’évaluation des demandes », se défend M. Liang, d’Immigration Canada.
Aucune discrimination, mais des objectifs totalement contradictoires avec ceux du Québec, déplore la Fédération des cégeps.
Le fédéral ferme la porte quand il n’est pas convaincu que l’étudiant quittera le pays à la fin des études. Or, ce même étudiant est recruté en se faisant promettre par Québec qu’une fois diplômé, il pourra rester au pays de façon permanente.
Par exemple, des missions de recrutement d’étudiants visent régulièrement le Maghreb, une région pour laquelle Immigration Canada refuse de 40 à 77 % des demandeurs.
Autant de cerveaux qui n’entrent pas au Québec.
Cinq pistes pour hausser la part du Québec
Pour attirer davantage d’étudiants étrangers, le Québec pourrait toujours emprunter un raccourci et imiter la France en proposant des formations uniquement en anglais. Le cégep de Gaspé a choisi cette voie avec son campus de Montréal, qui accueille 2000 Indiens et permet à la maison d’enseignement de faire des profits de 1 million. Des solutions moins controversées existent néanmoins.
Diminuer le taux de refus des permis d’études
« On aimerait voir plus de flexibilité dans le processus de délivrance des permis d’études, confie Yan Cimon, de l’Université Laval. Il y a énormément de pièces justificatives à fournir. C’est difficile de voir des dossiers refusés pour des formalités. »
Si le taux d’acceptation des demandes visant le Québec remontait au niveau du Canada hors Québec, la province aurait accueilli 10 000 étudiants internationaux de plus en 2019. Rapidement, la part du Québec passerait de 12 à 18 % de l’ensemble des étudiants étrangers présents au Canada.
Le fédéral ferait ainsi d’une pierre deux coups. Le pays marquerait plus de points dans la course aux cerveaux qui a cours en Occident tout en diminuant sa dépendance à l’égard de l’Inde et de la Chine, responsables à eux deux de 54 % du flux d’étudiants internationaux au pays.
Instaurer le traitement rapide des permis dans les pays francophones
En 2018, le gouvernement canadien a lancé le Volet direct pour les études (VDE) pour les demandeurs de la Chine, de l’Inde, des Philippines et du Viêtnam, puis en juillet 2019 pour le Pakistan. Le VDE a permis de réduire les délais de traitement.
« Quand vous avez des délais qui interrompent ou qui induisent un report de projets d’études, ce n’est à l’avantage ni de l’étudiant ni de l’université », dit Yan Cimon, de l’Université Laval, où les deux tiers des étudiants étrangers inscrits sont africains.
« Dans le cadre du VDE, les permis d’études des étudiants potentiels peuvent être traités plus rapidement, avance Immigration Canada, dans un courriel, car en faisant leur demande, ceux-ci montrent d’emblée qu’ils ont les ressources financières et les compétences linguistiques. » Le VDE a été élargi au Maroc et au Sénégal en septembre 2019.
Élargir l’admissibilité des diplômés du collégial au PEQ
L’accès rapide à la résidence permanente pour les candidats ayant passé par la filière étudiante contribue à la popularité du Canada comme terre d’études. Au Québec, la voie rapide se nomme le Programme de l’expérience québécoise (PEQ), en révision. Les cégeps voudraient que le gouvernement ouvre le PEQ aux diplômés d’une attestation d’études collégiales, obtenue habituellement après un an d’études, dans les secteurs en pénurie de main-d’œuvre.
Augmenter le nombre de bourses
La France a haussé les droits de scolarité facturés aux étrangers en 2018. La mère patrie cible dorénavant les pays payants comme l’Inde et la Chine. L’Afrique francophone pourrait en subir les contrecoups, elle qui fournissait historiquement 45 % des étudiants étrangers en France, selon un article du Devoir de novembre 2018. Une fenêtre s’ouvre pour le Québec en augmentant le nombre de bourses versées aux Africains. Depuis 2016, le Québec offre 500 bourses d’études aux francophones du Sud qui s’inscrivent au cégep. Encore faudrait-il que les agents d’Immigration Canada considèrent la bourse dans l’examen de la demande de permis d’études.
Entente avec la Belgique et la Suisse
La Fédération des cégeps est en demande auprès du gouvernement pour que celui-ci conclue une entente pour admettre les étudiants de la Belgique et de la Suisse aux mêmes conditions monétaires que les Français dans le réseau collégial. Les étudiants en provenance de l’Hexagone acquittent les mêmes frais que les Québécois. Une entente existe avec la Belgique depuis deux ans pour faciliter l’inscription de ses ressortissants à l’université, mais rien en ce qui concerne le cégep. Aucune entente n’existe actuellement avec la Suisse.
It has never been easy for foreigners to come to Germany for work. For many decades, political leaders have insisted the country wasn’t pursuing active immigration policies. But this has changed in recent years due to the fact that Germany is lacking more than a million skilled laborers to keep its economy going.
As of March 1, a new law will facilitate the immigration of qualified workers to Germany. Below is a list of the most important changes for all those who are seeking a job from abroad.
Who is considered a skilled worker?
Contrary to previous legislation, being considered a skilled worker, or “specialist,” is no longer restricted to a person with a university or college degree. Instead, the term now also applies to someone who has acquired a vocational training certificate. The training program must be at least two years in length, and the resulting degree needs to be recognized as equal or similar to a German degree.
If you want to check whether your qualification suits the requirements, you can access an information portal set up by the German Labor Ministry. How this works is explained on the “Make it in Germany” website, where you can also find links to other issues related to working in the country.
The government’s aim is to finish the recognition process of an applicant within three months after all the necessary documents have been provided. A work visa will be issued four weeks later.
Who is allowed to work in Germany?
In principle, applicants from outside the European Union are generally allowed to work in Germany if they have a work contract with a firm based in Germany and the relevant professional qualification for the job. The new law has stripped away a key regulation: That people from outside the EU can only take a job if there is no German or EU citizen who is able to do it instead.
Job seekers with qualifications lower than the vocational training level are, however, excluded by the new law. They can nevertheless apply for immigration if they possess a work contract or a job offer from a German employer. The employer then has to train the applicant and make sure he or she acquires a professional-level certificate within two years.
What else is needed?
All those with a work contract or a specific job offer are granted residency status for four years, or the duration of their contract. After four years, they can apply for a permanent residence status.
If you’re looking for a job, you are also allowed entry into Germany — on the condition that you can prove you’re able to support yourself and that you speak sufficient German (B2 level).
The new law also applies to foreigners seeking professional qualifications or a university degree in Germany. In addition, they must have obtained a diploma from a German school abroad or any other degree that qualifies them for university or professional education, and they must not be older than 25. After working for two years in Germany, people in this category can apply for permanent residence status.
Foreign skilled workers who are older than 45 have to prove they earn a minimum of €3,685 per month in their German job, or possess adequate old-age retirement funds.
Special rules for special skills
In sectors with an acute shortage of skilled professionals, the bar for emigrating to Germany has been lowered as well. Medical doctors, IT specialists or registered certified nurses, for example, don’t need to have their qualifications recognized by German authorities as long as they can prove a minimum of five years of on-the-job experience.
However, employers are obliged to take on financial responsibility for up to one year, including repatriation costs, for an employee whose contract has expired and who refuses to leave Germany voluntarily.
Family members are allowed
Under the new law, qualified workers are also allowed to bring their spouses and minor children to Germany. But they must prove to be able to support their family members financially and must provide them with sufficient living space. They cannot receive state benefits such as social welfare payments.
Welfare organizations including the Catholic charity Caritas have criticized the regulation, saying it would tear families apart. Those foreigners working in social occupations or the care sector wouldn’t be able to meet the requirements for families, they said.
Are refugees and asylum-seekers also welcome?
In principle, the new regulations also apply to asylum-seekers and refugees, although politicians admit only very few of them would qualify for it, namely those granted exceptional leave to remain.
Such foreigners with no residential status but who cannot be deported for various reasons are allowed to start training under certain conditions. They must have been working at least 35 hours a week for 18 months, and need to be able to support themselves. In addition, they must have sufficient command of the German language (B2 level) and must not have committed a criminal offense.
Some good analysis here (and more on the “Canadian advantage”:
New U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) data show denial rates for new H-1B petitions increased from 6% in FY 2015 to 21% in FY 2019. Companies that provide information technology (IT) and other services to U.S. businesses had the highest denial rates due to Trump administration policies.
“In FY 2019, USCIS adjudicators denied 21% of H-1B petitions for “initial” employment (which is primarily for new employees) and 12% of H-1B petitions for “continuing” employment (mostly for existing employees),” according to a new National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP) analysis. “The 12% denial rate for continuing employment was the same in both FY 2018 and FY 2019, indicating there has been little change in USCIS policies over the past year.”
USCIS explains that H-1B petitions for “initial” employment are primarily cases that would count against the H-1B annual limit (i.e., new employment). H-1B petitions for “continuing” employment are mostly extensions for existing employees at the same company but could also be for an H-1B visa holder changing to a new employer.
As the NFAP analysis notes, this is the first time that data for all four quarters of FY 2019 are available and can be separated into initial and continuing employment, which provides a clearer picture of USCIS adjudications. The analysis found the 12% denial rate for continuing employment in FY 2019 was four times higher than the 3% rate as recently as FY 2015. The 21% denial rate for initial employment in FY 2019, while lower than the 24% rate in 2018, was still much higher than the 6% denial rate for such cases in FY 2015.
The statistics bear out what immigration attorneys have said for more than a year: “USCIS has raised the legal standard they use to decide whether enough evidence has been presented with petitions to approve them, without any legal authority to do so and without any notice to the public,” William Stock, a founding member of Klasko Immigration Law Partners, LLP, told me in an interview.
The analysis found H-1B denial rates have risen for nearly all major companies. However, it is clear USCIS has used a different standard to adjudicate cases for IT services companies. “The denial rate for H-1B petitions (initial employment) for at least 9 major companies that provide IT services or other consulting services reached over 30% in FY 2019,” according to the analysis, “In comparison, technology product companies, such as Apple, had far lower denial rates for initial employment, ranging between 2% and 7%, although these rates were generally higher than in FY 2015.”
The denials seem focused on H-1B employees who will perform work at customer sites to service contracts. Employers that keep employees primarily in a single location, such as product companies, have much lower denial rates.
Attorneys say there is plenty of evidence that USCIS changed the standards without a change in the law or new USCIS regulations. Between FY 2015 and FY 2019, the denial rate for initial employment increased by 20 percentage points or more for at least 10 major companies that provide information technology or other business services.
For continuing employment, the denial rate for H-1B petitions was 3% between FY 2011 and FY 2015 but increased to 12% in FY 2018 and FY 2019. A USCIS memo that told adjudicators not to provide deference to prior determinations has forced long-time employees waiting for green cards to leave the United States because their cases were denied.
It should not be surprising that the most successful technology companies have needed to hire highly skilled people to grow. The leading employers for H-1B petitions for initial employment in FY 2019 included Amazon, Google and Apple, all of which have passed $1 trillion in market capitalization. When companies recruit at U.S. universities, they find 80% of the full-time graduate students in computer science and electrical engineering are international students.
In contrast, other companies are sponsoring fewer workers. “New H-1B petitions (for initial employment) for the top 7 Indian-based companies declined by 64% between FY 2015 and FY 2019,” according to the NFAP analysis. “The 7 companies had only 5,428 H-1B petitions for initial employment approved in FY 2019. Denials may have contributed to this decline but the primary reason for the drop in H-1B visas is a choice by companies to build up their domestic workforce in the United States and rely less on visas. Moreover, these and similar companies are part of an industry trend when servicing clients to use more digital services, such as cloud computing, bots and artificial intelligence, which require fewer workers.”
The supply of H-1B petitions has been gone before the end of the past 17 fiscal years. The demand for tech talent across industries and the low number of H-1Bs relative to the size of America’s economy are the major reasons. The annual limit of 65,000 H-1B petitions and the 20,000 exemption from that limit for individuals with an advanced degree from a U.S. university comes to 85,000 new H-1B petitions each year – only 0.05% of the U.S. labor force of 164 million people.
High denial rates are not the only problem for companies under Trump administration policies. The percentage of completed cases with Requests for Evidence (RFEs) increased from 22.3% in FY 2015 to 40.2% in FY 2019, according to USCIS, which increases costs and processing time for employers.
Given the problems in the United States, it’s not surprising companies, international students and foreign-born engineers are looking to the north. In Canada, the number of Indians who became permanent residents increased from 39,340 in 2016 to 85,585 in 2019, a rise of more than 117%, according to a National Foundation for American Policy analysis of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada data.
Under Canada’s Global Skills Strategy, adjudicators approve many applications for high-skilled workers within two weeks with a low number of denials. “Canada is benefiting from a diversion of young Indian tech workers from U.S. destinations, largely because of the challenges of obtaining and renewing H-1B visas and finding a reliable route to U.S. permanent residence,” said Peter Rekai, founder of the Toronto-based immigration law firm Rekai LLP, in an interview. (See here.)
In the United States, we often ignore the positive role technology professionals, both native-born and foreign-born, play in making U.S. companies more competitive. “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 Everest Group CEO Peter Bendor-Samuel. “If this administration wanted to harm U.S. competitiveness, then restricting access to this vital labor would be an excellent approach.”
The situation may grow worse for employers and high-skilled foreign nationals. The Trump administration has pledged to publish a new H-1B visa rule in 2020 to “revise the definition of specialty occupation . . . and revise the definition of employment and employer-employee relationship.”
The rule would put into regulation many of the current USCIS practices that have resulted in higher denial rates – or may be a source of new ways for USCIS to restrict the employment of foreign nationals.
This has been discussed for some time with some organizations advocating for this (Talent Beyond Boundaries) and the government is piloting the Economic Mobility Pathways Project (EMPP):
Canada should consider letting in some skilled refugees as economic immigrants, says Canada’s new United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and with it, establish a new avenue for refugees to resettle, which could be used to help people in dire need in countries in crisis, like Venezuela.
Doing this would open up a track beyond the resettlement quota and the typical pathway for refugees, said Rema Jamous Imseis.
Canada plans to expand the number of immigrants accepted to 350,000 by 2021, including 51,700 protected persons and refugee programs, and 202,300 through economic and skills programs, according to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada’s (IRCC) 2019 plan.
“This is something entirely different. It’s recognizing that refugees come with skill sets; you have a lot of highly educated people who already speak English and [have] years of rich work experience in different parts of the world,” she explained. “Why not look at some of these people?”
Any efforts to increase the number taken out of harm’s way and also benefit Canada, is “a win-win,”she added. While qualified, she noted a refugee fleeing a country may not have the expected documents; some may be missing copies of degrees, or birth certificates, or may be missing experience in a relevant field in recent years.
Even if the economic immigration stream is expanded to include one per cent of refugees in its total, it’d make a difference addressing the massive amounts of displacement globally, which over the past few years has reached “epic proportions,” she said.
“I don’t use that word lightly,” Ms. Imseis said during a Feb. 14 interview less than two weeks on the job. She’d spent that week immersed in resettlement discussions, including co-hosting an international meeting on the subject.
Canada recently launched a very small pilot to start and while it’s too early to put a timeline on introducing such system changes, she said she’s encouraged by the fact that “there’s a lot of interest and facilitation” from the government. For good reason, it’s initially going to be a slow process, she said.
“You can’t dramatically change a system overnight.”
IRCC spokesman Rémi Larivière said Canada is known for its leadership in developing innovative programs that support refugees seeking protection.
Canada has been exploring labour mobility as a complementary pathway, he said, and IRCC’s first step was to establish the Economic Mobility Pathways Project (EMPP). Research with partners demonstrated that there are skilled refugees in Kenya and the Middle East who meet the requirements of Canada’s economic immigration programs, he said.
The need is so great for those living in extreme vulnerability, and yet so few get the “life-saving and life-changing” chance at resettlement, Ms. Imseis said. Of the 1.4-million people in need of resettlement in 2019, only about 64,000 refugees were resettled, according to theUNHCR.
In Canada, so far four applicants, along with nine family members, have arrived through the project and another four applicants and their families are expected to arrive shortly, Mr. Larivière said, with an expected 10 to 20 to arrive over the next year. A second research face will begin in April 2020, with results available by early 2021.
The hope is to use those case studies to “see if there are opportunities to finesse [the] system and maybe overcome some of these hurdles,” said Ms. Imseis, while keeping the same standards and targeting in-demand professions.
“Nobody’s lowering the threshold for them, it’s just about now trying to find ways to deal with the reality of being a refugee and how we can support applications under this track.”
Such changes could widen the opportunity to bring in migrants where the need is most, she said, including those affected by the unfolding crisis in Venezuela, where almost five-million have fled in the face of increasing food shortages and political unrest, with the Nicolas Maduro regime still in power despite world leaders, like Canada, supporting Juan Guaidó.
Multicultural Meanderings 
