Refugees must spend 14 days in self-isolation away from usual shelters: Blair

Will be interesting to see how this works in practice and the overall effects on the numbers:

Refugees arriving to Canada amid the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic must now spend 14 days in self-isolation away from the usual shelters, Canada’s public safety minister announced on Tuesday.

The new refugees must also be screened for “evidence of (COVID-19) symptoms and questioned” about their travel history, Bill Blair said during the federal government’s most recent update on the measures being employed to stall the spread of the virus.

When someone enters Canada and claims protection through Canada’s refugee system (whether it be as a United Nations- or privately-sponsored refugee, or as asylum claimant), they are first screened by Canada’s border agency. Anyone determined by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) to have had a criminal history or who may pose a threat to Canada are not allowed in the country. Blair said this screening typically takes 24 hours.

After passing an initial screening, Blair said refugees will be moved to “appropriate shelter” for their two-week isolation, separate from usual temporary housings in places like Montreal, which has become a popular settlement location partly owing to its proximity to Roxham Road, an unauthorized border crossing in southern Quebec.

“We are doing this because we believe it is necessary and in the best interest of keeping all Canadians healthy and safe,” Blair said.

The government reports there were 64,045 asylum claims made in Canada in 2019.According to Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) statistics,there were 42,491 refugee protection claims made in Canada last year. By the end of 2019, the government was still faced with 87,270 pending claims.

Immigration Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) and the IRB have had to make suspensions to their services amidst the COVID-19 pandemic as well. IRCC is suspending all in-person appointments until at least April 13, while IRB is postponing its in-person hearings and mediations until at least April 5.

These new rules for incoming refugees come as the federal government takes steps to restrict access to Canada, much like other countries around the globe have done, in an attempt to thwart the spread of COVID-19.

On Monday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that most non-residents would be banned from entering Canada. Canadian citizens, permanent residents and their immediate families, as well as American citizens, diplomats and aircrews, as well as those entering the country for the purpose of trade or commerce, are exempted from the ban.

The CBSA is asking all travellers who are still able to return to Canada to isolate themselves for 14 days once they enter the country. If within that time someone suffers from symptoms of COVID-19 (such as a fever, cough, or difficulty breathing), they’re asked to reach out to health authorities to advise them of their travels.

Canada’s deputy chief public health officer Dr. Howard Njoo said on Monday that with the data available at that time that almost nine-in-10 cases (87 per cent), had been related to travel outside of the country.

According to Canada’s chief public health officer Theresa Tam, there have now been 180,000 cases of COVID-19 identified across 160 countries worldwide. As of midday on Tuesday, 37,ooo people in Canada had been tested for the coronavirus, with more than 440 cases being reported as positive. Five Canadians had died from COVID-19 by Tuesday, with Ontario reporting its first death the morning after British Columbia declared three patients of the illness inside its borders had succumbed to the disease.

Source: Refugees must spend 14 days in self-isolation away from usual shelters: Blair

The Coronavirus Is Hindering One Of The Trump Administration’s Ways To Deport Asylum-Seekers

Ironic:

The Guatemalan government has suspended accepting flights carrying asylum-seekerstrying to enter the US — rebuffing one of the Trump administration’s key methods of deporting would-be immigrants — as a way to prevent the spread of the coronavirus within its borders.

The controversial policy, which has been in place since late last year, sends people from Honduras and El Salvador who try to seek asylum in the US to Guatemala to seek protection there instead.

Guatemala’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced the change on Tuesday. Department of Homeland Security officials did not respond to a request for comment.

The policy — officially labeled as an Asylum Cooperative Agreement and colloquially called a “safe third country” agreement — is a key element in its strategy to deter immigration at the border and restrict asylum-seekers from entering the US. Advocates and asylum officers previously told BuzzFeed News that the unprecedented agreement lacks legality and organization and will lead to immigrants being placed in dangerous circumstances.

Guatemala’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said it had also suspended flights of Guatemalan deportees from the US while it established health protocols to ensure a deportee doesn’t take the virus back to their community. Officials said plans include three medical checks in the US, as well as one before getting on a plane for Guatemala and another inspection when they land.

There is no timeline for when that would happen.

Senior administration officials have said the policy of sending asylum-seekers from El Salvador and Honduras to Guatemala is an opportunity for individuals from the countries to seek protection closer to their home countries.

“We are building protections that will be available to the region’s vulnerable populations closer to home — eliminating the need to make the dangerous journey north and lining the pockets of transnational criminal organizations,” acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf said in December.

The coronavirus pandemic has been spreading within US communities for weeks. This has led to cancellations of large conferences, concerts, and other events; widespread closures of schools; and other containment measures.

Guatemala recently reported the first death of an individual from COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus, within its country on Sunday.

On Tuesday afternoon, US Citizenship and Immigration Services asylum officers had yet to receive guidance on the reported suspension of flights to Guatemala. The officers oversee key aspects of the program to send asylum-seekers from El Salvador and Honduras to Guatemala.

Source: The Coronavirus Is Hindering One Of The Trump Administration’s Ways To Deport Asylum-Seekers

‘There Won’t Be Anyone to Harvest the Crops.’ Coronavirus Travel Bans Squeeze Migrant Labor

Written from a US industry perspective. Assume US and Canada will provide waivers or exemptions given the economic and food security impacts:

Across the globe, governments are imposing travel limits in a bid to stem the spread of coronavirus. The unintended consequence is a squeeze on migrant labor that’s a cornerstone of food production.

American produce growers preparing to harvest crops are warning of a devastating impact on fruit and vegetables after the U.S. Embassy in Mexico announced a halt to visa interviews for seasonal farm workers. Slaughterhouses also may face labor shortages.

In Australia, growers say the country may face shortages of some fruits and vegetables because of travel curbs, with the nation traditionally using overseas workers for one third of seasonal farming jobs. Kiwifruit pickers are in short supply in New Zealand. And in Canada, travel limits threaten meat processors that rely on temporary foreign workers to fill chronic labor shortages.

“There won’t be anyone to harvest the crops,” said Robert Guenther, senior vice president for public policy for the United Fresh Produce Association, which represents U.S. growers, distributors, wholesalers and retailers. “It will be devastating to growers and ultimately to the supply chain and consumers. They won’t have the food.”

Vulnerable supply chains

Expectations for a labor crunch reveal how interconnected the world of global agriculture has become, and expose the strains of production and areas of vulnerability to the supply chain. In many key food-making nations, the industry relies heavily on migrant and immigrant workers to fill jobs that middle-class citizens shun. Think of the back-breaking work of tomato pickers, the dangerous conditions at slaughter houses and what many would consider the unpalatable environment of large livestock-feed operations.

The timing for the disruptions in some ways couldn’t be worse. In the Northern Hemisphere, farmers are gearing up for their peak spring and summer growing seasons. Ranchers also tend to sell more animals to slaughter at this time of year.

While large grain and oilseed operations in the U.S. don’t rely as much on seasonal workers, many fruit and vegetable operators do. Leafy greens, berries and cucumbers are likely to be hit first by the loss of seasonal workers, Guenther said. Tree fruit such as peaches, plums, nectarines and citrus would be affected heading into May and June, he said.

The U.S. Embassy in Mexico posted a notice on its website announcing it was indefinitely halting visa interviews needed to process applications to come to the U.S., including for seasonal farm workers under the H-2A visa program.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture “is directly engaged with the State Department and working diligently to ensure minimal disruption in H2A visa applications during these uncertain times,” the agency said in an emailed response. “This Administration is doing everything possible to maintain continuity of this critically important program.”

Possible waivers

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue told farm representatives in a conference call Tuesday that the State Department will process visa applications from returning farm workers who are eligible for interview waivers, said Dave Puglia, president of Western Growers Association, which represents 2,500 businesses in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado. The USDA didn’t immediately respond to a request to confirm his account of the call.

The U.S. State Department didn’t respond to requests for comment on the visa interview halt.

Zippy Duvall, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation, the nation’s largest general farm organization, said the restrictions would still impede the harvest.

“Under the new restrictions, American farmers will not have access to all of the skilled immigrant labor needed at a critical time in the planting season,” Duvall said. “This threatens our ability to put food on Americans’ tables.”

In Canada, the restrictions may hold up visas for people who had jobs lined up at the nation’s protein plants from places such as Central America or the Philippines, said Chris White, president of the Ottawa-based Canadian Meat Council. The workers are “critical” to the nation’s meat production.

In Australia, the government on Monday imposed a two-week self-isolation period for anyone coming into the country. That restricts the agriculture industry’s access to a key source of seasonal labor.

The small coastal town of Bowen, in northern Queensland, is now readying for its winter vegetable harvest and is an example of an area that could be affected, said Richard Shannon, policy and advocacy manager at the state’s horticulture industry group Growcom.

“They supply during winter 90% of our tomatoes and capsicums, so that small town grows exponentially during harvest season and relies heavily on folks coming from interstate and overseas,” Shannon said.

Source: ‘There Won’t Be Anyone to Harvest the Crops.’ Coronavirus Travel Bans Squeeze Migrant Labor

New Zealand: ‘Like swimming in crocodile waters’ – Immigration officials’ data analytics use

Of note. As always, one needs to ensure that AI systems are as free of bias as possible as well as remembering that human decision-making is also not perfect. But any large-scale immigration system will likely have to rely on AI in order to manage the workload:

Immigration officials are being accused of using data analytics and algorithms in visa processing – and leaving applicants in the dark about why they are being rejected.

One immigration adviser described how applicants unaware of risk profiling were like unwitting swimmers in crocodile infested waters.

The automatic ‘triage’ system places tourists, overseas students or immigrants into high, medium or low risk categories.

The factors which raise a red flag on high-risk applications are not made publicly available; Official Information Act requests are redacted on the grounds of international relations.

But an immigration manager has told RNZ that staff identify patterns, such as overstaying and asylum claim rates of certain nationalities or visa types, and feed that data into the triage system.

On a recent visit to a visa processing centre in Auckland, Immigration New Zealand assistant general manager Jeannie Melville acknowledged that it now ran an automated system that triages applications, but said it was humans who make the decisions.

“There is an automatic triage that’s done – but to be honest, the most important thing is the work that our immigration officers do in actually determining how the application should be processed,” she said.

“And we do have immigration officers that have the skills and the experience to be able to determine whether there are further risk factors or no risk factors in a particular application.

“The triage system is something that we work on all the time because as you would expect, things change all the time. And we try and make sure that it’s a dynamic system that takes into account a whole range of factors, whether that be things that have happened in the past or things that are going on at the present time.”

When asked what ‘things that have happened in the past’ might mean in the context of deciding what risk category an applicant would be assigned to, another manager filled the silence.

“Immigration outcomes, application outcomes, things that we measure – overstaying rates or asylum claim rates from certain sources,” she said. “Nationality or visa type patterns that may have trended, so we do some data analytics that feed into some of those business rules.”

Humans defer to machines – professor

Professor Colin Gavaghan, of Otago University, said studies on human interactions with technology suggested people found it hard to ignore computerised judgments.

“What they’ve found is if you’re not very, very careful, you get a kind of situation where the human tends just to defer to whatever the machine recommends,” said Prof Gavaghan, director of the New Zealand Law Foundation Centre for Law and Policy in Emerging Technologies.

“It’s very hard to stay in a position where you’re actually critiquing and making your own independent decision – humans who are going to get to see these cases, they’ll be told that the machine, the system has already flagged them up as being high risk.

“It’s hard not to think that that will influence their decision. The idea they’re going to make a completely fresh call on those cases, I think, if we’re not careful, could be a bit unrealistic.”

Oversight and transparency were needed to check the accuracy of calls made by the algorithmic system and to ensure people could challenge decisions, he added.

Best practice guidelines tended to be high level and vague, he added.

“There’s also questions and concerns about bias,” he said. “It can be biased because the training data that’s been used to prepare it is itself the product of user bias decisions – if you have a body of data that’s been used to train the system that’s informed by let’s say, for the sake of argument, racist assumptions about particular groups, then that’s going to come through in the system’s recommendations as well.

“We haven’t had what we would like to see, which is one body with responsibility to look across all of government and all of these uses.”

The concerns follow questions around another Immigration New Zealand programme in 2018 which was used to prioritise deportations.

A compliance manager told RNZ it was using data, including nationality, of former immigrants to determine which future overstayers to target.

It subsequently denied that nationality was one of the factors but axed the programme.

Don’t make assumptions on raw data – immigration adviser

Immigration adviser Katy Armstrong said Immigration New Zealand had to fight its own ‘jaundice’ that was based on profiling and presumptions.

“Just because you’re a 23-year-old, let’s say, Brazilian coming in, wanting to have a holiday experience in New Zealand, doesn’t make you an enemy of the state.

“And you’re being lumped in maybe with a whole bunch of statistics that might say that young male Brazilians have a particular pattern of behaviour.

“So you then have to prove a negative against you, but you’re not being told transparently what that negative is.”

It would be unacceptable if the police were arresting people based on the previous offending rates of a certain nationality and immigration rules were also based on fairness and natural justice, she said.

“That means not discriminating, not being presumptuous about the way people may behave just purely based on assumptions from raw data,” she said.

“And that’s the area of real concern. If you have profiling and an unsophisticated workforce, with an organisation that is constantly in churn, with people coming on board to make decisions about people’s lives with very little training, then what do you end up with?

“Well, I can tell you – you end up with decisions that are basically unfair, and often biased.

“I think people go in very trusting of the system and not realising that there is this almighty wall between them and a visa over issues that they would have no inkling about.

“And then they get turned down, they don’t even give you a chance very often to respond to any doubts that immigration might have around you.

“People come and say: ‘I got declined’ and you look at it and you think ‘oh my God, it was like they literally went swimming in the crocodile waters without any protection’.”

Source: ‘Like swimming in crocodile waters’ – Immigration officials’ data analytics use

Despite coronavirus, Canada needs immigrants

Suspect with travel restrictions and fewer international flights, may be harder for IRCC to meet this year’s target levels. Citizenship numbers will most likely drop given the cancellation of citizenship ceremonies:

Last week Canada announced its 2020-2022 Immigration Levels Plan as the coronavirus (COVID-19) crisis was escalating.

Indeed, the announcement was overshadowed by the major economic and social turmoil that the coronavirus is having in Canada and abroad.

Here at home, Canada, just like most countries, appears headed towards a recession. COVID-19 has led to a price war between major oil producers globally, and the collapsing price of oil will have negative ramifications for Canada’s economy.

Moreover, weakened economic activity will hurt nearly every sector with certain ones in particular such as tourism and hospitality bearing significant blows.

To stymie the blows, the Bank of Canada announced an emergency cut to its overnight interest rate, just one week after it had already cut the rate. They may not be done, as some analysts forecast more cuts may be needed to help Canada’s economy weather the storm.

Overseas, we have seen the likes of states of emergency, travel bans, and other exceptional events such as stock market crashes.

Why 2020-2022 Immigration Levels Plan makes sense despite COVID-19

As such chaos engulfs the world, it is understandable that Canada’s decision to welcome over one million additional immigrants over the next three years is not the focus of attention at the moment.

Nonetheless, the COVID-19 crisis can help us understand why immigration will be so crucial to Canada’s economy moving forward.

Yes, Canada’s economy looks set to contract in 2020. As such, one could make the argument that increasing immigration at this moment is not ideal since newcomers will be arriving in Canada at a time when the labour market will struggle to absorb them.

However, current events serve as a reminder that Canada’s immigration policies are largely proactive in nature, and since the late 1980s, the decision of the number of immigrants to welcome has been largely detached from economic conditions on the ground.

While Canada welcomes immigrants to help fill immediate job vacancies, its immigration policies are also meant to strengthen the country’s economic standing years and decades from now. This means that even if newcomers arrive during an economic downturn, Canada expects the same newcomers to be catalysts for economic growth in the future.

A major reason for this is that all of Canada’s nine million baby boomers will reach retirement age by the end of this decade. Since Canada has a low birth rate, it is relying on immigration to drive the majority of its labour force growth.

Labour force growth is one of two ways to grow the economy, with the other way being to use the labour force more productively.

Hence, it still makes sense to admit high levels of newcomers even during periods of economic distress. While immigrants arriving in Canada in 2020 may face more difficulties than usual in finding work that aligns with their skills, education, and work experience, they will soon face the prospects of working in a country where the supply of labour will be significantly constrained as more baby boomers leave the workforce. This means that such immigrants will likely see more employers competing for their services, which would result in much better employment outcomes and salaries.

“Tap on, tap off” turned off in late 1980s

The proactive measure of welcoming high levels of newcomers even during recessions is a fairly new one in Canadian history.

Up until the late 1980s, Canada utilized a “tap on, tap off” approach to immigration levels. It welcomed higher levels of newcomers when the economy was strong, and reduced immigration during recessions. However, it moved away from this approach in the late 1980s after determining it needed to sustain high levels of immigration to alleviate the economic and fiscal strain that was soon to come due to its rapidly aging population and low birth rate. Since then, Canada has maintained high levels even during several recessions including the major one that occurred in 2008-09.

It can also be argued that a short-term benefit of welcoming immigrants during periods such as what Canada is experiencing today still helps the economy in the short-run since newcomers will help to stimulate demand in Canada through the purchase of goods and services which will help to relieve some of the economic stress being caused by the coronavirus crisis.

Announcing an ambitious immigration levels plan during such a crisis may not have appeared to be ideal timing on the surface, however, in practice, the timing of the announcement will prove immaterial.

Today’s higher immigration levels, even though we are experiencing a coronavirus crisis and economic pain, will result in greener economic pastures tomorrow as the influx of newcomers contributes to Canada’s economy as workers, consumers, and taxpayers.

Source: Despite coronavirus, Canada needs immigrants

Paradkar: Migrant worker groups slam new Canadian border restrictions

Not as bizarre as it sounds. Normal triage and expect some further actions by the government to address some of the issues raised. Given the pace of developments and the extent of the pandemic, unrealistic to expect any government to address all aspects, and all those affected, at one time. To say this is “simply racism” is simply silly and simplistic:

The federal government announced drastic border restrictions on Monday, with the prime minister saying only non-sick Canadians, permanent residents and — bizarrely — American citizens would be permitted to enter the country.

That means our doors are closed to residents with work permits and student permits, refugee claimants and anyone in need of humanitarian assistance.

Many migrant workers — farm workers and care workers, who are usually racialized — are on these permits. They cannot enter. Some are separated from their families, others are losing their livelihoods.

“There is no public health reason to shut out non-permanent residents,” the Migrant Rights Network said in a statement on the heels of the announcement. “This is simply racism.”

In these moments of determined calm amid chaos and confusion, it’s worth reflecting that when the comfortable feel vulnerable, the already vulnerable get pushed further into the margins.

Migrant workers are being penalized if they left the country. They’re being excluded from policies to protect Canadians if they did not. And if moral imperatives to do the right thing are insufficient, there’s this: not paying attention to their plight puts us all at risk.

About 37 migrant organizations from across Canada came together Monday demanding that the government support more than 1.5 million non-permanent residents in Canada, who they say “face a potential human rights disaster” when the loss of their livelihoods here leaves their families without food.

They’re asking the government to offer access to health care for all, including undocumented residents; to strengthen labour laws so migrants workers can also get paid sick leave and protection from reprisals for taking that leave; an end to all detentions and deportations; and funds to expand emergency shelters and food banks that are bursting at the seams.

Syed Hussan, executive director of Migrant Workers Alliance for Change, said migrant organizations were flooded with hundreds of calls within an hour of Ottawa’s announcement, “from students abroad not being able to come back and from workers who’ve already bought plane tickets and paid tens of thousands of dollars” in recruitment fees. “There is no clarity if they will be protected.”

This is the start of the agricultural season and Hussan said farm workers who did manage to get in are finding employers refusing to take them to grocery stores.

“They live in rural communities and can’t get to the grocery stores,” Hussan said. “And when they do get to the grocery stores, there are no supplies there. So, we’re literally doing food drops across the country to farms.”

What about the workers who didn’t travel?

They can’t afford to fall sick. There is no Employment Insurance available for those who are paid in cash, Hussan said.

Most migrant workers don’t have access to paid sick leave and risk losing their jobs even if they take unpaid sick days.

Earlier Monday, Premier Doug Ford promised legislation that would remove the requirement for employees to obtain sick notes before taking time off work. But it’s not clear if that protection extends to migrant workers.

Add to that, existing immigration laws allows for workers to be deported if they fall sick, even if their home countries are unsafe.

That threat is a huge barrier to farm workers and care workers from reporting to the health authorities if they do fall sick or are asked to do unsafe work.

“We wanted to hear about labour laws needing to work with federal immigration laws. But we heard nothing from federal government except the closure of borders,” Hussan said. “And that’s creating more shock waves than anything else. People feel excluded rather than protected.”

Social distancing for the usually comfortable means figuring out workarounds: FaceTime! Skype meetings! Pick up the phone (as the prime minister said)! Take walks! Don’t go to the gym! But the usually vulnerable are finding themselves in a deeper, more ominous mess.

“We’re hearing from a lot of people that care workers are not being allowed to leave home because employers are too nervous (that) it’s going to impact them.”

In other words they’re trapped in their workplace without a break. Imagine the uproar if Bay Street did that to its employees.

Also, how would migrant workers who live in bunk houses, sometimes “18 to a house” self-isolate? Or wash their hands? “We know there’s no running water on the fields. People don’t have the ability to wash their hands,” Hussan said.

Labour laws, immigration laws and health and safety laws need to be adapted to ensure that migrant and undocumented workers are protected, Hussan said.

“Instead of dealing with this as a public health crisis, the government is responding to it by dealing with it as a securitization crisis by shutting down the border to racialized migrants and low-wage people.”

Source: OpinionShree Paradkar: Migrant worker groups slam new Canadian border restrictions

What historians heard when President Trump warned of a ‘foreign virus’

Good historical recap and parallels:

For immigration historians and other scholars, the way US President Donald Trump is describing the coronavirus pandemic has a familiar ring.

“This is the most aggressive and comprehensive effort to confront a foreign virus in modern history,” Trump said in an Oval Office address Wednesday night. “I am confident that by counting and continuing to take these tough measures we will significantly reduce the threat to our citizens and we will ultimately and expeditiously defeat this virus.”

As soon as Trump’s words describing a “foreign virus” hit the airwaves, Nükhet Varlik knew she’d heard them before.

“We’ve had plenty of examples of this in the past. It’s mindblowing that this still continues,” said Varlik, an associate professor of history at Rutgers University in Newark, New Jersey, and at the University of South Carolina.

“It opens up the ways of thinking about disease in dangerous ways,” she said. “Once you open that door…historically we have examples, we know where it goes. And we don’t want to go there. I find it extremely dangerous.”

It’s the latest chapter in a story that historians see as centuries in the making. From the plague to SARS, whenever an outbreak spread, racism and xenophobia weren’t far behind.

Here’s what scholars told CNN about some of history’s shameful episodes, and the lessons we can learn from them.

The ‘Black Death’ in the 14th century

The expert: Nükhet Varlik, associate professor of history at Rutgers University in Newark, New Jersey, and at the University of South Carolina

The event: “Jewish populations were accused of deliberately poisoning the wells and causing the plague. We know examples of this from many places in Europe,” Varlik says.

As rumors spread, Jews were killed, buried alive and burned at the stake. And they weren’t the only group erroneously blamed for causing the disease.

“European accounts talk about plague as ‘Oriental Plague.’ … They look at the Ottoman Empire as the origin of the plague. Well, it’s just entirely unfounded. It’s not accurate,” Varlik says.

The takeaway: “These discourses, both popular and scientific, shaped the perception of how societies understood disease and responded to it for at least the last 600 years,” Varlik says. “They are not only dangerous for the present (because it informs policy and response), but also for the future because it leaves a legacy behind.”

Similarly, she says, describing coronavirus as a “foreign virus” isn’t helpful. “We’re all in this together,” she says.

Cholera outbreaks in New York in the 19th century

The expert: Alan Kraut, distinguished professor of history at American University in Washington

The event: An 1832 cholera outbreak “was very largely blamed on Irish Catholic immigrants,” Kraut says.

“This is in part because this was also the period of the Second Great Awakening, of intense Protestant evangelism, and Catholics were always the target of that,’ he says. “They attributed the presence of the epidemic to the ‘filthiness’ and ‘ignorance’ of Irish Catholic immigrants.”

The takeaway: “Whenever there’s a crisis like an epidemic, people immediately look for who to blame. And groups that have already been stigmatized are natural targets,” Kraut says.

In New York’s response to cholera outbreaks, Kraut says, the xenophobia faded over time.

“By the third cholera epidemic in that era, there was less of an emphasis on blaming the Irish, and more of an emphasis on establishing public institutions to choreograph a response,” he said.

Rather than demonizing immigrants, creating government institutions to improve public health for everyone became a priority, Kraut says. And in 1866, New York’s Metropolitan Board of Health was born.

Quarantines in San Francisco’s Chinatown

The experts: Doug Chan, president of the Chinese Historical Society of America, and Marie Myung-Ok Lee, writer in residence at Columbia University’s Center for the Study of Ethnicity and Race.

The events: Quarantines in San Francisco’s Chinatown followed multiple outbreaks in the 19th century.

“During an outbreak of smallpox in San Francisco in 1876, a population of 30,000 Chinese living there became medical scapegoats, Chinatown was blamed as a ‘laboratory of infection,’ and quarantined amidst renewed calls to halt immigration. The Chinese Exclusion Act, the first immigration law based on race, was enacted in 1882,” Lee noted in a recent essay for Salon.

“As soon as the immigration started to increase, that is when the job prospects for white laborers became threatened, and that is when the rumors about Chinese being disease vectors began,” she told CNN.

As the plague spread in 1900, Chan says officials in San Francisco quarantined the city’s Chinatown neighborhood “for no good reason.”

“Things got to the point where there were forced vaccinations of people in the Chinatown community with a vaccine that had not been fully tested,” he says. “And it produced adverse reactions… they basically used the Chinese as human test subjects.”

The takeaway: “It’s a sad commentary that I think many of the same narrative threads are surfacing,” Chan says. “Unfortunately Americans when facing adversity, whether it’s competition from a nation-state or in this case a virus, it’s the disturbing American tendency to racialize the adversity very quickly, and we’re seeing manifestations of that.”

Lee says it’s troubling to see.

“You could have been here since the Chinese Exclusion Act. You could be third or fourth generation,” she says. “But you’ll always be seen as a foreign invader and have somebody assault you on the subway saying you have the coronarivus.”

Health screenings and quarantines on Ellis Island

The expert: Alan Kraut, distinguished professor of history at American University in Washington

The event: “There was a fear in the late 19th and early 20th century that disease could come from abroad, and therefore we had to inspect very carefully,” Kraut says.

At the time, officials conducting health inspections on Ellis Island said their aim was to keep the American population safe. But the emphasis on screening for disease at places like Ellis Island had implications far beyond the famed immigrant processing center, Kraut says.

“One of the patterns of nativist rhetoric in the early 20th century was that these newcomers were unfit to be Americans, that is, physically unfit to be Americans, and therefore they would not be able to assimilate if admitted,” Kraut says. “If you go through the thinking of especially those who were eugenicists and race thinkers, there were so many of them who at least mentioned the theme of physical inferiority.”

The takeaway: “The foreign-born have always been targets,” Kraut says, “facing the underlying accusations that they’re unfit to be Americans.”

SARS

The expert: Ho-Fung Hung, sociology professor at Johns Hopkins University

The event: Ethnic bias and racism, Hung argues, led to less effective responses to the 2003 SARS outbreak.

And editorial cartoons in some US newspapers at the time, he says, “stigmatized all Chinese travelers as SARS carriers, and associated SARS with the Chinese-American community.”

For example, one cartoon featured an open Chinese food takeout container with ‘SARS’ written on it above a caption that read ‘Bad Chinese Take-Out.’”

“These associations of Asian and Chinese people with disease, they remain dormant. But every time it’s reactivated when there is this kind of a crisis,” Hung says.

The takeaway: Blaming diseases on foreigners happens frequently in times of public health crisis, Hung says. But he says it’s counterproductive.

“The virus itself doesn’t know ethnic boundaries. So if you are stuck with this perception that only certain groups of people you need to keep a distance from, you miss the more important part of keeping distance from other potential carriers,” he says.

Hung says describing coronavirus as a “foreign virus” is similarly problematic.

“It is already a global pandemic, so it is too late and it is useless to just frame it as a ‘foreign virus’ and say we will be OK in just cutting off travel from foreign places. Emphasizing the foreignness of the virus is no longer useful,” he says. “It’s similar to stereotyping and social distancing only against certain groups. It is counterproductive.”

Source: What historians heard when President Trump warned of a ‘foreign virus’

For Chinese, US visa halt puts jobs, citizen hopes at risk

More impact of the travel ban on some highly skilled immigrants:

Courtney Huang fell in love with the U.S. as a nursing student in Texas. She ended up staying 13 years and wants to become a U.S. citizen.

But Huang now finds her job, future, and dreams of citizenship on the line since the Trump administration barred entry last month to non-U.S. citizens and residents flying in from China over the coronavirus outbreak.

With crucial deadlines looming, her plans look increasingly at risk.

“I’m really scared,” Huang said. “I have a lot there. If I don’t go back, it’s just going to be very difficult.”

The U.S. suspended visa processing in China on Feb. 3, citing limited staffing during the virus outbreak. No deadline extensions have been announced and it’s not known when the suspension will be lifted. That’s put hundreds of Chinese citizens applying for U.S. work visas in limbo, fretting as their jobs look increasingly at risk.

Huang had returned to China to see her parents over the Lunar New Year holiday in late January. She had recently landed a new job in California and her work visa was on the verge of approval when the American Consulate in Shanghai announced it was returning everyone’s passports.

After weeks of fretting and weighing her options at her parent’s home in eastern China, Huang flew to Thailand. She now plans to wait out a mandated 14-day self-quarantine before seeing if she can get her visa from the U.S. Embassy in Bangkok.

Though Huang was born and raised in China, her whole life is now in Oakland, California, where she has an apartment, car, friends and job. With her Christian faith and gregarious, outspoken manner, the U.S. feels like home.

“I feel like I fit in better there. Free speech, free religion,” Huang said. Clean air, better career opportunities for women and a liberal social environment were also draws, she added.

Huang obtained a nursing degree in Texas, then a master’s degree in bioengineering from U.C. Berkeley. She’s on the verge of completing an M.B.A., with an eye toward settling permanently.

Now, Huang is concerned those plans could fall apart. Though her new employers, a company that provides clinical support for physicians, are understanding, Huang worries that as the months go by, there’s a possibility she may lose her job — and with it, her right to work in the U.S.

Like Huang, Kevin Yang, a Chinese doctoral student researching immunology at an American university, is also reconsidering his options. After moving to the U.s. eight years ago, Yang has returned home each winter holiday and had his student visa renewed without a hitch.

This year, though, Yang became one of many Chinese citizens caught up in the brutal tussle between Beijing and Washington over trade and technology.

When Yang applied for a visa in December, the State Department told him it was being delayed while they investigated his background for ties to the Chinese government. American officials have in recent years grown alarmed over the alleged theft of U.S. technology by China, casting a cloud of suspicion on Chinese citizens like Yang who work in the sciences.

Told the check would take four weeks, Yang changed his flights and prepared to stay longer.

Then in late January, the Chinese government began locking down whole cities to contain the virus. Soon after, Trump announced the U.S. travel ban. Yang got his passport back in the mail with no visa.

American officials told Yang’s academic adviser that since Yang no longer had a visa, they could no longer pay his stipend or fund his research with federal grant money. Hospital surveys that Yang said he spent “thousands of dollars and thousands of hours” over two years to set up were now in peril, something he described as a crushing blow.

“Maybe it’s time for me to start thinking about an alternative career,” Yang said, mulling the possibility he won’t be able to finish his Ph.D. “It’s like restarting my life.”

Discouraging high-skilled foreigners from immigrating could undermine the U.S. economy and its global prominence, said Anastasia Tonello, former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

Nearly 2.5 million Chinese were in the U.S. as of 2018, according to the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute, and most are significantly better educated than the average American. China is also the main source of foreign students enrolled in U.S. higher education.

While health and safety are legitimate concerns, blanket travel bans aren’t the answer, Tonello said.

“I just don’t think this was thought through,” she said. “These are just such broad strokes and can cause so much damage.”

The U.S. isn’t the only country currently restricting entry from China. Travelers face restrictions across the globe, from neighboring North Korea to far-flung New Zealand, Somalia, and Guatemala. Australia, a major destination for Chinese students and immigrants, also has banned arrivals and stopped issuing visas.

Such restrictions have been loudly criticized by China’s Foreign Ministry, though Beijing frequently singles out the United States.

Yang and Huang both say they understand why a travel ban could help contain the virus. But they say the U.S. halt on new visas — with no deadline extensions or other accommodations — is frustrating and unreasonable.

Even more frustrating for Huang is the sense that the U.S. is trying to bar her from coming back.

“I’m not being respected. I work in the states as a talent; I pay my taxes diligently,” Huang said. “This just makes me feel like, ‘Oh, maybe I’m just not welcome in the states.’”

Even for Chinese with visas, the clock is ticking. Tom, a programmer from the epicenter of the outbreak, the city of Wuhan, had just obtained a master’s degree in computer science from Emory University in Georgia. He has a U.S. visa but got stuck in Wuhan after the city was quarantined.

Under American law, foreign students have 90 days after graduation to start new jobs if they want to stay and work in the U.S. If Tom is still trapped in Wuhan by May, he’ll lose both his new job at Amazon and his chance to work in America altogether.

“I’d have to start all over again,” Tom said, declining to provide his last name for fear it could affect his visa and career prospects. “I just worry every day about whether I can go back to America.”

Tom says his family spent around $70,000 to send him to Emory for a shot at a better life in the U.S. He didn’t want to work in China, deterred by the Chinese tech industry’s notoriously-long hours, popularly known as “996” –9 a.m. to 9 p.m., six days a week.

U.S. officials told him there was nothing he could do.

“We just want some help or advice,” Tom said. “Please don’t ignore us, it’s something completely out of our control. That’s the worst thing.”

Source: For Chinese, US visa halt puts jobs, citizen hopes at risk

The U.K. Needs Immigrants To Work In Its Health Service. The Chancellor Just Gave Them A Reason Not To Come.

Self-defeating move, it would appear:

Immigrants to the U.K. will have to pay more into the National Health Service, whether or not they use its services. By making it more expensive for migrants to come and work, this surcharge may in fact disincentivize the very workers the health service needs at a time of intense labor shortages.

Conservative Chancellor Rishi Sunak announced the increase while presenting his first budget to the U.K. House of Commons. Immigrants coming to the U.K. with a visa to work or join family for more than six months will now have to pay, alongside other fees, a surcharge of £624 for every year of their visa, an increase of more than 50% from where it was at £400, which was itself an increase from £200 in late 2018 (under the new system children will be charged a little less than adults, £470 per year). The funds from the surcharge go into the country’s National Health Service, or NHS.

The stated aim of the surcharge is to prevent migrants from burdening the NHS, as the Chancellor made clear in his speech to the commons: “Migrants benefit from our NHS. And we all want them to do so, but it’s right that what people get out, they also put in. There is a surcharge already, but it doesn’t properly reflect the benefits people receive.”

The specific amount of £624 appears linked to previous claims made by the Conservative party that migrants incur costs to the NHS of around £625 per year. The Guardian fact-checked this claim in 2019, and absent any source for the number, declared it unverifiable.

Nonetheless, the perception that migrants burden the NHS is a common one in post-Brexit Britain, with plenty of anecdotal stories of over-full waiting rooms and months-long waiting times. But research into the economic contributions of immigrants to the U.K., particularly those from the European Union (who will soon be subject to the NHS surcharge), suggests they are not the burden people think they are. A comprehensive review of EU immigrants’ contribution to the country’s public finances commissioned by the government in 2018 found that on average those migrants paid more into, and took less out of, the public purse than native Britons.

In any case, framing the issue as how much immigrants take out and put into the NHS is deceptive. Immigrants who work in the U.K. already contribute to the public finances by paying tax and contributing to national insurance, the country’s social security scheme. As the above-mentioned Guardian piece pointed out, immigrants already “pay for the NHS all year round”.

In this light, the NHS surcharge can be seen as double taxation, and it’s worth noting it will soon be extended to EU citizens, who make up a large proportion of the migrants coming to the U.K. Professor Jonathan Portes, senior fellow of the UK in a Changing Europe, said: “The overall impact of immigration on the NHS is positive, as the Government’s own Migration Advisory Committee concluded. Given that, it’s very hard to justify extending the double-charging that already applies to non-EU migrants to those from the EU.”

The surcharge may also work against the Chancellor’s stated intention of bolstering the NHS. By making it more expensive for workers to come, it could put off some of the people the NHS needs most.

For example, a qualified nurse wanting to come to the country under the Tier 2 skilled visa scheme could expect to pay £464 for the visa fee, and £1872 for three years’ worth of NHS surcharge. If they are coming with dependents, that’s an additional £1410 per child and £1872 for a spouse. According to the Royal College of Nursing, the average starting salary a qualified nurse coming to the country could expect to get is around £25,000, well below the national average salary for full-time work.

The issue is that nursing is one of the many NHS jobs that are currently on the U.K. government’s shortage occupation list. That is to say, it’s one of those jobs the U.K. desperately needs people for to prop up its health service. By increasing the price of entry for those nurses, the surcharge gives them less incentive to come to the country.

The Royal College of Nursing released some analysis last year, before this latest increase, showing that, if a nurse from a non-EU country came with two children to take a job at Band 5 (the average starting band for NHS nurses), “they would have to work from the start of the year until 22nd January, or for 116 hours, just to pay the £1,200 they will be billed under the current charge.” That was back when the surcharge was still £400. It is now 50% higher.

“Hard-working nurses from overseas who give their all for patients in the UK must not be penalised in this way any longer,” says Dame Donna Kinnair, Chief Executive and General Secretary of the Royal College of Nursing. “The Government must abolish this cruel and heartless charge for nursing staff”.

It’s not just nurses. There are many NHS role the country badly needs people to fill, not to mention other sectors. Shara Pledger, associate at the specialist immigration law firm Latitude Law, said the combination of the surcharge and regular contributions into the NHS via taxation is an unpalatable one.

“The announcement today of a further increase to £624 is unwelcome. Brexit, the end of free movement, and negative immigration rhetoric already serve to undermine the government message that Britain is ‘open for business’. Increases to the cost of relocation do not encourage migration. This is particularly problematic when a large cohort of workers the U.K. is trying to attract are future NHS staff; they face effective double taxation to pay themselves.”

Source: The U.K. Needs Immigrants To Work In Its Health Service. The Chancellor Just Gave Them A Reason Not To Come.

Sudbury region needs more immigrants, new report advises

More interest from smaller and more remote urban centres:

A new report suggests employers and the broader public need to embrace immigration as one of the best ways to fill critical skilled labour shortages in the region.

It’s one of the findings of the report, published by Workforce Planning for Sudbury & Manitoulin.

The report highlights labour shortages and changing attitudes towards work as key challenges that should be addressed.

While each region experienced growth in the number of businesses in their areas last year, a shrinking labour pool continues to be exacerbated by issues like changing demographics, out-migration, an increase in the number of people who fall into the NEET (not in education, employment or training) category, and employers who are unwilling to adapt, change, and train apprentices.

To survive and thrive in the future, the report suggests that communities should recognize the value of immigrants and remain adaptable and flexible as labour market realities continue to change.

“One interesting thing we look at was immigrant data,” said Reggie Caverson, executive director of Workforce Planning for Sudbury & Manitoulin.

“What we saw was that the majority of the immigrants living in the region actually arrived before 1981. From 1981 to 2016, we didn’t even manage to double that number.”

Before 1981, 5,335 immigrants were residing in Greater Sudbury; 500 in the Manitoulin District; and 790 in the Sudbury District.

From 2011 to 2016, 1,005 immigrants arrived in Greater Sudbury; 45 in the Manitoulin District; and 60 in the Sudbury District.

The report observed that over the last several decades, the number of immigrants arriving in the area has been increasing.

Caverson predicts that the data from the 2021 census will see that number increase further.

There have been several businesses in Greater Sudbury that have been turning to immigration to fill job vacancies, especially for skilled labour positions they are having trouble filling locally.

For example, Carriere Industrial Supply, located in Lively, recently hired 12 welders from Mexico, working with immigration and international recruiting agency IVEY Group to facilitate the process.

But there has been some public reluctance to accept immigration as a viable solution to the labour shortage issue.

Michael Addison, general manager of the LaCloche Manitoulin Business Assistance Corporation (LAMBAC) said that this reluctance is often due to misunderstanding.

“There is some resistance to the idea in small Northern communities,” he said. “But many people don’t understand that there just aren’t enough people to fill the jobs.”

Rural areas are seeing a greater increase in out-migration.

“Young families are choosing to move to bigger cities for the opportunities whether it be in terms of education, work, or experiences for their families.”

Addison, who is currently working with the City of Espanola to develop a five-year strategic plan, also said that before rural communities can hope to attract more people, certain issues have to be addressed.

In Espanola, for example, there is a lack of affordable housing, which jeopardizes the community’s ability to keep people there.

Immigrants might also find the transition into the community difficult because they may not have adequate access to food, places of worship, or community organizations that address their needs.

Developing regional strategies for everything from workforce planning to economic development is also difficult in rural areas that are often made up of numerous municipalities.

Organizations like LAMBAC are trying to develop strategies to get communities working together.

To address labour shortages, the report also looks at the barriers local residents might face when trying to enter the labor market.

Employment service providers in the region report an increase in international students, newcomers, refugees, immigrants, women and highly-barriered individuals who access their services.

They identified significant mental health issues (including mental illness, addiction, criminal records, and learning disabilities), youth with unrealistic wage expectations, poor working conditions, high employer expectations, and a lack of transportation or affordable healthcare as significant barriers to employment.

WPSM’s labour market plan also analyzes data about NEET youth that has not been reported before. NEET youth includes anyone who is not currently in education, employment or training.

This data is significant because it represents a portion of the working-age population that does not seem to be ready, willing, or able to work.

The data shows that the number or percentage of NEET youth aged 20 to 24 gets progressively higher with progressively lower levels of education.

The report recommends improvements to the apprenticeship system to avoid labour shortages in the skilled trades.

These improvements could include financial incentives for employers to hire apprentices, reducing red tape and introducing trades to children at a younger age.

Employers are still falling short when it comes to offering equitable opportunities for women, Indigenous people and persons with disabilities.

These underrepresented populations could benefit from increased opportunities to enter the workforce, the report also found.

It’s impossible to predict exactly what will happen in the labour market in the next 10 to 15 years, but the report ultimately identifies the need to remain flexible and adaptable in the face of change.

The 2019-2020 Local Labour Market Plan, published in February, aims to provide insight into what is happening with local industries, local jobs, and the local economy in Greater Sudbury, the Sudbury District, and the Manitoulin District.

As of June 2019, Greater Sudbury had 11,498 businesses; Manitoulin District had 1,088 businesses; and Sudbury District had 1,484 businesses.

While each of these areas has seen growth, 62% of those businesses have zero employees.

There were 9,804 jobs posted online in 2019 for Greater Sudbury; 420 for the Manitoulin District; and 316 for the Sudbury District.

In Greater Sudbury, there has been an increase in employment in various sectors, including construction, finance and insurance, real estate, and healthcare.

Source: Sudbury region needs more immigrants, new report advises