Ontario announces new foreign tech worker stream and immigration pilot for smaller communities

2019/04/13 Leave a comment

Every province appears to be emulating the Atlantic Immigration Pilot in attracting and retaining immigrants to smaller communities along with a number of Ontario-specific initiatives to address labour market needs.:

Ontario will create a new immigration stream for tech workers and a new immigration pilot initiative with the goal of attracting highly skilled immigrants to smaller communities around the province, the province’s government announced April 11 in its 2019 budget. 

The initiatives are among four immigration-focused priorities outlined in the province’s new $163.4 billion budget, which was unveiled Thursday afternoon in Toronto.

“The Province is responding to the needs of Ontario’s employers by attracting the skilled workers they need through enhancements to the Ontario Immigrant Nominee Program (OINP),” the budget says.

“Through modernization of the OINP, and in tandem with its other initiatives, the government will continue to ensure that Ontario’s workforce remains among the most highly skilled for the modern economy.”

Dedicated stream for tech workers

To this end, the budget says the government will create a “dedicated stream to help Ontario’s technology sector attract highly skilled employees,” though no details were provided beyond this.

CIC News has asked the OINP for more information on this and the other immigration plans outlined in the budget and will provide updates when they become available.

The new dedicated tech immigration stream would feed Ontario’s booming tech sector in cities such as Toronto, Ottawa and Waterloo, which have all seen significant high-tech job growth in recent years.

The OINP has targeted foreign tech workers in the past through its Human Capital Priorities Stream. The stream is linked to the federal Express Entry system, which manages the pool of candidates for three of Canada’s main economic immigration categories — the Federal Skilled Worker Class, Federal Skilled Trades Class and Canadian Experience Class.

Find out if you are eligible to enter the Express Entry pool

Immigration pilot for smaller communities

The budget says the government will also begin a pilot initiative “to explore innovative approaches to bring highly skilled immigrants” to smaller communities around the province.

The government said the pilot’s purpose will be to “spread the benefits of immigration to smaller communities.”

The proposed pilot follows calls from community leaders in Northern Ontario for a program similar to the Atlantic Immigration Pilot (AIP), a joint federal-provincial initiative that allows designated employers in Canada’s four Atlantic provinces to recruit skilled foreign workers for jobs they haven’t been able to fill locally.

Canada recently unveiled a Northern and Rural Immigration Pilot similar to the AIP that will help small or isolated communities in provinces and territories outside Atlantic Canada to recruit foreign workers.

Expanding eligible in-demand occupations

Ontario’s new budget also says the government will seek to include truck drivers and personal support workers under the occupations that are eligible for the OINP’s Employer Job Offer: In-Demand Skills Stream.

Among other criteria, the stream allows the OINP to nominate foreign workers with a permanent and full-time job offer from an Ontario employer in one of its eligible occupations to apply to live and work permanently in Ontario.

Eligible occupations under the stream are classified by Canada’s National Occupation Classification (NOC) as Skill Level C or D.

Entrepreneur immigration

The fourth immigration-related innovation in Ontario’s 2019 budget is the government’s promise to “recalibrate” investment and net worth thresholds for the OINP’s Entrepreneur Stream.

The government said doing so will “make Ontario more competitive with other provinces” and expand the province’s base of prospective candidates.

The current minimum net worth under the stream’s eligibility requirements varies depending on where the business will be located:

  • $1,500,000 minimum net worth for entrepreneurs hoping to locate within the Greater Toronto Area (GTA).
  • $800,000 minimum net worth for entrepreneurs hoping to locate their business outside the GTA.
  • $800,000 minimum net worth for entrepreneurs in the ICT/Digital Communications sector regardless of where they want their business to be located.

The current minimum personal investment thresholds are:

  • $1,000,000 minimum personal investment if the proposed business will be located within the GTA.
  • $500,000 minimum personal investment if the proposed business will be located outside the GTA.
  • $500,000 minimum personal investment if the proposed business will be in the ICT/Digital Communications sector regardless of location.

“Fair” OINP allocation

The budget calls on Canada’s federal government to work with Ontario to ensure the OINP’s annual allocation through Canada’s Provincial Nominee Program is “fair.”

The OINP receives an allocation each year from Canada’s federal government that allows it to nominate a set number of economic immigration candidates for permanent residence in the province.

The OINP’s 2019 allocation is 6,900, which fell short of Ontario’s request for an allocation of 7,600 nominations.

The allocation represents a small part of annual immigration to Ontario, which totalled 137,410 newcomers in 2018.

Source: Ontario announces new foreign tech worker stream and immigration pilot for smaller communities

Filed under Immigration Tagged with

Early commentary on the Liberal omnibus provisions regarding asylum seekers: Contrasting views Ibbitson and Urback

2019/04/12 Leave a comment

Starting with Ibbitson, who supports the planned change but not it being done though the omnibus budget bill:

“Our country is full,” Donald Trump told asylum seekers last week. The President is wrong, of course, but uncontrolled migration is a crisis in the United States and a problem in Canada, because it undermines confidence in the immigration system.

This is one reason the Trudeau government introduced legislation this week to stem the flow of people who cross at unauthorized points of entry from the United States.

Another might be that, even though the Liberals have done a good job over the past year of slowing the flow of unauthorized crossings, they fear the public might think they haven’t done enough.

In either case, it’s also important to remember that the core purpose of immigration is to stoke the economy and prevent population decline. The intent of deterring crossings at unauthorized places should be to bolster the overall system.

The total fertility rate in the United States has fallen to 1.8 children per woman, and will likely continue to fall. The Canadian rate is 1.6. Both countries are reproducing far below the average of 2.1 children per woman needed to prevent population decline.

This is good news. Teenage pregnancy rates have fallen by two-thirds in the United States since 1990, and 80 per cent in Canada, thanks to improved access to sex education and birth control. In the United States, white, African-American and Latino birth rates are converging, reflecting improved education and economic opportunity for minorities. More women are waiting to establish their careers before having a child, a reflection of increasing equality. Low fertility means social progress.

But fewer babies eventually means fewer young workers to pay the taxes needed to sustain health care and pension for older folks. It also means lower economic growth, because there are fewer young consumers buying that first car, first house and so on. Two dozen countries are losing population each year, and in many cases their economies are struggling.

The United States and Canada counter the effect through high levels of immigration, which is why their populations continue to grow, and to age more slowly.

But the United States faces a growing crisis of uncontrolled immigration, with more than 100,000 crossers from Mexico detained in March alone. In Canada, the number of people who crossed at unauthorized points of entry was just less than 20,000 for all of 2018, mostly from the United States into Quebec.

Mr. Trump wants to build a wall, which would be ineffective, and is threatening to close the southern border completely, which would be an economic disaster.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government is taking a different approach. The budget bill introduced Monday includes a new law that would prohibit people from making refugee claims who have already made a similar claim in the United States and certain other countries. And Canadian officials are working with their American counterparts to toughen the Safe Third Country Agreement so as to further deter crossers.

The Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers has condemned the new legislation as “callous.” But Canada will continue to take in refugees who make legitimate claims through regular channels, such as the refugees from Syria.

The immigration system is not humanitarian; it is economic. In Canada, we bring in almost 1 per cent of our population each year so that our economy and population will continue to grow. Mr. Trump encourages nativist, anti-immigrant sentiment. If Americans listen to him, their country will eventually start losing people − with or without unauthorized migrants − surrendering a key geopolitical advantage, since the Chinese and Russian populations will both start to decline in a few years. (In Russia, it may already have begun.)

Some people argue for policies − enhanced parental leave, subsidized daycare, even cash payments − that will encourage couples to have more children, while limiting immigration. Such policies are very expensive and research shows they don’t work. Women in developed countries today for the most part don’t have children because the state, or God, or their kinfolk, or domineering husbands want them to. Parenting for most couples is an act of personal fulfilment. And they are quickly fulfilled.

The Trudeau government should not have placed these new rules in an omnibus budget bill. And those rules may not survive a judicial challenge. But the goal is sound, even if it was opportunistic. Governments have a duty to control their borders. Failure undermines confidence in the immigration system. And closing the door to immigrants is demographic suicide.

Source:     Liberals’ immigration plan is sound policy delivered poorly John Ibbitson April 11, 2019     
Urback, in contrast, focusses on the “crass political” calculations, and is largely silent on the merits or not of the change:

The Liberal caucus would have had a collective aneurysm just few months ago if a senior political opponent had talked about “asylum-shopping” when referring to refugees who cross illegally into Canada. The implication, they’d cry, is that those risking their lives to seek refuge in Canada are simply economic migrants — not families desperate to find a safe place to call home.

The reality, of course, is that while many migrants might genuinely see Canada as the only safe place for them in North America — and perhaps that’s true — many who have crossed into Canada at unofficial entry points have not met the criteria for refugee protection, for various reasons. Slightly more than half of finalized refugee claims from these applicants were rejected in the last quarter of 2018.

The situation is hardly straightforward; Canada has been forced to balance its humanitarian commitment to refugee resettlement with the practical limitations of a system unprepared for the recent wave of migrants.

The system has been under enormous strain, with asylum-seekers waiting up to two years for just a hearing. And the integrity of the process itself has been under intense pressure, based partly on the impression that migrants crossing into Canada illegally are using a “loophole” in the Safe Third Country agreement to qualify for a hearing, when they otherwise would have just been sent back to the U.S.

The situation is thus a fraught and messy one, which unquestionably makes it deserving of criticism and careful analysis. Yet that is something the Liberals have been fiercely intolerant of the past three and a half years.

Back in July, Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen called the Ontario government’s concerns about so-called queue-jumping “un-Canadian.” During an end-of-year interview, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said the Conservatives were trying to stoke fears over refugee claimants. In late January, the prime minister responded to a town hall question about Canada’s migration policies with a diatribe lamenting “the politics of division.”

And yet now, a few months later, Border Security Minister Bill Blair has defended the government’s sudden overhaul of asylum laws as a measure to prevent “asylum-shopping.” This language, apparently, is now tolerable.

Buried in this year’s omnibus budget implementation bill is a series of amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that essentially disqualify asylum-seekers who have made a claim for refugee protection in any other country. Once the bill receives royal assent, an asylum-seeker can be deported without a hearing, which would seem to violate the Charter as affirmed by Singh v. Canada, where the Supreme Court determined that Charter rights extend to everyone physically on Canadian soil.

Many Canadians will nevertheless welcome the Liberals’ unexpected about-face on asylum-seekers. Two-thirds of respondents to an Angus Reid poll published back in August thought the border situation had reached a crisis point. More than half said that Canada was too generous toward asylum-seekers who cross into Canada illegally. A more recent Ipsos poll found that 47 per cent of respondents believe most migrants aren’t actual refugees — they just want to come to Canada for its economic benefits. Perhaps Blair has that summary on his desk.

What’s noteworthy about the timing of the planned changes is that the number of asylum-seekers crossing into Canada at unofficial points of entry is actually on the decline. In 2018, 1,517 people were intercepted by the RCMP crossing into Canada during the month of January. A year later, that number dropped to 888 for the same month. In 2018, 1,565 people crossed illegally into Canada in February. A year later, for the same month, the total was 808. Numbers haven’t been that low since June 2017.

This is all to say — as if there was any doubt — that the Trudeau government’s decision to enact sweeping changes to Canada’s asylum provisions is just a crass political move; it will come into force months before an election, when illegal border crossing is actually on the decline, and right onside with public opinion in favour of toughening up asylum laws.

Tabling a stand-alone bill on changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act — as one would reasonably expect of policy changes of such enormous importance as Canada’s treatment of vulnerable people fleeing persecution — would take too long, and be subject to debate and revisions and multiple readings and so forth.

By using an omnibus bill (something the Liberals vowed they would never do), these changes can go into effect right away, eliminating a potentially defining wedge issue. Sure, it is potentially unconstitutional, but that can and will be sorted out later.

Three and a half years is not a long time to go from “Sunny Ways” and 25,000 Syrian refugees to deportations without hearings and unconstitutional amendments. This is type of realpolitik (on the backs of refugees, of all people) is the sort of soulless strategizing we’re supposed to expect of the other guys — the ones who talk about “queue-jumpers” and Canadian values and shopping around for places to seek asylum. But without the sun lighting the way, it’s hard to tell everyone apart.

Source: Changing Canada’s asylum laws is nothing but a crass political calculation by Trudeau: Robyn Urback

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , , ,

Refugee advocates ‘shocked and dismayed’ over asylum changes in budget bill

2019/04/11 Leave a comment

Well, of course they would be. That being said, it does represent another example of abuse of omnibus bills given the intended impact of this change and the ongoing shift in the government’s position which should be subject to thorough parliamentary and other discussion.

Will be interesting to see how the current and expected court challenges turn out:

Lawyers and advocates who work directly with refugees say they are dismayed by proposed changes to asylum laws included in the Liberals’ new budget bill, calling them a devastating attack on refugee rights in Canada.

The Trudeau government is proposing to prevent asylum seekers from making refugee claims in Canada if they have made similar claims in certain other countries, including the United States.

Border Security Minister Bill Blair said the measure aims to prevent “asylum-shopping.”

“I can tell you we’ve been working very hard over the past several months to significantly reduce the number of people who are crossing our borders irregularly,” Blair told reporters Tuesday. “There’s a right way to come to the country to seek asylum and/or to seek to immigrate to this country, and we’re trying to encourage people to use the appropriate channels and to disincentivize people from doing it improperly.”

The proposed changes blindsided refugee advocates and lawyers, who say they would strip human-rights protections from vulnerable refugee claimants.

“In terms of the effect on refugees, the effect is really immeasurable, because we’re now giving refugee claimants a degraded process to go through,” said Maureen Silcoff, the chair of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers’ litigation committee.

The new provision in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act — which was tucked into the 392-page omnibus budget bill tabled Monday evening — introduces a new ground of ineligibility for refugee protection. If an asylum-seeker has previously opened a claim for refugee protection in another country, his or her claim would be ineligible for consideration — as would claims by people who already have made unsuccessful claims here, been deemed inadmissible because of their criminal records, or been granted refugee protection elsewhere.

The provision is based on the belief that Canada’s refugee system is similar enough to that of the U.S. that anyone rejected there is likely to be rejected here as well.

Under Canada’s “Safe Third Country Agreement” with the U.S., would-be refugees who arrive at official border crossings from the United States and try to claim asylum will be turned back to the U.S. But the agreement doesn’t apply to people already on Canadian soil when they make their claims.

This has led to over 40,000 asylum-seekers crossing into Canada “irregularly” through unofficial paths along the Canada-U.S. border since early 2017, coinciding with U.S. government efforts to expel people who had been given temporary permission to stay in the United States.

A case for a Charter challenge?

Under the new provisions introduced Monday, asylum-seekers deemed ineligible to make claims in Canada will not necessarily be deported to their homelands. They will still undergo pre-removal risk assessments to determine if it is safe to send them back to their countries of origin.

But this takes away their legal right to have their refugee claims heard by an independent tribunal or a court — something that could be subject to a Charter challenge.

A 1985 Supreme Court ruling, known as the Singh decision after the group of Sikh refugee claimants involved in the case, ruled that asylum-seekers have the right to full oral hearings of their refugee claims. The decision is considered one of the most significant in Canadian refugee law and was instrumental in the formation of the Immigration and Refugee Board — the arm’s-length agency that hears refugee claims in Canada.

Janet Dench, executive director of the Canadian Council for Refugees, said she suspects refugee lawyers are already starting to look closely the legalities of the government’s proposed changes.

“For sure there are serious Charter issues that may be raised,” she said.

‘Shock and dismay’

The pre-removal risk assessment, to which asylum-seekers in Canada will retain access, can include a hearing, but Dench said it’s not the same and, in practice, is usually more like an interview. The hearing is not automatic.

Dench said she and her members, which include over 100 Canadian organizations that work directly with refugees and immigrants, were “in a state of shock and dismay and great disappointment” over the proposed changes.

“This is really a devastating attack on refugee rights,” she said. “We’ve been urging the government to drop the existing ineligibility provisions, which already leave some people without the protection that they need from Canada. This is going a huge step further in creating another whole category of people who will be denied access to the refugee determination system on an arbitrary basis.”

That the changes were included as part of an omnibus budget implementation bill is even more upsetting to the refugee advocates.

‘Undemocratic’

Substantial changes to immigration laws like the ones being proposed ought to be given a more thorough treatment in Parliament rather than being rushed in a budget bill, Silcoff said.

“CARL (the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers) believes that human rights have no place in a budget bill. It’s undemocratic.”

NDP immigration critic Jenny Kwan echoed these concerns, calling the proposed changes “unconscionable” and the fact they were introduced in a budget bill “shocking.”

“These are standalone bills and they should be dealt with as such, and to try and bury in the budget bill is absolutely contrary to what (Prime Minister Justin) Trudeau himself promised in the 2015 election.”

The Conservative party has frequently demanded that the Liberal government keep people from getting into the country to make asylum claims. Conservative immigration critic Michelle Rempel said the changes indicate that Trudeau has “effectively admitted that he has failed to manage our border.”

Source: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/refugee-asylum-federal-budget-1.5091397

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , ,

Immigrant children’s health declines rapidly after arrival in Canada

2019/04/11 Leave a comment

The study would have benefited if the data and analysis included economic information to assess the influence of economic versus other factors.

But approaching an unhealthy Canadian norm, while reflecting integration, is not a positive development:

A healthy, happy future, free from poverty: This is the aspiration of many new immigrants and refugees to Canada and the United States. Leaving harsh conditions and food scarcity behind, they embrace the safety and relative affluence that North America offers.

Few would have imagined that migration would damage their family’s well-being and lead to rapid health decline.

Yet research studies over the past 15 years have found that immigrants arrive in better health than Canadians — with a lower incidence of chronic diseases such as heart disease, cancer and diabetes — but suffer a decline in their health as their time in Canada increases.

This decline applies to young children too. As a professor and a postdoctoral fellow in the School of Public Health and College of Pharmacy and Nutrition at the University of Saskatchewan, we recently conducted the first comprehensive research project in Canada examining the health of immigrant and refugee children after their arrival in the country.

This study, published in Applied Physiology, Nutrition and Metabolism, found several health concerns and nutritional deficiencies in many of these children.

Higher blood pressure, unhealthy cholesterol

Our study of 300 immigrant and refugee children in Saskatoon and Regina, Saskatchewan, found that these newcomer children often embrace a Western diet and sedentary lifestyle. Some parents are unaware of the dangers of overeating and the calories attached to the Western diet.

Overall, newcomer children were found to have borderline or elevated blood pressure— substantially higher than that of Canadian children.

Thirty-six per cent of the children in our study also had an inadequate intake of zinc, which is essential for growth and development.

Fifty-two per cent had unhealthy cholesterol levels, whereas just 35 per cent of Canadian children had similar levels. It is worth mentioning that increased stress is a known risk factor for high cholesterol.

Other research has found that some groups, such as South Asian immigrants — particularly women — are at a higher risk of developing high blood pressure the longer they reside in Canada.

Non-European newcomers also experience significant deterioration in how they rate their own health, and increase in body mass index (BMI) over time, compared to people who were born in Canada.

Poverty and dead-end jobs

Why this decline in health? Canada offers relatively abundant food, accessible health care and a standard of living that is one of the highest in the world, so the findings may appear counter-intuitive.

The answer lies both in the situations that immigrants and refugees have left behind, and the conditions they find when they get here.

Some immigrants find their pre-immigration dreams confounded by circumstance. They live in relative poverty, working dead-end jobs that fail to exploit their experience and potential. Some came to Canada as highly qualified professionals, optimistic about their prospects in a new country, but are unable to find meaningful, rewarding employment. Some who dreamed of a middle-class lifestyle struggle at the bottom of the economic pile due to language and educational barriers.

A diet of cheap, readily available junk food doesn’t help.

For many immigrant families, the stress of adjusting to life in Canada may contribute to deteriorating health. Many lose their social support network through migration. It can also be challenging to access culturally appropriate health care.

Living in survival mode

We spoke with numerous immigrants and health-care providers about newcomer health, diet and lifestyles. Many newcomers spoke of their aspirations to attain a good standard of living in Canada and the daily struggles they experienced to achieve this.

Some had become disillusioned with life in Canada because of their difficulties achieving the lifestyle they had expected, or aspired toward.

One refugee was so disheartened by the difficulties he encountered in getting a good job and providing for his family that he wanted to be sent back.

“Refugees and immigrants are in survival mode, because doctors, engineers and professors are pushing shopping carts,” said one service provider, commenting on the rising number of food insecure immigrants.

Research has shown that health disparities among ethnic groups can be reduced when individuals are able to achieve their desired level of socio-economic attainment. As such, living on a low income for extended periods can contribute to physical and mental health problems and a turn towards unhealthy affordable food.

On a low income, a hamburger and fries may cost less than a salad, but will fill a rumbling stomach.

An abundance of food

Refugee children who have known hunger can also find it hard to control their appetite.

“A lot of people change the way they eat. That’s why they gain so much weight. There is an abundance of food here,” said a health-care provider in Regina.

“Sometimes children coming from a refugee camp with very little to eat come here and eat too much,” added an immigrant service provider.

Another factor is that in some cultures, plump children are considered healthy. One family told us that eating meat, once a luxury to be enjoyed once or twice a month, was now considered both desirable and essential.

Thirteen per cent of Canadian children aged three to 19 years are obese, compared to 10 per cent of newcomer children who have been in Canada for five years or less.

Understanding these newcomers’ rapid routes to obesity and deteriorating health is important if we are to prevent chronic disease in adulthood, including Type 2 diabetes and hypertension.

Health and social service personnel should be sensitive to these risks when devising effective and culturally sensitive health screening programs.

Source: http://theconversation.com/immigrant-childrens-health-declines-rapidly-after-arrival-in-canada-114421

Filed under Immigration Tagged with ,

When is an immigrant not an immigrant? When they’re rich

2019/04/11 Leave a comment

Nice piece on the somewhat semantic distinction between immigrants and expatriates, or more accurately, between migrants and expatriates:

Our attitudes towards immigration involve some stunning doublespeak. My own family tells the story quite well. My grandparents’ generation, of Africans on one side and Jews on the other, were “immigrants” who created “diasporas”. My parents’ generation are British, and when they lived in Brunei, shortly before I was born, enjoyed the label reserved for British immigrants – “expatriates”. Although, since expats are considered glamorous and successful, there is a question as to whether black British people are allowed to fall into that category. I know this because trolls, who don’t seem to have a problem with British expats per se, point to my having been born as one as evidence that in my case, it disqualifies me from Britishness, something I’ve never heard levelled at my white contemporaries.

The difference between expats and immigrants is that, while the latter are a problem, the former are – its celebrants tell us – British people “embracing a limitless life”. This tends, not surprisingly, to take part in the former empire. Most British expats are concentrated in Australia, Spain, the US and Canada. The best place of all, according to research by HSBC bank – itself an expatriate colonial invention – is Singapore (good for health, education and improving your earnings).

The limitless life has, however, been experiencing a few unfortunate limits of late. It was a deeply unfortunate juxtaposition that the very day on which the culture secretary, Jeremy Wright was boasting Britain’s “toughest internet laws in the world”, a former British expat in Dubai was reported to have been arrested for comments she made on Facebook. Laleh Shahravesh was detained for calling her ex-husband’s new wife a horse. We should never condone trolling, but I would personally find that pretty complimentary compared to the the social media abuse I get on an average day.

Brunei, meanwhile, where my parents lived on the British expat circuit, is also putting a real dampener on the limitless life of the British expat, or at least one who is gay or planning to commit adultery or have an abortion, all of which are now punishable by sadistic acts of state-sponsored violence. Protestors have been making a scene outside hotels in which almost nobody can afford to stay, but our stance on British companies and their thousands of staff living and working in Brunei seems to have been quietly left out of the picture.

Maybe that’s because the lack of adherence to human rights standards in our favourite expat destinations poses some difficult questions. The British diaspora – though we never call it that – is seen as a useful tool for making Britain a great trading nation in the world again.

Unsurprisingly, there is zero evidence that the British government is planning to jeopardise all this by taking a more principled position in relation to human rights abuses. It places growing emphasis on the Commonwealth, despite the fact that this club’s failure to hold Brunei’s backward steps in human rights standards is just one of many examples. The United Arab Emirates, which was already in the spotlight after accusing the British academic Matthew Hedges of being a spy last year, has the unique privilege of being the only country in the world in which we have two embassies – one in Abu Dhabi and one in Dubai. Britain is currently defending in the court of appeal its refusal to halt weapons sales to Saudi Arabia in the face of credible international evidence that our arms are helping the Saudis regularly attack civilians in Yemen.

We can have a debate about whether it is right for Britain to enforce human rights standards in other countries as part of an ethical foreign policy. I, like the countless local activists in each of the countries where Britain prop ups abusive regimes, have no problem taking a stance in favour of ethical foreign policies. However, I have yet to hear that our government has decided, through a reasoned process of inquiry and consensus, that we are having a non-ethical one.

But there is a bigger question about immigration here too. We consider British immigrants to be people of means, whether former military personnel once stationed luxuriously in the Raj or today’s corporate lawyers enjoying tax-free living in the Gulf. If we bothered to think about our real view of British immigration, we would probably conclude that immigrants we don’t regard as a problem are those who aren’t poor.

We are generous enough to extend these ideas about immigration to a few other people too. On the day the Home Office announced its settlement scheme for EU migrants, I was speaking to a Dutch banker who has lived in the UK for years. “Will you apply?” I asked him, innocently. He looked at me as if I were a bit simple. “I’m just assuming that, like all these things, there will be an exemption for rich people,” he replied.

He is undoubtedly right. We suspend judgment for all rich immigrants, just as we do for British immigrants – so much so we don’t even call them immigrants. And so I guarantee that when it comes to countries where the immigrants are both rich and Brits, such as Brunei, we will avoid conducting any further analysis at all.

Source: When is an immigrant not an immigrant? When they’re rich

Filed under Immigration Tagged with ,

‘This is not what we came to this country for, to live and work like animals’: Migrant workers say they endured modern-day slavery in Simcoe County

2019/04/08 Leave a comment

The Globe had a similar more in-depth story on this abuse (Investigation False promises: Foreign workers are falling prey to a sprawling web of labour trafficking in Canada):

For more than a month, Francisco Urbina Contreras shared an infested house in Barrie with 30 other Mexican men and women who were drawn to Canada by the promise of jobs.

The former small business owner from northern Mexico could live with the bedbugs underneath his foam mattress, the unheated attic he shared with four others and the long wait for one of two bathrooms at the Dunlop St. home.

What he couldn’t put up with was the meagre $113 in cash he said he was handed for two full weeks of work — cleaning toilets, vacuuming carpets and making beds at Simcoe County hotels. Instead of the $800 he was expecting from the temp agency that had recruited him and put him up in the rooming house, he said his take-home pay had been whittled down by hefty deductions: $5 for each trip to a work site, $17 for daily job placement and $400 a month for rent.

“We felt we were in jail because we were too afraid to leave the house. We got picked up to the hotels and dropped off at the house. We only went out for groceries,” the 41-year-old man told the Star through an interpreter. “This is not what we came to this country for, to live and work like animals, with no dignity.”

Contreras was one of 60 foreign workers allegedly exploited in what police have described as a case of “modern-day slavery.”

At a news conference in February, Barrie police revealed that a joint investigationwith the Ontario Provincial Police and Canada Border Services Agency had uncovered a labour trafficking operation that housed and hired people from Mexico who had been lured by promises of jobs, work visas and possible permanent residency.

The news conference came just a week after pre-dawn police raids at several houses in Simcoe County. At the time, officials rescued 43 people, ranging in age from 20 to 46, from squalid conditions. Since then, some 20 more people have come forward to police with stories of having recently worked for the recruiter.

The Star reached out to the owners of the temp agency but, through their lawyer Bruce Daley, they declined to comment on the allegations.

Police say the investigation is ongoing and no one has been charged to date.

Contreras was not among those freed in the sweep; he had already escaped, he says, from the “horrible” situation last December with help from a stranger he met on a Facebook page group for Mexicans in Toronto, who offered to give him shelter.

The workers caught up in the raid were transported to a church and later to an area hotel for temporary shelter before they were issued temporary residence in Canada to assist the investigation. They were advised by police not to speak with the media.

“I have dreamed to be many things in my life, but not a slave,” said Contreras, who is now trying to obtain temporary residence in Canada while working in construction in Toronto to support himself.

Human trafficking has exploded in Canada: Between 2010 and 2016, the annual number of cases has increased 11 fold, according to a parliamentary report published in December. The majority of incidents — 66 per cent — happened in Ontario, with 14 per cent in Quebec, 8 per cent in Alberta, and the rest spread across Canada.

In total, 1,099 incidents were reported during the period, with 32 per cent involving foreign nationals being brought into the country. Although Statistics Canada does not differentiate between sex trafficking and labour trafficking data, the report said the majority of reported incidents involved women being forced into the sex trade.

Migrants’ advocates say Canada’s growing reliance on foreign workers — the number of temporary foreign workers has almost doubled in the past decade, to 300,000 in 2017 — has greatly contributed to the surge of labour trafficking because precarious immigration status makes people vulnerable to exploitation and abuse.

With poor English, little money and threats by traffickers, workers are reluctant to come forward out of fear for the safety of loved ones back home and their own possible deportation from Canada, making investigation and prosecution difficult for officials, said the advocates, who believe labour trafficking is grossly under-reported for those reasons.

“Foreign workers are recruited overseas and often tied to the people who bring them here. They have no permanent status and are ineligible for community services,” said Loly Rico of Toronto’s FCJ Refugee Centre, which is part of the Toronto Counter Human Trafficking Network, a six-year-old grassroots umbrella group that meets regularly to share information on trafficking and advocate for victims.

“These workers do jobs that most Canadians do not want to do. They are just cheap labour and don’t get the same attention as victims of sex trafficking.”

February’s rescue operation was among the largest labour trafficking raids in Ontario. Investigation officials collaborated with advocates to take a “victims-first” approach, making the safety and well-being of the migrant workers a priority over arrests of suspects.

Since the raids, the rescued workers were sheltered at no costs at the Living Water Resort in Collingwood, which also hired some of them full time.

Living Water owner Larry Law said the community has come together to help the workers by organizing English classes and Spanish church services, while the town has offered them two months of free public transit. So far, half of the workers are working at Living Water while the rest have moved out after taking jobs offered outside of the community.

“We are just so happy to see them turning over a new leaf in Canada,” said Law.

Authorities said complaints by the workers in Barrie first surfaced in 2015. In addition to Contreras, the Star tracked down two other workers who had lived in the houses arranged by the temp agency. Their stories share common threads: promised jobs, betrayals, desperation, debts and threats.

Rodrigo Jesus Vazquez Medina ran a small garage in Merida, a city off the coast of the Gulf of Mexico. After he fell behind on a loan to purchase equipment for his shop, an acquaintance in Mexico gave him the phone number of the recruiter in Canada who “offers lots of jobs.” Medina borrowed $3,000 from family for his trip to Canada.

“I was making $300 a month in Mexico, and I was told I could earn as much as $1,000 every two weeks here, at $13 an hour. That’s good money. They said I wouldn’t need a visa and they could find me jobs once I’m here,” recalled Medina, 31, who has two teenage children back home.

Upon arriving at Pearson airport last November, he waited hours to be interviewed by immigration. “I was told by the recruiter to tell them that I wanted to come here to see the CN Tower, Niagara Falls and the (Ripley’s) aquarium,” he recalled. “They even made a fake hotel reservation for me.”

After leaving customs at midnight, he called a number he was given by the recruiter. A driver picked up Medina and another worker who was on the same flight, and dropped them off at the Dunlop St. house, charging each $150 for the trip.

Medina said he slept on a couch in the living room that night. When he got up the next morning, he was shocked by what he saw.

“We had about 30 people living there, some staying in the attic, some sleeping in the hallways. People put their mattresses on top of used tires, cardboard and forklift wood platforms because it’s too cold on the floor,” said Medina. “It wasn’t what I had expected.”

Work placements and other communication by the recruiters were arranged through the group messaging tool WhatsApp. On Medina’s fourth day in the house, he was finally assigned to work at one of six hotels, including Nottawasaga Inn, Hockley Valley and Living Water resorts, according to work schedules sent to them by the recruiter on the app.

Police have said the hotels were not aware of the alleged human trafficking operation.

Nottawasaga and Hockley Valley did not return the Star’s repeated requests for comment.

Medina said he and his housemates didn’t work every day, but sometimes shifts were 12 hours long. Due to his background in mechanics, Medina said he was also sometimes sent to do light construction jobs. He said he was paid about $400 in cash for two weeks of work.

“I wasn’t making any money at all. I had no money to pay off my debt or send to my kids. I was just making enough to stay in this horrible house,” Medina said.

Iran Yesmin Lazeano Cabrera, who fled from a Livingstone St. residence operated by the same Barrie recruiter, shared a similar experience.

The 42-year-old mother of three said coming to Canada was her esa era mi ultima carta — “my last card” — after her husband left her with three children and a huge debt to a Colombian loan shark that she couldn’t repay.

Last fall, her sister heard about a lawyer in the Mexican port city of Veracruz who could help people find jobs in Canada. They went to the storefront law office and were asked to pay almost $2,100 “to start the process” — money that her sister paid by selling her car.

“I sat my children down over our dining table. I told them I tried everything to pay off the debt and I needed to take a gamble. This is our last card. This is our only way out,” recalled Cabrera, who arrived Toronto from Puebla last November.

“My eldest one, only 17, said she would look after the two little ones,” she recalled, sobbing. “My kids were expecting to come and join me once I got a steady job and settled.”

When Cabrera arrived at Pearson, a pre-arranged driver took her to the three-bedroom house on Livingstone St. in Barrie, where she immediately had to hand over $400 rent. There were already 13 tenants there, all from Mexico.

“I just remembered seeing a lot of men in the house. There was one bedroom for the women, but there was just one bed. I asked them where my bed was. They told me they would buy me a mattress and it would be deducted from my paycheque,” said Cabrera, who was left with just $50 in her pocket after paying the driver and the rent.

The next morning she met with the recruiter.

“The recruiter said only hard workers could stay and my future depended on my behaviour. She told me that I work for her but I can’t tell anyone,” said Cabrera, who was later taken shopping to get a blanket, a foam mattress and two black T-shirts as uniforms — the costs of which were all to be deducted from her pay.

Three days later, she says she was placed at a job and moved to another house in Wasaga Beach, which she shared with six men and one woman.

“There’s no Wi-Fi at the house and I couldn’t talk to my children. I started to feel really bad. I was depressed and anxious. There were other workers coming and going. I did not feel safe there,” said Cabrera, who at that point had yet to be paid and only had $3 left.

“I borrowed another worker’s phone and called the driver who picked me up at the airport. I told her I needed to leave. She came to get me and I ended up staying with her.

“It just felt like a very bad dream,” said Cabrera, who had tried unsuccessfully to retrieve her owed wages. (She says the recruiter told her that, after deductions that included a $175 fine for abandoning her job, there was nothing left).

“I came here for work. If I had known it’s going to be like this, there’s no way I would have come to Canada. But it’s too late. I have no money. I have a debt to pay in Mexico. I can’t go back to my kids with nothing.”

Contreras, a native from Tabasco who met Medina at the Dunlop St. house, said the two decided to leave Barrie when they went eight days without a work assignment. When they posted on a Facebook page for Mexicans in Toronto looking for jobs in the city, they were offered temporary shelter. After doing day labour jobs in demolition and renovation, a Mexican man hired them for a month to clear snow on construction sites in Muskoka, and offered them room and board.

“It was the first time in Canada where I could sleep in a real bed, with sheets and pillows,” said a smiling Contreras, who ran a small business in Mexico making and installing awnings to support his daughter through university.

“People treat us differently because we have no (immigration) paper. We have no English and others take advantage of us.”

Both men have recently found jobs in construction in Toronto, with Contreras working on insulation and Medina as a welder. Like Cabrera, the pair are hoping to obtain a temporary residence permit to stay and work in Canada until they save up enough money to return home.

Source: ‘This is not what we came to this country for, to live and work like animals’: Migrant workers say they endured modern-day slavery in Simcoe County

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

Québec songe à relever les seuils d’immigration dès 2020

2019/04/08 Leave a comment

That was fast.

In other words, the CAQ can claim that they delivered on their platform (for one year!) before apparently going back on it (to be fair, I prefer a change of position than stubbornly sticking to an ill-thought policy). Perhaps there is hope for the government to reconsider Bill 21 (Laïcité):

Face à des « besoins pressants et immédiats de main-d’oeuvre », le ministre Simon Jolin-Barrette évoque un rehaussement des seuils d’immigrationdès l’année prochaine.

Du haut de la tribune du Conseil des relations internationales de Montréal (CORIM), Jolin-Barrette s’est dit déterminé vendredi à accueillir quelque 40 000 immigrants au Québec au cours de l’année 2019, et ce, comme la Coalition avenir Québecl’avait promis en campagne électorale. « On a respecté notre engagement. C’était un pas de recul pour s’assurer de réformer notre système d’immigration, de le moderniser et de l’améliorer », s’est-il justifié devant un parterre de quelque 400 personnes rassemblées dans un hôtel du centre-ville de Montréal pour un déjeuner-causerie.

Cela dit, le ministre de l’Immigration a dit déjà envisager de tirer vers le haut le nombre de nouveaux arrivants admis au Québec.

Dans la Planification pluriannuelle de l’immigration 2020-2022, le gouvernement caquiste « établir[a] la façon dont la hausse graduelle des seuils [d’immigration] s’effectuera au cours des prochaines années », a-t-il annoncé lors du déjeuner-causerie organisé par le CORIM. Les cibles d’immigration des trois prochaines années seront débattues au Parlement, puis fixées par le gouvernement d’ici le 1er novembre prochain.

En plus d’élaborer la Planification pluriannuelle de l’immigration 2020-2022, M. Jolin-Barrette révisera la grille de sélection des travailleurs qualifiés en revoyant les points accordés notamment à la formation, l’expérience professionnelle, l’âge et les connaissances en français des candidats. « Nous voulons qu’elle reflète davantage nos besoins en matière d’immigration en assurant une meilleure adéquation entre les besoins du marché du travail et le profil des candidats », a dit M. Jolin-Barrette deux mois après le dépôt du projet de loi sur l’immigration (projet de loi 9) à l’Assemblée nationale.

Pour l’heure, il s’engage à « faciliter » et à « accélérer » l’admission de travailleurs temporaires au Québec. « Les travailleurs temporaires sont une solution à la « pénurie de main-d’oeuvre qui touche différentes régions du Québec », a-t-il fait valoir. « Nous avons bon espoir que ces personnes-là soient [deviennent des résidents permanents] », a-t-il ajouté. À ses yeux, le ministère de l’Immigration dispose désormais des ressources pour « les franciser, les intégrer ».

Immigration et laïcité : les parlementaires en ont plein les bras

Simon Jolin-Barrette s’est dit déterminé à faire adopter non seulement le projet de loi sur la laïcité de l’État, mais également le projet de loi sur l’immigration par l’Assemblée nationale d’ici la mi-juin. « Si c’était uniquement de ma responsabilité, ce serait déjà fait [pour le projet de loi 9]. Mais vous savez comme le Parlement fonctionne : parfois, il y a de petites difficultés à adopter rapidement [un projet de loi] », a-t-il lancé.

Le jeune trentenaire a soutenu que les membres de l’Assemblée nationale ont l’« obligation de faire avancer » les projets de loi portés à leur attention. Cela dit, il n’a pas osé vendredi accuser ses adversaires libéraux, solidaires et péquistes d’obstruction.

L’examen — article par article — du projet de loi sur l’immigration s’amorcera prochainement devant la commission des relations avec les citoyens. Le projet de loi sur la laïcité de l’État fera pour sa part l’objet de consultations particulières devant une autre commission parlementaire.

« On est à deux mois et demi de la fin de la session. Il serait inopportun pour les collègues de l’opposition officielle, ou même de Québec solidaire, de dire qu’ils vont faire un barrage parlementaire. Nous, on est en démocratie. On travaille en collaboration avec les différents partis politiques. […] Il n’y a pas de raison qu’on ne réussisse pas à travailler ensemble », a dit le leader parlementaire du gouvernement à la presse.

Le hic : les élus de Québec solidaire (QS) veulent, à eux seuls, inviter pas moins de 62 groupes à partager leurs impressions en commission parlementaire sur le projet de loi 21.

Syndicats, commissions, régies, municipalités, avocats, agents correctionnels, services policiers et cadres : le parti a choisi de ratisser large, signe qu’il n’entend pas rendre la tâche du gouvernement facile. Le Devoir a obtenu la liste que les solidaires lui ont soumise plus tôt cette semaine.

« L’idée est de donner la parole aux gens touchés par la loi qui n’ont pas encore été entendus », a expliqué l’attachée de presse de l’aile parlementaire de QS, Simone Lirette.

Cela inclut les organismes qui auront à appliquer la loi, comme la Commission de protection du territoire agricole, la Régie de l’énergie, le Tribunal administratif du travail et l’Alliance des cadres de l’État.

Les trois partis d’opposition ont envoyé leur liste de témoins au gouvernement et attendent une réponse. Le Parti libéral et le Parti québécois ont refusé de la partager. Le gouvernement espère en arriver à un compromis sur le nombre d’invitations.

Le Mouvement laïque québécois a confirmé au Devoir vendredi qu’il sera invité à témoigner par le bureau du ministre Jolin-Barrette. La Fédération des comités de parents a également été invitée, mais elle a décliné, préférant s’abstenir de commenter un projet de loi qui touche les conditions de travail du personnel scolaire.

Le premier ministre, François Legault, a répété à plusieurs reprises qu’il souhaitait que le projet de loi sur la laïcité de l’État soit adopté d’ici la fin des travaux parlementaires pour la relâche estivale le 14 juin… quitte à utiliser le bâillon.

Filed under Immigration Tagged with ,

The longer someone lives in Canada, the more critical they may be of immigration: federal survey

2019/04/06 Leave a comment

Interesting poll and findings that presents new data on immigrant views (from time of arrival, the number question has been asked in other surveys). In many ways, it shows how immigrants integrate over time:

The longer an individual or their family have lived in Canada, the more critical their views may be towards immigration.

However, roughly half of Canadians are still broadly in favour, regardless of whether they’re newcomers or more established.
That appears to be one of the indications from a survey conducted for federal immigration officials, tracking Canadians’ views on immigrants and ultimately helping shape federal policy on the matter. It asked 2,800 Canadians for their views on immigration in August and September 2018 via landline and cellphone, and claims a margin of error of +/- 1.9 per cent, 19 times out of 20.

The 2018-19 Annual Tracking Survey conducted for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada asked respondents a number of questions, including whether “in your opinion, do you feel that there are too many, too few or about the right amount of immigrants coming to Canada?”

Twenty-seven per cent of immigrants in Canada for more than 20 years said they feel there are too many immigrants here.

That’s compared with 19 per cent of immigrants who have been here between five and 19 years, and 16 per cent of those here for less than five years.

Among those who identified as first, second or third-generation Canadian, there were also differences.

Thirty-two per cent of those who identified as third-generation Canadians said there are too many immigrants.

That compares to 26 per cent of those who identified as second-generation and 22 per cent of those who identified as first-generation who said the same.

Roughly half of respondents across all of those categories said the immigration levels in Canada right now are “about the right number.”

“It’s clearly a pattern that shows up pretty repeatedly, for a couple of fairly obvious reasons, but also some more subtle things. The obvious thing is the more salient the immigration experience is for you, the more sort of open to immigrants you will tend to be,”said Michael Donnelly, an assistant professor of political studies at the University of Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs.

“It’s also harder to stereotype immigrants if you are yourself a recent immigrant,” he continued, noting the effect of being more closely linked to immigration may also be reflected in the changes in views among those who said their families have been here longer.

“If your parents were immigrants, there’s at least some sort of family lore of that experience and it’s going to have some influence on you.”

Donnelly noted that while studies done in other countries have yielded similar results, he has seen suggestions of a link between how long someone has lived in Canada and their views on immigration in only “one or two” studies in Canada over the years.

Disapproval appeared to increase in all but one demographic category when respondents were asked specifically about their views on immigration in the context of the government’s plan to bring in 300,000 immigrants per year.

“Knowing Canada aims to admit over 300,000 immigrants each year, do you feel there are too many/too few immigrants coming to Canada?” the questionnaire conducted for the report asked.

The percentage of immigrants here more than 20 years who said they feel there are too many immigrants coming to Canada increased from 27 to 37 per cent when asked that question with reference to the specific number.

The same was true for immigrants here between five and 19 years, with the number who responded in kind increasing from 19 per cent to 26 per cent.

Among those born in Canada, disapproval of immigration levels rose roughly 10 per cent when asked about the specific plan.

Forty-one per cent of those who identified as third-generation Canadian and 35 per cent of second-generation Canadians said so, compared to 32 and 26 per cent when asked the same question without the reference to the number of immigrants planned.

Christina Clark-Kazak, an associate professor in the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa, and President of the International Association for the Study of Forced Migration, offered an explanation as to why that appears to be the case.

“I think that as an abstract idea, people are not necessarily against immigration,” she said, noting 300,000 is not a large amount of immigration given Canada’s size and existing population.

“But I think that people are concerned about ‘too many’ people coming in, so as soon as you get any kind of number, it becomes real, it becomes concrete, and then consequently there is a discussion of whether or not it is too many.”

The survey also asked respondents for their views on the influx of irregular border crossers coming into Canada from the United States.

Clark-Kazak said she was surprised by the results.

“There’s been actually a lot of negative press and political pressure around the Safe Third Country Agreement and irregular border crossers and that doesn’t seem to be born out in the public opinion that’s expressed, at least in this,” she said.

The survey asked respondents to rate on a 10-point scale whether they agree or disagree with the following statements: first, that they are confident in the government’s handling of irregular migration; and second, that it is not the responsibility of Canada to accept asylum claims from those coming from the U.S.

But neither question yielded any marked differences among respondents.

A slightly higher percentage said they strongly disagreed with the first statement than strongly agreed (16 per cent versus 11 per cent).

The same was true for the second statement, with 19 per cent overall saying they strongly agree and 16 per cent saying they strongly disagreed.

The vast majority of respondents from all backgrounds fell in between.

Donnelly said that isn’t surprising given the way the question was asked.

“There’s a real temptation to self-moderate and put yourself in the middle unless you have a real sort of goal,” he said.

“We don’t often see huge numbers at either extreme on longer scales unless the scales are sort of concrete.”

Roughly 35,000 migrants have crossed the border from the United States into Canada at irregular points of entry since early 2017.

Under the terms of the Safe Third Country Agreement, asylum seekers who arrive in either country must make their claim in the first country they first arrived.

That means migrants who arrive in the United States but do not make their claim will be turned around at the border if they try to do so in Canada.

But that only applies if they try crossing the border at an official checkpoint.

Those that cross at unofficial points of entry along the border can make their claim due to a loophole in the agreement.

That has led to calls from the Conservatives over recent years for the government to close the loophole and reduce the incentive for people to cross the border irregularly. Federal immigration officials have also acknowledged that the Safe Third Country Agreement is “no longer working as intended.”

Patti Lenard, an associate professor at the University of Ottawa focusing on immigration and immigration policies, said she doesn’t think the data shows strong feelings or differences in opinion about immigration among any particular subsets of the Canadian population.

Specifically, she questioned whether the average Canadian is as caught up in concerns about irregular migration as politicians have been in recent years.

“These numbers don’t suggest people are very exercised about irregular migrants coming in or irregular asylum seekers coming in through the United States. Mostly, it suggests people don’t really care about it at all,” she said.

“If I were the government, I would think that this is a sign that unless the Conservatives decide to go after them, they wouldn’t have to worry about a population that was going to turn against them on immigration.”

Lenard says while she recognizes immigration is expected to form a significant part of the Conservative campaign in the fall election, she is skeptical that it will bring the results Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer may be chasing.

“I don’t expect him to get a lot of purchase on it.”

Source: The longer someone lives in Canada, the more critical they may be of immigration: federal survey

Filed under Immigration Tagged with

New report suggests visas for skilled immigrants to struggling U.S. counties

2019/04/05 Leave a comment

Some similarities with Canada in terms of the Provincial Nominee Program, the Atlantic Immigration Pilot, and the recently announced Northern and Rural Immigration Pilot. Hard to see it going anywhere under the current anti-immigration environment:

The U.S. already has a special visa to attract foreign doctors to treat rural Americans — now a new report suggests expanding that to all skilled immigrants who’d be willing to settle in areas facing long-term demographic problems.

Why it matters: “Migration out of struggling areas has become skill-biased,” according to a new report released by the Economic Innovation Group.

Show less
  • “Someone with a professional or graduate degree is twice as likely to move states as a high school graduate.”
  • “For every one college graduate that the fastest shrinking counties add, the fastest growing add two.”
  • “By 2037, 67% of U.S. counties will contain fewer prime working age adults than they did in 1997.”

The big picture: “At the national level, slower growth in America’s working-age population is a major reason that mainstream forecasters now expect the economy to expand around 2 percent each year rather than the 3 percent common in the second half of the 20th century,” the N.Y. Times’ Neil Irwin notes.

The EIG’s set of principles for a heartland visa:

  1. Communities must “opt in”: Towns or counties that don’t want to participate shouldn’t be forced to join.
  2. Distressed areas first: The program “should be targeted to places confronting chronic population stagnation or loss.”
  3. No work restrictions: Visa holders should be allowed to compete in the labor market, as long as they stay in a specific geographic area.
  4. This should be a path to a green card: “The prospect of permanent residency … should provide an extremely strong incentive for compliance.”
  5. Adding to, not replacing, existing skilled visas: “The scheme would therefore need to be accompanied by a commensurate increase to the green card cap.”

The bottom line: This is somewhat of a moot point during the Trump presidency, which has sought to curb immigration levels. But as the U.S. faces further demographic decline, this is one option for lawmakers trying to help the areas hurting the most.

Source: New report suggests visas for skilled immigrants to struggling U.S. counties

Filed under Immigration Tagged with ,

Asylum seekers should make claims through ‘appropriate’ channels: Canadian envoy to U.S.

2019/04/04 Leave a comment

One further detail that I hadn’t noticed before – Canada has been pressing this for more than one year (so not just short-term pre-election positioning):

Canada’s ambassador to the United States says “legitimate refugee claimants” should make their claims through an “appropriate” process rather than crossing from the U.S. between official points of entry.

David MacNaughton said the U.S. moving to begin the process to renegotiate the Safe Third Country Agreement is an encouraging sign. Ottawa wants the pact changed to close a loophole in order to allow Canada to quickly turn away most asylum seekers coming from the United States who enter from unauthorized points.

Asked to square this request with the federal government’s position that refugees are welcome in Canada, Mr. MacNaughton said asylum seekers should use an “established” process.

“We’re open to immigration. We’re also open to legitimate refugee claimants who go through the process that is established,” Mr. MacNaughton said Tuesday in the U.S. Capitol after a lunch meeting with legislators on trade. “What we’re trying to do is make sure that those who are wanting to claim refugee status do so in the way in which it’s appropriate.”

More than 40,000 asylum seekers have entered Canada through unofficial points of entry since U.S. President Donald Trump launched his crackdown on illegal immigration two years ago. The flood of claimants is bogging down the refugee protection system in Canada.

Under the current pact, most refugee claimants who come to Canada from the United States through official points of entry – such as border stations – are immediately sent back to the United States, as it is considered a safe country for refugees under the treaty. But the agreement does not apply between such points of entry, so those who cross between border stations have the right to make a refugee claim.

Mr. MacNaughton said he is encouraged that the United States is starting to move on renegotiation. But he said he did not know whether the United States would agree to the rewrite Canada wants.

“We have had no firm indication as to what they’re prepared to do or not do,” he said. “It’s a positive thing that it’s gone to State [Department] to give a negotiating mandate because that hasn’t been the case for the last however long we’ve been asking for this to happen.”

Canada has been pressing the United States to renegotiate for more than a year. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is now working with State Department officials on a formal request to reopen the deal, The Globe and Mail reported on Monday. An assistant secretary would have to authorize the request for talks to start.

Border Security Minister Bill Blair has proposed a change to the agreement that would see Canadian border officials take such asylum seekers to an official crossing, where they would be denied immediate entry. But that plan would have to clear legal hurdles articulated by the Supreme Court that guarantee a hearing to any refugee claimant setting foot in Canada.

Janet Dench, executive director of the Canadian Council for Refugees, said a renegotiation could backfire on Canada. She said Canada risks drawing Mr. Trump’s attention to the 2004 border agreement, which could lead the United States to propose changes to the agreement that Ottawa doesn’t want.

“This agreement was negotiated to favour Canadian interests and at Canadian request,” Ms. Dench said. “And so in asking to renegotiate the agreement, the Canadian government must be aware that the U.S. government may … actually want to negotiate it so that fewer refugees are sent back to the U.S. or that the U.S. would think maybe we should actually withdraw ourselves from this agreement.”

The CCR, along with Amnesty International and the Canadian Council of Churches, launched a Federal Court challenge to the agreement in 2017, arguing against Canada’s position that the United States is a safe country for refugees under the Trump administration. A decision has not yet been issued by the court.

The NDP has called on the Liberals to suspend the pact so asylum seekers in the United States can claim refugee status at official Canadian land border posts.

Conservative immigration critic Michelle Rempel urged the Liberal government to act immediately to stop the flow of asylum seekers between official points of entry along the border, saying she doesn’t buy its assertion that Canada can’t make the appropriate changes without agreement from the United States. She accused the Liberals of putting forward ideas without a plan to practically implement them.

“We’re six months out to an election and after trying to make electoral hay out of calling Canadians who raise questions about this fear mongerers and un-Canadian and thinly veiled accusations of racism, I think that this is now about electoral calculus rather than action,” Ms. Rempel said.

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →