Quebec’s immigration numbers drop while rest of Canada is on the rise

No surprise and agree with Jedwab’s comments:

Quebec Premier François Legault fulfilled his promise to cut the number of immigrants to the province by 20 per cent in 2019, in stark contrast to the rest of Canada. Included in the reductions were workers from specialized fields like nursing, computer engineering and computer programming — positions the province is struggling to fill in the midst of a labour shortage.

The number of immigrants admitted to Quebec dropped from 51,125 in 2018 to 40,545 last year, a decrease of 20.7 per cent.

Ontario, meanwhile, saw the number of newcomers rise by 11.5 per cent, to 153,340. Manitoba’s immigration rate rose by 24 per cent, New Brunswick’s by 30 per cent and Nova Scotia’s by 33 per cent.

The majority of Quebec’s cuts were felt in Montreal, which saw nearly 9,000 fewer immigrants flow into the census metropolitan region last year. By comparison, Toronto welcomed 117,720 immigrants, an increase of more than 11,000 over 2018.

Even Vancouver has surpassed Montreal for number of immigrants admitted, said Jack Jedwab, president of the Canadian Institute for Identities and Migration, who compiled the figures using data from the federal Immigration Department.

“We are definitely diminishing our demographic weight within the federation by reducing ourselves to 12 per cent of the overall immigration rate for Canada, when we have 22 per cent of the population,” Jedwab said.

Immigration figures for smaller municipalities in Quebec remained mostly stable, and low. Shawinigan saw 25 immigrants in 2019; Rouyn-Noranda and Sept-Îles — with populations of 42,000 and 28,500, respectively — had 40 immigrants join their ranks. Baie-Comeau and Thetford Mines saw 10 newcomers each.

Legault’s Coalition Avenir Québec government maintains the province needs to reduce immigration because it was doing a poor job of integrating newcomers or choosing skilled workers who best fulfil its labour needs. Legault has pledged to bring the numbers back up to 52,500 in 2022.

The reduction comes as Quebec grapples with the worst labour shortage in Canada. A rapidly aging population and economic boom have caused the number of jobs sitting vacant to double in the last three years, to 137,000.

The analysis shows a significant drop in the number of immigrants with degrees in specialized professions that the province is struggling to fill. In 2018, Quebec admitted 2,120 registered nurses and registered psychiatric nurses. In 2019, that figure dropped to 1,440, a decrease of 32 per cent.

Unionized nurses in Quebec have been fighting forced overtime and have organized strikes to protest being forced to work long hours, and are calling for more nurses in order to ease the pressure.

Similar reductions were seen in 2019 in the number of information systems analysts and consultants (36 per cent), computer engineers (not including software engineers and designers; 33 per cent), computer programmers and interactive media developers (45 per cent), electrical and electronics engineers (41 per cent), university professors and lecturers (17 per cent) and civil engineers (28 per cent).

“I think the principal objective of all of this was to meet the objective of the cuts, so the government could say it was living up to its commitments,” Jedwab said.

The reductions were relatively even across the three categories of immigrants admitted to Canada: economic, family sponsorship and refugees. In the family class, there were increases in the number of parents and grandparents admitted, but a proportional decrease in the number of sponsored children, spouses or partners who gained entry.

“As we committed to doing, in 2019 we lowered the immigration thresholds by 23 per cent in all categories. We met our admission targets,” said Élisabeth Gosselin, press attaché for Immigration, Francization and Integration Minister Simon Jolin-Barrette. “Our government … has made the success of immigration a priority.”

Because of delays between the federal and provincial selection processes, many of the admission selections for 2019 were made before the CAQ came into power, Gosselin said. Meanwhile, the CAQ has invested in improving French lessons and facilitating integration for immigrants, launched the Arrima system designed to improve the selection process based on Quebec’s labour needs, and increased the immigration ministry’s budget by 42 per cent, Gosselin said.

Quebec’s largest employers’ group, the Conseil du patronat du Québec, released a statement in reaction to government figures that show the number of professions in Quebec experiencing deficits surged from 25 in 2018 to 165 last year.

“We can see the immediate effect of an overly strict immigration policy,” Conseil president Yves-Thomas Dorval said. “The government needs to rectify this quickly, because for a long time now our businesses have been suffering from the labour shortage effects, and are asking the government to help them by raising the immigration thresholds.”

Quebec’s drop in permanent immigrants was offset by the largest increase among any province in the number of temporary workers in 2019. The province admitted 5,635 more temporary workers than it did the year before — a 32 per cent jump. The majority of temporary workers are employed in the agricultural and agri-food business industries, but they are also being used in hard-hit fields like food services, hotels and manufacturing. The use of temporary workers has been criticized as a short-term fix that fails to address the underlying demographic issues, and leaves vulnerable foreign workers who are desperate for employment open to abuse.

“If you say your main problem is an integration problem, I’m not clear how the answer to an integration challenge is bringing in more temporary workers,” Jedwab said. “If anything, you want to bring in more permanent residents, so that you can integrate them.”

Source: https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/quebecs-immigration-numbers-drop-while-rest-of-canada-is-on-the-rise

Immigration: Québec appelé à se montrer «plus ambitieux»

Pressure from the business community:

Jusqu’à tout récemment, le président et chef de la direction de la CCMM, Michel Leblanc, réclamait une hausse du seuil d’immigration à 60 000 admissions par année. Mais ce chiffre est désormais pour lui « la base que l’on doit atteindre le plus rapidement possible ». Pour l’avenir, il faut se montrer « plus ambitieux », a-t-il dit en entrevue avec La Presse, rappelant les « 138 000 postes » à pourvoir dans le contexte de la pénurie de main-d’œuvre.

Le gouvernement Legault entreprend au cours des prochaines semaines une ronde de consultations pour réformer l’un de ses deux programmes destinés aux travailleurs qualifiés, le maintenant célèbre Programme de l’expérience québécoise (PEQ). Il s’agit d’une voie rapide pour les étudiants étrangers et les travailleurs temporaires résidant déjà au Québec afin d’obtenir un certificat de sélection du Québec (CSQ), nécessaire à l’obtention de la résidence permanente.

L’automne dernier, une première réforme du PEQ — qui ciblait des domaines d’études ou d’emplois restreints pour les travailleurs temporaires et les étudiants étrangers pouvant y présenter une demande — avait plongé Québec dans la controverse. Isolé, le premier ministre François Legault avait même accusé certains de ses détracteurs, dont Michel Leblanc, de vouloir plus d’immigrants afin de bénéficier d’une main-d’œuvre bon marché. Le gouvernement a depuis reculé.

Dans un document d’information publié vendredi, Québec dévoile que la popularité du PEQ dépasse toutes les attentes.

En 2010, lors de sa création, le gouvernement délivrait 5 % des CSQ aux demandeurs du PEQ. En 2019, cette proportion s’élevait à 86 %. De plus, en 2020, « le ministère [de l’Immigration] estime que les demandes du PEQ pourraient être suffisantes pour atteindre les objectifs annuels de sélection pour la catégorie des travailleurs qualifiés », là où il détient le pouvoir de sélection.

Michel Leblanc n’est pas surpris de ce succès. Mais plutôt que de « répartir la cible de sélection des travailleurs qualifiés entre le PRTQ et le PEQ [en prévoyant] un nombre maximal de demandes à recevoir », comme l’écrit Québec dans son document, il propose à nouveau de hausser son seuil d’immigration au niveau qui « correspondrait à la part que le Québec devrait accueillir pour maintenir son poids relatif face au reste du Canada ».

Le président-directeur général de la Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec, Charles Milliard, espère aussi que le gouvernement Legault saisira l’occasion pour revoir toute la notion du seuil d’immigration.

« Le synonyme de quota, c’est une barrière. Et parfois, on s’impose des limites dans l’esprit et on est pris avec ça », dit-il, rappelant que la Fédération prône quant à elle pour une hausse du seuil d’immigrants à 60 000 admissions par année.

« L’obsession » d’un chiffre

Robert Gagné, professeur à HEC Montréal et directeur du Centre sur la productivité et la prospérité, prévient de son côté le gouvernement Legault qu’il « se magasine du trouble » en ouvrant la porte des limites d’admission au PEQ ou au Programme régulier des travailleurs qualifiés (PRTQ).

[On impose un quota d’admission] selon quel critère ? Premier arrivé, premier servi ? Par ordre alphabétique croissant, décroissant ? […] Plutôt que de focaliser sur des nombres, focalisons sur des profils [d’immigration recherchés] et viendra le nombre qui viendra.

Robert Gagné, professeur à HEC Montréal et directeur du Centre sur la productivité et la prospérité

Pierre Cossette, recteur de l’Université de Sherbrooke et président du conseil d’administration du Bureau de coopération interuniversitaire, craint quant à lui que de limiter les admissions au PEQ restreigne le nombre d’étudiants étrangers et formés au Québec pouvant y poser leur candidature.

« Le PEQ est un bon programme qui amène de la richesse et de la perspective au Québec. […] C’est un investissement dans le futur, à long terme », dit-il.

« En 2026, 50 % du marché de l’emploi au Québec sera occupé par des emplois qui requièrent une formation collégiale ou universitaire », rappelle de son côté Bernard Tremblay, président-directeur général de la Fédération des cégeps.

« Nous recrutons des jeunes qui voudront rester ici, qui auront des diplômes québécois, sans enjeux de reconnaissance des diplômes, qui seront intégrés à notre culture, qui auront des amis, qui seront en région et qui voudront y rester », illustre-t-il, plaidant à son tour pour qu’on ne restreigne pas leur capacité à présenter une demande au PEQ.

Source: Immigration: Québec appelé à se montrer «plus ambitieux»

Reintegration of deportees: The challenge of a Guyanese immigration experience

A receiving country perspective:

What to do about the immigrants who are sent back to their respective home countries due to judicial violations is a new, potentially contentious issue and untenable proposition. There has been an increase in the number of deportees, most from the USA and Canada to the Caribbean over the past few years. In essence, deportees are immigrants who are exiled from their adopted home; some for clear violation of sundry laws, some very serious, while others may be victims of immigration policies that are arbitrarily applied, particularly if the accused is not adequately represented legally to assist with due process. Among the typical reasons for deportation are: overstay, illegal entry and illegal re-entry. These immigrants are subject to the realities of a forced re-migratory experience. Furthermore, their deportation is speciously viewed by observers including locals, as emblematic of failure in the diaspora. The latter perception tends to obliterate any meaningful past achievements of these individuals and exhibits a  lack of understanding of the hardships experienced by some families in the diaspora. For some deportees, their actions that lead to deportation may have been the failure of acculturation into the host society, especially in school. Consequently, they become vulnerable to influences that can be attributed to financial and social constraints encountered in many instances by the structural difficulties facing single parents.

There is a need for deportees to be re-socialized into the local home community, particularly the nations’ cultural value system, customs and practices. Others need to be introduced to a social environment they may hardly know, particularly if they left the home country as children. They also often return to countries where the unemployment rate is relatively high and with no organized system to help them readjust to their new home. In some cases, even their own family members refuse to acknowledge and support them or are financially unable to do so. Some deportees reportedly have been exploited for political purposes. In such instances opposition groups will denigrate ‘deportees’ and attribute nefarious acts to them for political gain.

Furthermore, the seeming lack of concern by the government about their welfare leads to the feelings by the populace that these persons are unwanted and are a ‘problem’ to society. Unfortunately, deportees, particularly males, tend to be labelled a deviant group, regardless of the nature of the violation that led to their deportation, and they are often accused of being responsible for the increase in the home country societal crime. There is also a tendency to stereotype deportees as having certain perceived negative attributes. In some cases they are blacklisted by public officials, both in the host country and country of origin. However, they do not fit any one profile in terms of occupation, ethnicity, gender or reason for being deported.  Many who have been detained by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and subject to deportation are non-violent offenders.

The number of deportations to the Caribbean has increased under the last two United States government administrations. Notably, figures from the 2017 US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Enforcement and Removals Operations Report for the Caribbean region are quite revealing: Guyana 142; Jamaicans 782; Trinidad and Tobagonians 128; Haitians 5, 578. These numbers are likely to increase with continued draconian US immigration laws. What appears to be unrelenting deportations to the Caribbean has continued under the current US government administration.

When immigrants are uprooted and sent back to their country of origin, not only is family life disrupted, but children in particular, whose parents are deported face social dislocation and mental health consequences. As observed by several researchers, this is true for those who remain in the U.S. separated from deported relatives, as well as those who leave the country in order to preserve the family’s unity. The increase in deportation and suppression of family reunification because of changed policy are traumatizing for immigrant families, causing fear, anxiety, vulnerability and victimization. The social and emotional costs could be devastating.

In the throes of significant economic and social transformation, vulnerable groups such as the homeless, mentally ill, elderly and increasingly deportees, are likely not to be adequately nor proportionately represented. Advocacy measures for the deportees must be sustained. Owing to the growing magnitude and novelty of dealing with this population, there should be a reintegration programme. Effectively planning for their reintegration is not only strongly recommended but should be based on knowledge of this phenomenon, from both a human development and socio-economic perspective. Understanding the social, political and psychological dynamics of the process of deportation and resettlement is essential for their adjustment. This includes unambiguous policy, an effective programme and capacity to deal with any residual tensions that may emerge between the local population and deportees.

The Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Citizenship, and Social Protection should have a profile of these individuals that includes information not only about who they are and the reason(s) for deportation, but also on family contacts in the diaspora and home country, accomplishments and skills acquired both at home and while overseas.

The role of Diaspora Voluntary Organizations

Apart from the reputation of  “giving back” by sending remittances, a growing number of diasporans have expressed concern about the fate of deportees and other underserved groups. Deportee reintegration programmes in other Caribbean nations have been implemented by diaspora organizations. The Family Unification and Resettlement Initiative (FURI) is a New York-based Jamaican Diaspora Organization. Working with the government and funded by donor agencies including the National Organization of Deported Migrants (NODM), the British High Commission, and public tax deductible contributions, this organization has instituted a programme to address the problem of deportee reintegration. FURI’s objective is to offer alternatives that “foster faith, hope and confidence that life can be worthwhile”. The organization aims to decrease the stigma and assist in the reintegration of deported persons by collaborating with other service agencies and help them adjust to the new home environment. Founding member Carmen Albarus-Lindo suggests that it is important to help “displaced persons adjust positively to deportation….and the important role they can have on development and improve their own lives.” Since many deportees do not have close relatives in the home country, FURI initially arranged accommodation to assist them in the early stages of their return. Sustained financial and other needed help, including the provision of and for commercial farming with the use of greenhouse technology are provided. The components of the programme are: Accommodation/Shelter referrals; Employment/Vocational counseling training referrals; Drug/Alcohol abuse rehab referrals; Health care Referrals; and Counseling; Reconnecting with families; Help in obtaining National Identification and other important documents.

Guyana and other Caribbean countries could benefit by replicating such a programme, which should be viewed as an investment. Assessment for rehabilitation services should also be a part of such a programme. Some deportees can be considered for the same rehabilitation programmes expected for persons who violate the laws in their home countries and after a period of incarceration can expect to be reintegrated into society. A well-structured reintegration programme and educating the public will help mitigate the concerns of civil society about deportees. It is imperative for deportees to be reintegrated into society since the overt or covert expressed desires of ‘local’ persons that they should again emigrate, albeit ‘illegally’ is wishful thinking and should be discouraged. This is rendered moot since there is normally an immigration stipulation barring possible return to the host country for a specified number of years (USA -10 years for each deportation order).

In light of the anticipated wealth elevation in Guyana, (1) Will there be the provision of needed resources for an effective reintegration programme? (2) Would this be considered as part of the promise of “maximum benefit” to all Guyanese, as well as the pledge of “social protection and other social services?”  How Caribbean governments respond to this problem will determine their legacy in the realm of humanitarian response to birthright citizenship.

Source: Reintegration of deportees: The challenge of a Guyanese immigration experience

Mexican, Canadian engineers avoid US due to living expenses, immigration policy

Of note:

  • Thirty-nine percent of Canadian and Mexican engineers would prefer not to move to the U.S., according to report from Terminal released Feb. 11. The Terminal survey comprised 483 engineers.

  • Ninety percent of those who would refrain from a U.S. move cited high cost of living. Others said traffic and parking (45%), their current communities (46%) and immigration issues (40%) stop them from moving to the U.S.

  • “Tech companies can no longer ignore that the once-sacrosanct dream of moving to the U.S. to lead the next generation of innovation is fading,” said Clay Kellogg, CEO of Terminal, in a media release. “Moreover, the tech talent shortage means it’s harder to innovate and makes life harder on engineers who are already in the trenches.”

Dive Insight:

Tech professionals in a CompTIA survey shared concerns over living expenses with the Canadian and Mexican engineers. CompTIA found that 78% of the tech professionals it polled said they would relocate, with many citing affordability and the economy.

It’s not surprising that immigration would pose a barrier for Canadian and Mexican engineers. The Trump administration has restricted the number of H-1B visas available for highly skilled foreign nationals, leaving employers in need of these workers feeling short-changed. An October 2019 Indeed study found that, as immigration policies tightened and visa approvals dropped, there was a 673% increase in work visa job searches.

Source: Mexican, Canadian engineers avoid US due to living expenses, immigration policy

ICYMI: Trump Got His Wish. Mexico Is Now the Wall.

Just like the STCA between Canada and the USA largely made the US the Canadian wall at official border crossings (with the irregular arrivals elsewhere being the loophole:

Mexico is now the wall. President Trump got his wish.

The heart-wrenching images documenting a recent confrontation in the state of Chiapas, near the border with Guatemala, are evidence of this. Dozens of Mexican National Guard troops equipped with helmets, batons and transparent shields coalesced on the highway connecting the Mexican cities of Ciudad Hidalgo and Tapachula to stop a caravan of migrants heading to the United States from Central America.

The guardsmen used pepper spray on the caravan, which as of mid-January included about 4,000 people, many of them women and children. In the end, hundreds were detained, sent back to Guatemala or deported to Honduras. A spokeswoman for the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights condemned the actions of the National Guard, saying that the use of force to stop and disperse immigrants should be avoided.

Mexico has effectively turned into an extension of Mr. Trump’s immigration police beyond American territory. And this is the case on multiple fronts: On the southern border with Guatemala, they prevent Central American migrants from coming into Mexico; on the northern one, they block those seeking entry to the United States from leaving. The decision of Mexico’s President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, also known as AMLO, to follow this approach is misguided. He should let migrants continue their journey north.

Under the Migrant Protection Protocols program, which the Trump administration introduced in January 2019, asylum seekers who attempt to enter the United States at the U.S.-Mexico border may be required to stay in Mexico while the authorities make a decision regarding their case. As of November 2019, over 56,000 people had been sent back to Mexico to wait for the outcome of their applications, according to Human Rights Watch.

This is a radical change in immigration policy for the United States. In the past, Central American asylum seekers were allowed to remain on American soil while waiting for their cases to be processed.

Central American immigration has always been a source of frustration for the United States. But the most powerful country in the world holds a certain degree of responsibility for what goes on in its hemisphere, and it is perfectly capable of accepting the most vulnerable people on the continent. It has done it before, and can still do it.

So when did the United States’ problem become Mexico’s problem? Everything changed because of Donald Trump. By mid-2019, a number of Central American caravans were traveling across Mexico. The president, comparing them to an invasion, warned Mexico that they should do something to stop them, and that he would slap tariffs on all Mexican imports if it didn’t.

“Their right to make a living, to not be abused, to be protected, helped, and supported should be safeguarded,” Mr. López Obrador, then president-elect, said in October 2018 of the Central American migrants heading north. Unfortunately, he has since backtracked, pulling back on his promises to the migrants.

When a journalist asked him during one of his daily news conferences about the harassment and intimidation of Central American migrants in southern Mexico, AMLO refused to take the victims’ side. And Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, acting deputy secretary of Homeland Security, said that the Trump administration had seen more cooperation from Mexico “than anyone thought was possible.”

Mr. Cuccinelli is right. Over a year ago, few would have thought that a leftist president like AMLO (author of a critical book titled “Oye, Trump” and defender of Central Americans crossing Mexico) would suddenly become Mr. Trump’s main ally in immigration matters.

Mr. López Obrador has said that he favors a “peace and love” policy toward the United States and will avoid confrontation with Mr. Trump. There’s nothing wrong with wanting a good relationship with a powerful neighbor who also happens to be your main trade partner. But we should also remember that Mexico has been exporting immigrants to the United States for decades. Millions of us live on American soil.

That’s why I am surprised by the indifference shown by so many Mexicans over the abuses of the National Guard and the vicious attacks on social media aimed at Central Americans. Those xenophobic comments remind me of those I have been hearing for decades here in the United States, and of the appalling mistreatment of Mexican immigrants in recent years. Such abuses should not be forgotten or used to justify a similar treatment of migrants in Mexico.

Northward migration is hardly a new phenomenon. For decades it has provided the United States with a much-needed labor force, and the migrants and refugees who put everything on the line to make the journey with an opportunity to improve their lives. I am fully aware that the American immigration system is far from perfect. It is in dire need of a complete makeover. But Mexico shouldn’t be an extension of the Border Patrol. That makes things worse for everybody.

What should Mexico be doing with migrants from Central America? Just let them go through and protect them as they do so, instead of repressing them. They are fleeing extreme poverty and gang violence. Their only hope is to get to the United States. The Trump administration, not the López Obrador administration, should be receiving them and deciding whether they should be granted political asylum.

How a simple computer game simulated the dizzying U.S. immigration process

Neat experiment:

People fear and mistrust what they don’t know—including people of other racial and ethnic backgrounds. That lack of trust causes social and political divisions in the US and around the world, especially when it comes to immigrants.

Inspired by research in Hungary that found computer games could help players reduce their prejudice toward immigrants, my colleague Patrick Stewart devised a role-playing game as part of an American national government course at the University of Arkansas. I helped to develop survey measures for tracking changes in trust during the game.

Our hope was that by playing the game over the course of a semester, students would come to understand a bit more about what immigrants go through in the US, and as a result, perhaps trust could develop.

We found that it was possible for a role-playing game to help simulate shared experiences with immigrants, even in a group of mostly white, conservative students. This helped trust in immigrants to grow.

Creating an identity

The game, called “Citizenship Quest,” was played in an online learning platform for the fall 2018 and spring 2019 semesters. Most of the students were freshmen and sophomores.

At the beginning of each semester, the students completed a survey about their interest in politics, while also answering questions about how much they trusted immigrants. They completed the same survey at the end of the semester, after the game was over, which allowed us to track changes in immigrant trust over time.

Once we had their initial results, we assigned each student to role-play as a character from Mexico, India or China, origins of the three largest immigrant groups in America. The students got to pick their character’s gender, and a gender-appropriate name was assigned to them on the basis of the most popular names in their character’s country.

Next, the students created fuller back stories for their characters, fleshing out their work history, past residences and even physical characteristics such as hair and eye color.

Learning about paperwork

For the next phase of the game, each student applied for permission to live and work in US on behalf of their character. We had them complete the proper paperwork, including the 18-page I-485 form “Application to Register for Permanent Residence or Adjust Status” and the seven-page I-765 form “Application for Employment Authorization.” They signed their character’s name to the forms as well.

We also asked them to submit a photograph of their hands, to imitate the fingerprinting process.

Finally, we had them simulate applying for U.S. citizenship. This meant filling out the 20-page N-400 form “Application for Naturalization” and submitting another photograph of their hands.

All paperwork was uploaded to us through the course website—not to actual immigration authorities. And of course, we didn’t ask them to pay the $2,445 in federal fees associated with filing those forms.

Economic progress

The game used a scoring system that functioned sort of like a currency, so we called it “coin.” All the players started with a modest sum, and they could earn more coin by completing weekly assignments such as chapter quizzes on time. The game included random positive events as well, like having their character receive a new letter of reference or being profiled in the local newspaper as a volunteer. These added to the player’s coin.

Players could also earn coin by either buying or preparing food from their character’s country and writing 150 words about their experience with the food and what they thought of it. They took a picture of the food as well, with at least one of their hands being clearly visible in the shot—as a means of reinforcing their personal connections to characters.

The students could elect to spend some of their coin on in-game advantages like an immigration attorney to help speed their applications along. Attorneys could also help to defend against the random negative events, such as application files getting lost in the mail or finding out a character’s name was on a list of people judged to be security threats. If students didn’t spend coin to defend against these possibilities, they ran the risk of losing some of their coin to the perils of the system.

At the end of the game, students took the U.S. citizenship exam, before retaking the survey about trust in immigrants. Their ability to complete the paperwork, do well on the citizenship exam, and accumulate coin became part of their overall grade in the course.

Trusting over time

We found that students came to trust more in immigrants in general, and in immigrant groups they role-played as more specifically, by playing the game.

Student comments further suggest they came to grasp the frustrating nature of the citizenship process, even if unwillingly. One white male wrote, “Just because you want to show us how in real life there are unexpected factors that occur and cause setbacks doesn’t mean you should take away class points.” Another white male wrote that we should delete the game, because “it has nothing to do with U.S. Government. Role-playing is disgusting and busywork.” He reported that playing the game did not change his view of U.S. immigration policies either.

On the other hand, a Latina student mentioned that she had obtained citizenship herself in the past year, and said she “loved the thought process” at work behind the game. She pointed out that the game was still “much easier” than the real thing, but we were heartened to hear her recognize and appreciate its value.

In the end, we find evidence that role-playing as immigrants applying for citizenship is related to trusting them. Games can be used to acquaint citizens with the trials and tribulations immigrants go through, as a set of shared experiences upon which to build connections and trust in the future.

Source: How a simple computer game simulated the dizzying U.S. immigration process

Betraying their heritage: Trump’s immigration functionaries fail to understand the lessons of the Italian-Amer

Not the only group to have forgotten their roots:

The men behind the draconian immigration policies of the Trump administration skillfully mimic the president’s invective and ahistorical logic. Matthew Albence, the acting director of ICE, once compared the crowded and filthy family detention centers to “summer camp.” Ken Cuccinelli, second in command at the Department of Homeland Security, sarcastically reworded Emma Lazarus’s famous poem in an attempt to justify Trump’s harsh new public-charge rule: “Give me your tired and your poor who can stand on their own two feet.”

Along with the engineer of Trump’s foreign policy, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, these men share something else: They are the grandsons and great-grandsons of Italian immigrants who arrived here around the turn of the century. Indeed, hearing the surnames of these architects of indifference is like listening to a night at the opera: Pompeo, Cuccinelli, and Albence (who replaced the not-tough-enough Ron Vitiello).

What an extraordinary irony. The men implementing one of the cruelest immigration policies of the last 100 years are just two generations removed from men who were similarly victimized by the Anglo-Saxon elite.

A 1903 political cartoon from Judge, a Republican magazine, sums up yesterday’s nativism in a way that looks remarkably familiar. The cartoon, titled “The Unrestricted Dumping Ground,” pictures poor Uncle Sam standing on a dock, his arms wrapped around an American flag, while the “rats” of Europe swim to the shore. They have giant rat bodies with faces of swarthy, dark-haired men who could be confused today for Mexican and Central Americans.

The rats wear headbands marked “Mafia,” “Anarchist,” “Socialist” — all labels associated with the millions of Italian migrants. A ghostly image of the late President William McKinley, assassinated by the son of an immigrant, haunts Uncle Sam. The message is clear: Immigrants from the slums of Europe are dangerous and must be stopped from entering our borders.
The Unrestricted Dumping Ground

The cartoon played into another nativist prejudice, that the blood of Italian Americans was “polluting” the finer American stock. People wanted the immigrants out, and the Anglo-Saxon elite worked hard to deliver that goal. A group of Harvard sociologists pressed for a literacy test closing the doors to any immigrant who couldn’t read or write.

Southern Italians — who made up about 85% of the Italian-American immigrant population — were by many formal standards severely ill-prepared for life in the United States. Coming from an impoverished land, they were mostly illiterate, and Italy’s illiteracy rate was higher than elsewhere in Europe. Yet America’s public schools educated these children — and some of their progeny even grew up to be secretary of state.

Today’s anti-immigrant rhetoric asserts that the early immigrants came here “legally.” But with the exception of the Chinese Exclusion Act, there were no immigration laws then. The cross-Atlantic journey was harrowing, but if you arrived on America’s shores and weren’t sick, you were let in. Not exactly warmly embraced, but given the chance to establish a life in the United States.

The Anglo-Saxon elite, however, were determined to put an end to this dangerous influx of people, who were crowding America’s schools and streets, and unable to stand on their own two feet. In 1924, when the immigrant population was nearly 15% of the American population, Congress passed the Johnson-Reed Act. The law imposed large-scale quotas that effectively ended Italian immigration. An expert Congressional witness, and the man largely responsible for getting the legislation passed, was Harry Laughlin, an avowed proponent of eugenic sterilization.

Today, the immigrant population hovers around this same percentage. Enter the grandson of Bernardino Albence Sr., Matthew, who ordered immigration officers to act every time they encounter an immigrant in the country illegally.

Enter the great-grandson of the illiterate Domenick Luigi Cuccinelli, Ken, who expects his plan to fast-track the deportation of asylum-seekers — denying victims of horrendous violence essential access to counsel — to reach full gear this month.

Is this the tragic ending to the American immigrant success story — the grandchildren of determined peasants turning their backs on another generation of masses yearning to breathe free?

Source: Betraying their heritage: Trump’s immigration functionaries fail to understand the lessons of the Italian-Amer

Deportation flight leaves UK for Jamaica despite court ruling

More questionable UK government practice:

A planned deportation flight to Jamaica has taken off but with only around half of those due to have been on board after a court last night upheld a legal challenge.

As the government came under fire for proceeding with the flight, it was defended on Tuesday by the Chancellor, Sajid Javid, who said those onboard were not members of the Windrush generation but offenders who posed a risk to the public.

“These are all foreign national offenders – they have all received custodial sentences of 12 months or more. They are responsible for crimes like manslaughter, rape, dealing in class A drugs,” he told BBC Radio 5 live.

Asked how many people were onboard, he said he did not know the exact number but believed it was “around 20 – or above 20.” Around 56 people were originally thought to have been due to be deported.

ICE now uses cellphone location data to help arrest immigrants

Reminder of the risks of location tracking (convenience versus privacy). Wonder whether CBSA is doing the same:

Companies that sell your cellphone location data to marketers are also selling that information to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the government body known for detaining children in cages. According to a new report by the Wall Street Journal, ICE and its affiliated organizations at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have been using location information for “millions” of cellphones bought from marketers to track down and arrest undocumented immigrants at the US-Mexico border.

The effort seems to be massive and legal. And as WSJ points out, “The federal government’s use of such data for law enforcement purposes hasn’t previously been reported.”

Experts told the Journal that these are the “largest known troves of bulk data being deployed by law enforcement in the US.” Venntel, a company that licenses location data and is affiliated with the mobile ad company Gravy Analytics, has received $250,000 in contracts in the past few years from DHS, which operates ICE. Public records show that Venntel has also received a contract from the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA).

“This shows the overlap of immigrant rights and data privacy rights,” Adam Schwartz, senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told Recode. “Our society has failed to protect consumers from companies that harvest and monetize their personal information, including their sensitive location data. Now, reportedly, the federal government has purchased access to that data, and is using it to locate and deport immigrants.”

He added, “This is one more reason why we need strong consumer data privacy laws.”

Homeland Security officials wouldn’t tell the WSJ exactly how it leverages location data. It’s possible that the agency can use the information to see where people are crossing the border — for instance, in locations outside of regulated entry ports — and plan detention efforts accordingly. Documents reviewed by the Journal “make oblique references to such data being used to track, among other things, tunnels along the border.” The use of data does not sound dissimilar to certain marketing strategies. Advertisers can use anonymized geolocation data from cellphones to target people when they visit, say, a McDonald’s location.

As Recode has previously reported, DHS has stated that its organizations acquire “commercially available location data” from “third-party data providers” to “detect the presence of individuals in areas between Ports of Entry where such a presence is indicative of potential illicit or illegal activity.”

A 2018 Supreme Court case determined that cellphone location data is protected and that law enforcement needs warrants to collect it. As the Journal reports, however:

The federal government has essentially found a workaround by purchasing location data used by marketing firms rather than going to court on a case-by-case basis. Because location data is available through numerous commercial ad exchanges, government lawyers have approved the programs and concluded that the Carpenter ruling doesn’t apply.

The data they’re using doesn’t include personally identifiable information like a user’s name, but rather an anonymized alphanumeric ID. Still, as a New York Times investigation into this type of data showed late last year, it’s pretty easy to figure out who someone is based solely on their location. If a person spends every night at a certain location and working hours on weekdays at another location, for example, it’s relatively straightforward to determine where that person lives and works. Using those two bits of information, only minor internet sleuthing is necessary to figure out who that person is, not to mention loads of other info about them.

“Even though they say it’s anonymous, when compiling different datasets together it gives you a very detailed picture of who you are, better than even you have,” Dragana Kaurin, a research fellow at the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University, told Recode.

“This data can be used to discriminate against people by race, gender identity, ethnicity, sexual orientation or class,” she added, giving the example of how you could figure out someone is, say, Muslim based on their shopping at Halal markets or visiting mosques.

And as we’ve said before, free software like the weather or gaming app on your phone is never free. It’s common for free software and services — anything from antivirus software to your weather or gaming app — to sell your personal information, including your location, to data brokers that can then sell it to other entities and even law enforcement. In other words, free software can come at a significant cost to your privacy. The terms of the exchange are embedded deep in the privacy policies we never read.

This is no longer a matter of creepy ads following you around the internet. It could be law enforcement, too.

Source: ICE now uses cellphone location data to help arrest immigrants

The End of the (Roxham) Road: Leuprecht on “Seeking coherence on Canada’s border migration compact” and some fundamental flaws

Reading Christian Leuprecht’s recent above study for MLI one statement caught my eye in particular, his assertion that:

“…. the timing and implementation of actual changes in regulations initiated by President Trump, which have expanded the remit of migrants who are now at risk of deportation, appear to have had little effect on the flow of irregular migrants crossing into Canada.

This study is skeptical of Trump as the arsonist: his policies are merely an accelerant on a slow-burning fire. A series of factors had affected migration from the United States to Canada prior to the 2016 US presidential election. However politically expedient, misidentifying Trump as a causal rather than an intervening variable is problematic insofar as it leads to a misinformed prescription, such as simply waiting out the current US presidential administration in the mis- guided belief that Trump and his policies are merely an aberration.”

As evidence, he cites the study by Craig Damian Smith, Changing U.S. Policy and Safe-Third Country “Loophole” Drive Irregular Migration to Canada, which states the contrary:

“The Trump administration’s decision not to extend a long-standing Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation for some 46,000 Haitians was the catalyst for the drastic increase in asylum claims in Canada in 2017. In April 2017, just 140 Haitians crossed into Canada at Roxham Road. The following month, the number increased to 1,355, and to 3,505 that June. Roughly half of the 6,500 Haitians who arrived during the April 2017 – June 2019 period examined, were U.S. residents, with the rest arriving from Haiti and third countries, particularly Brazil. Thus an announced U.S. policy change resulted in roughly 7.5 percent of all Haitians in the United States with TPS choosing Canada rather than risking deportation, moving to a third country, or remaining unauthorized in the United States.”

The various other measures, that Leuprecht cites as pre-Trump reasons for the spike (“electronic Travel Authorization (eTA) for visa-exempt nationals, cracked down on human traffickers, used enhanced technology to reduce fake passports, and improved intelligence sharing on at-risk travellers”) are more germane to the overall influx of irregular arrivals rather than the almost quadrupling that occurred between June and July 2017 (RCMP interceptions) and which have since stabilized as per the chart below (“the new normal”):

The following chart looks at overall inland claims (regular and irregular), again highlighting the post-Trump impact:

A marked increase in irregular border crossers, especially outside of official ports of entry, has put Canada’s immigration and refugee system under scrutiny and fuelled an emotionally charged debate with important policy implications for Ottawa, the provinces, and Canada-US relations: Who should qualify for asylum, or refugee protection, under domestic and international law? Proponents defend migrants’ unequivocal legal entitlement to lodge a claim as a refugee in Canada; critics deem these irregular crossings to be an end-run around Canada’s refugee system by breaking – or at least abusing – the law.

In an immigrant country with a checkered history of immigration policy, to champion the underdog migrant who actually makes it to Canada is par for the course. However, this lenient attitude has effectively turned irregular migration into a back door to Canada: A disproportion- ate number of refugee claims by irregular migrants turn out to be unfounded yet few rejected claimants ever end up being deported.

A disproportionate number of refugee claims by irregular migrants turns out to be unfounded.

On one hand, irregular migration is a function of a complex interplay of domestic, bilateral, and international factors. On the other hand, the Canadian dislike for US President Donald Trump has given rise to a narrative that attributes the surge in irregular migration to the outcome of the 2016 US presidential election. However convenient and appealing, simplistic explanations also tend to be wrong or, as this study explains, at least inchoate. This study lays out the myriad aggravating political factors in the US that predate the Trump administration.

At the same time, Canada has implemented the electronic Travel Authorization (eTA) for visa-exempt nationals, cracked down on human traffickers, used enhanced technology to reduce fake passports, and improved intelligence sharing on at-risk travellers. While these measures have reduced the number of irregular migrants arriving by air and sea, they have made crossing by land from the US much more attractive for those who prefer Canada as a destination. Contrary to claims that most of those who are crossing are taking flight from the Trump regime, about two-thirds of asylum seekers crossing irregularly into Canada by land actually enter the United States legally on a visa for the sole purpose of making their way to Canada. By way of example, Saudi nationals have obtained American visas at the embassy in Riyadh under false pretense, intent on entering Canada to claim asylum.

Between 2016 and 2017 irregular migration into Quebec, primarily from New York state across the now infamous Roxham Road, surged by 230 percent. Although not wholly without precedent, these numbers are nonetheless high by historical standards. Through September 2019, 12,080 irregular migrants had been apprehended by the RCMP out of 46,165 total claims, or 26.2 percent of claims, in 2019. The 2019 numbers are a decline from the RCMP apprehension of roughly 20,000 irregular migrants in each of the two previous years, although at a rate of 1,200 a month in the fourth quarter, the final tally for 2019 will probably range around 15,700. It appears to be a case of squeezing the snake: total claims from all sources are running close to 6,500 a month in the third quarter of 2019 compared to 4,900 a month during the same quarter in 2018.

Canada’s migratory regime is based on a social contract. Recent trends challenge the integrity, sustainability, and legitimacy of that social contract because they undermine the cornerstones of Canada’s migratory regime writ large, and especially its approach to refugees:

  • the legitimacy of a well-administered migration policy that is grounded in the rule of law and preserves the integrity of Canada’s borders;
  • the successful political and economic socialization and integration of migrants; and migration’s collective benefit in fostering Canadian prosperity.

How, then, is Canada to confront the phenomenon of global migration in a way that respects the rule of law while preserving the legitimacy of domestic migration regimes?

As challenges to the integrity of border management and policy have compounded over the past 25 years or so, binational and bilateral cooperation between Canada and the United States has expanded incrementally. After all, open borders depend on extensive cross-border cooperation for their effectiveness and legitimacy. This is the premise that informs a sustainable approach to irregular migration across Canada’s land border between ports of entry.

The government is currently exploring extending the Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) beyond ports of entry to cover the entire land border. This is a better option than unilaterally suspending the STCA, as some commentators have prescribed. Yet, given the disproportionate number of refugee claims at inland offices, extending the STCA to cover the land border is un- likely to solve the migration problem facing Canada.

This study lays out a cooperative strategy with the aim of sustaining a coherent border-migration compact that includes:

  • weighing the costs and benefits of changing Canada’s STCA with the United States;
  • obviating the need to cross between ports of entry by reinstating the “Direct Back” provision under Section 41 of Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, which would allow claimants to lodge their claims for refugee status from the United States;
  • enhancing current bilateral and binational administrative, intelligence and enforcement cooperation; and
  • acquiring better data to drive (more) informed and timely decision-making.

The cumulative effect of both regular and back-door immigration risks undermining popular support for migration altogether. Polling data suggest that trend is well underway. These targeted measures are designed to reinforce confidence in Canada’s commitment to managing its borders, the integrity of the refugee migration system, the prospects of the political and economic integration of migrants, and consequences for the country’s prosperity as a whole.

Source: https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/files/pdf/20191108_MLI_ROXHAM_ROAD_Leuprecht_PAPER_FWeb.pdf