Douglas Todd: Does Sweden’s migration crisis contain lesson for Canada?

Douglas Todd correctly asks the question: Would Canada have the same opens to immigration if we were not protected from unmanaged immigration by our oceans and the US?

Highly unlikely:

Could Canada, which Swedes tend to admire because of our multicultural policy, survive what the Swedes are enduring?

With a population of almost 10 million, Sweden took in more refugees per capita since the beginning of 2015 than any country in the European Union, including Germany.

If Canada had accepted the same proportion of asylum seekers as Sweden, it would have added up to more than 570,000 people. That’s far from the 25,000 the federal Liberals approved.

The rest of the EU, other than Germany, has shown no interest in following open-hearted Sweden. Neither has the U.S., which has only accepted 6,000 Syrians.

Some called ‘naive’

“I’m horribly disappointed in the rest of the EU states,” said Anna Rehnvall, migration specialist for Fores think-tank, which represents Sweden’s Green and liberal parties.

anna-rehnvallRefusing asylum seekers is not an option for Rehnvall, who has worked on migration issues with the Conference Board of Canada.

“When asylum seekers show up on your border, you have to look them in the eye. In Sweden, it’s really hard to say no to someone who arrives on your doorstep.”

Given her attitude, Rehnvall admits she’s been called “naive.” But so have many Swedes.

Seventeen per cent of Sweden’s population is now foreign born, with most admitted as refugees or through family reunification.

In Canada, 21 per cent of the population is foreign born; the portion rising to more than 45 per cent in Metro Vancouver and Toronto.

Since Canada is protected by the U.S. border and three oceans, relatively few newcomers to Canada show up as asylum seekers. Most arrivals have been skilled, educated or wealthy.

Source: Douglas Todd: Does Sweden’s migration crisis contain lesson for Canada? | Vancouver Sun

Vancouver real estate speculators taking advantage of loopholes and lax oversight

Good in-depth examination of Vancouver real estate practices by the Globe’s Kathy Tomlinson, showing the depth of the policy and regulatory failure:

Mr. Gu’s [real estate flipper/speculator] three corporations all reported losses, in unaudited financial statements ending last year. Photocopies of some cheques made out to his companies – a fraction of the total – show that those companies received a minimum of $7.6-million in large payments between 2014 and 2016, many marked as “loans” from clients.

When Mr. Gu flips a property, his contracts stipulate that lender clients get back what they put in, plus a set return – 15 per cent in one instance. After the mortgage and the bills are paid, Mr. Gu keeps whatever is left, which, in some cases, appears to be hundreds of thousands of dollars.

According to legal and tax experts, this arrangement would allow him to avoid taxes, because the properties are not in his name. Mr. Gu can also maximize financing, because individual clients applying for mortgages, ostensibly to buy the homes, can borrow more money collectively than Mr. Gu could if he tried to finance properties on his own.

On the tax front, records suggest that the clients classify some of the properties as their principal residences, even though they do not live in them. That’s despite the fact that Canadian rules stipulate that a taxpayer cannot call a home a principal residence and sell it tax-free, unless they purchased it to live in it, and didn’t sell it within the same year.

“If you are buying and selling these homes as a business practice, that is business income and it’s taxable,” says Toronto-area accountant David Cramer, one of several experts The Globe consulted while reporting this story. He suggests that both Mr. Gu and his clients should be declaring that income. “If these guys paid proper taxes, these transactions would not go on as they do,” he explains. “It wouldn’t be nearly as profitable as it is.”

Tax lawyer Jonathan Garbutt estimates that the tax revenue lost through such activity is massive, particularly in pricey Toronto and Vancouver. “I think this is yet another example of non-enforcement of penalties under the law. It’s pervasive and it’s systematic,” Mr. Garbutt says. “Unless it changes, this will get worse. We will have a corrupt system.”

Source: Vancouver real estate speculators taking advantage of loopholes and lax oversight – The Globe and Mail

Looming season of immigration politics puts Liberals, Tories on edge

Good analysis by Campbell Clark (I think there is reason for the concerns within both parties):

Conservative Kellie Leitch is proposing a values test for immigrants. Liberal Immigration Minister John McCallum says he wants a substantial increase in the number of immigrants coming to Canada, including temporary foreign workers.

It looks like a season of immigration politics is coming. And it is making these politicians’ own parties, Liberals and Conservatives, nervous.

Some Conservatives worry that Ms. Leitch might undo years of party work to appeal to immigrants and minorities. But some Liberals think it might be foolish to assume Canada is immune to the resentments that fuelled Donald Trump’s campaign and Britons’ vote for Brexit: They fear greatly expanding immigration now is risky politics.

Look at Ms. Leitch: Her proposal to screen immigrants for “anti-Canadian values” has taken its roughest criticism from Conservatives. Interim leader Rona Ambrose panned it, every declared leadership aspirant except for Tony Clement has knocked it and Stephen Harper’s former policy director, Rachel Curran, called it “Orwellian.”

This, after all, is the kind of identity politics the Conservatives played with in the 2015 election campaign, when the “barbaric cultural practices” tip line announced by Ms. Leitch was a vote-loser.

There is fear that playing hot-button politics with immigrant screening threatens the gains Conservatives made under Mr. Harper, when former cabinet minister Jason Kenney led work to build support among immigrants and ethnic minorities. That was a winning formula: 40 per cent of Canadians are first- or second-generation Canadians, so if you can’t earn their votes, you can’t win enough ridings to take office.

For the most part, the Liberals have let Conservatives fight over Ms. Leitch. But Arif Virani, the parliamentary secretary to Mr. McCallum, the Immigration Minister, said he didn’t buy Ms. Leitch’s argument that her proposal aims to promote tolerance. “It’s valid to be concerned about your nation. It’s valid to be concerned about gender equality,” Mr. Virani said. “I think it’s a bit ironic to describe screening people’s views and thoughts as promoting tolerance.”

And though he acknowledged that many Conservatives have opposed Ms. Leitch’s proposal, he argued it still suggests a political divide: “I do think there’s a big difference between the most recent inclination of the Conservative Party and what the Liberal government is doing now,” he said.

Not all Liberals are sanguine about their government’s immigration plans, however.

Canadians have generally approved of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s high-profile initiative to bring in 25,000 Syrian refugees. But the Liberals have not only raised overall immigration targets, from 279,000 in 2015 to 300,000 this year; Mr. McCallum is talking about a big increase for the future – as well as increasing the number of temporary foreign workers.

If you think that’s traditional Liberal practice, it’s not. Former prime minister Jean Chrétien promised to expand immigration, to 1 per cent of the population, in 1993 – but when he took office in a postrecession economy, he actually cut it for years. It’s not the party in power, but the health of the economy, that has influenced immigration.

But Mr. McCallum is proposing something different – a major increase in a soft economy.

Some Liberal MPs worry it’s not wise. It’s not that they feel likely to be outflanked by proposals such as Ms. Leitch’s. It’s the bigger part of that Trump-Brexit brew: In an uneasy economy, they have economically anxious constituents who worry newcomers might take their jobs. Expanding immigration now, especially bringing in more temporary foreign workers, could be walking into a political storm.

Polls, including one conducted for the government in February, don’t suggest much support for expanding immigration. But Mr. Virani, who is taking part in public consultations, thinks it’s there – in particular when immigration is linked to economic growth strategy. “There’s an appetite for growth, and an appetite for immigration that’s geared toward growth,” he said. But in these times, that’s a political gamble.

Ms. Leitch has made some Conservatives worry they’ll be tarred with a nativist label. But immigration politics worries Liberals, too, who are nervous that embracing a big expansion means misreading the public mood.

Source: Looming season of immigration politics puts Liberals, Tories on edge – The Globe and Mail

ICYMI: How do you screen beliefs? The troublesome task of testing for ‘anti-Canadian values’ – Wherry

Good overview along with good questions on how would you actually administer a values test by Aaron Wherry:

When Kellie Leitch, one of four candidates officially seeking the leadership of the Conservative party, was first reported to have asked her supporters whether immigrants to this country should be screened for “anti-Canadian values,” it was tempting to assume she believed that prospective citizens should be handed a cup of Tim Hortons coffee, sent to a professional hockey game and made to at least pretend that they were enjoying themselves.

But, as it turns out, the “anti-Canadian values” Leitch believes new immigrants should be checked for include “intolerance towards other religions, cultures and sexual orientations, violent and/or misogynist behaviour and/or a lack of acceptance of our Canadian tradition of personal and economic freedoms.”

And this, Leitch explained in a statement on Friday, is “a policy proposal that I feel very strongly about.”

Indeed, she later enthused to her supporters that, “We are going to have an open discussion about what Canadian values are and what they are not.”

“If you are tired of feeling like we can’t discuss what our Canadian values are, then please help me to fight back by making a donation,” she added.

So as to assist those who feel like this can’t be discussed, let’s discuss it.

Precedents for a values test

Leitch’s proposal is not without precedents.

Two weeks ago, noted wall-enthusiast Donald Trump suggested that those hoping to become American citizens would undergo ideological screening, hearkening back to a Cold War policy that was meant to keep communists out.

“Those who do not believe in our Constitution or who support bigotry and hatred will not be admitted for immigration into our country,” he said. “Only those who we expect to flourish in our country and to embrace a tolerant American society should be issued visas.”

Belgium recently began to require that non-European migrants sign a pledge committing themselves to certain “values.”

In Canada, we do present potential citizens with a guide that explains our history and speaks of values, but we do not then check to make sure every newcomer believes fully and completely in each and every one of those ideals.

At the moment, it is not clear how Leitch imagines we should.

How would we screen for beliefs?

Would immigrants be asked to confirm their agreement with a series of statements about equality? How would we know they were telling the truth? Would we hook them up to a lie detector? Would we have public servants checking Twitter histories and Facebook profiles for evidence of intolerance or unacceptable views?

Are we comfortable with the idea of regulating beliefs? Who defines the values and how they will be measured? How specific would we get?

Would immigrants have to be fully supportive of same-sex marriage? (To pick a right that Conservative party members have only just come around to not opposing and which some current Canadian citizens still don’t support.) What about transgender rights? (To pick an issue that Parliament will soon be considering.)

What constitutes an intolerance for economic freedom? Would that rule out socialists? What about anyone with an inclination to vote for the NDP?

What great benefit would we derive from the effort? And what would be the effect of such a test?

We might, for instance, imagine that living in Canada could open the mind of a homophobe, or at least provide his or her children with a good atmosphere in which to grow up.

But, while we’re on the topic, what of the bigots and misogynists who were born here?

What problem does this mean to solve?

But perhaps we are getting ahead of ourselves. Let us go back to the premise, or at least try to understand what it might be.

What problem does this debate over Canadian values mean to solve? Are great hordes of bigots and misogynists entering our country at present? Are their beliefs having some kind of deleterious impact on our society? Are we faced with some kind of threat that must be dealt with?

The implication that we are is inherent in Leitch’s idea: That immigrants with “anti-Canadian values” are coming to this country. That Canada is faced with a meaningful problem. That even though we have become a tolerant, pluralistic society alongside decades of mass immigration (and despite whatever prejudices were held by our naturally born citizens and new arrivals), we are somehow now in need of greater protection.

That is a troubling suggestion to leave hanging in the air as thousands of newcomers continue to try to settle into our country. We should not uncarefully implicate an entire class of people.

“This suggestion, that some immigrants are ‘anti-Canadian’, does not represent our Conservative Party or our Canada,” Michael Chong, a fellow leadership candidate, said in a statement on Friday. “The language and context that Kellie used has led key Conservatives, including Prime Minister [Stephen] Harper’s former director of policy, to criticize this move as the worst of dog-whistle politics.‎”

(Interim Leader Rona Ambrose has since joined Chong in questioning Leitch’s proposal, noting there are already criminal background checks for potential immigrants.)

Does someone wearing a niqab make us vulnerable?

The suggestion of a threat also suggests a vulnerability.

In this way, screening for anti-Canadian values seems similar to the previous government’s fretting about some women wearing the niqab during the citizenship oath.

We might not like what we imagine the niqab to represent, just as we might not like the idea of anyone with even a single misogynistic, bigoted or homophobic thought making a home in this country.

But we might believe that we are collectively strong enough to welcome a vast array of beliefs and practices without losing ourselves. That we are not so fragile or weak.

That, in contradiction to the implication found in Donald Trump’s proposal, our best and noblest ideas will prevail and win out. And that our values might indeed spread, as newcomers arrive and settle here.

If some of us are worried, we might try to understand why. But we might decide that a proper Canadian value is to not be fearful.

Source: How do you screen beliefs? The troublesome task of testing for ‘anti-Canadian values’ – Politics – CBC News

Immigrant-screening proposal about promoting tolerance, Leith says [with a straight face]

Telling:

But the harshest words for Ms. Leitch have come from Mr. Harper’s former policy director Rachel Curran – now a senior associate at the former prime minister’s new international consulting firm, Harper & Associates.

Ms. Curran called Ms. Leitch’s proposal “really dangerous politics” and accused her of specifically targeting Muslim immigrants.

“We have never had the government actually test people on what their thoughts and beliefs and their values are in Canada, and I don’t think we should go down that path,” Ms. Curran said.

“It’s a pretty dangerous path. It’s actually a pretty Orwellian path.”

Ms. Curran called the barbaric cultural practices tip line an “ill advised policy” that was poorly communicated at the time, but defended it as a last-minute request from a specific ethnic community that she declined to identify. She said she hasn’t spoken about the issue with her former boss, but doesn’t feel he would support Ms. Leitch’s proposal.

“Much of our party’s support came from new immigrants who believed in what the party was doing, and believed in what prime minister Harper was doing. And there is simply no way that he ever would have pursued or proposed a policy that was frankly fundamentally anti-immigrant,” she said.

“I think it does the party a tremendous amount of harm, and if nothing else it divides the party, which is also a bad thing.”

Ms. Leitch denies her proposal targets Muslims in any way.

“I understand the compulsion to paint a discussion about values in this way. But I actually don’t think it’s fair, and I don’t think it’s right,” she said.

Ms. Leitch also brought up two instances where her party sought to block the entry into Canada of those who she said contravene Canadian values of gender equality and women’s rights: so-called “pick-up artist” Julien Blanc in 2014, and in February, Daryush Valizadeh, also known as “Roosh V,” an American blogger who says rape should be legalized on private property.

Source: Immigrant-screening proposal about promoting tolerance, Leitch says – The Globe and Mail

Why the ‘barbaric cultural practices’ debate won’t go away: Delacourt

One of the better commentaries on Kellie Leith’s “barbaric cultural practices” repeat performance:

The good news for Kellie Leitch — and she might need some right now — is that many Canadians believe this country needs young, female political leaders.

The bad news is that most Conservatives — the people who make up the party Leitch wants to lead — do not share that view.

These findings come from new research by Abacus Data. By sheer happenstance, Abacus and the Leitch leadership campaign were out in the field in late August, doing some survey work that touched on Canadian values. The two surveys dovetail in some fascinating ways.

The Leitch survey asked, controversially, whether respondents would support screening immigrants for “anti-Canadian values.” This was quite the surprise coming from the MP for Simcoe-Grey, once the federal labour minister, who only months ago was apologetically backtracking for her role in the infamous “barbaric cultural practices” tip line proposal of the 2015 election campaign.

Now, we seem to be back in the middle of a debate we thought had been settled in the last election. Maybe it wasn’t.

The Abacus survey sounded people out on the traits and values they’re seeking in political leaders. Leitch and her supporters no doubt will be heartened to hear that 54 per cent of respondents to the Abacus poll said they would prefer a woman leader. Moreover, a whopping 65 per cent — nearly two-thirds — said they would rather have someone under 50 years of age. Leitch, 46, comfortably meets both criteria.

The problem for Leitch, however, is that her own fellow Conservatives aren’t as enthusiastic about young female leaders. Almost 60 per cent of Conservative respondents to the Abacus poll said that if they had their choice between someone over 50 and someone under 50 to lead a political party, they’d select the older candidate. Only 13 per cent said they would prefer a younger, female leader.

Those results are even more striking when compared to the views of Liberal and NDP supporters who participated in the Abacus poll. Nearly 70 per cent of Liberals and 77 per cent of NDP supporters said they’d opt for a woman leader given a choice between a man and a woman of equal qualifications.

The obvious conclusion, then, is that Leitch is running for the wrong party. Then again, she might have trouble selling Liberal or NDP voters on the idea of screening immigrants for potential anti-Canadian values.

Even some folks in her own party (her leadership rivals, anyway) are balking. Michael Chong called it “dog-whistle politics.” Maxime Bernier, taking a more practical approach, called it an “unworkable” idea.

open quote 761b1bClearly, Leitch’s campaign believes this issue taps into a rich vein of support, at least in Conservative circles. Which could explain why Bernier called the idea ‘unworkable’ rather than, say, ‘egregious.’

Abacus conducted its poll online in late August, asking 2,010 Canadians of voting age all kinds of questions about their ideal political leaders. When they got around to the subject of leadership qualities, the results turned out to be highly interesting.

The top two traits? “Understanding different parts of the world” and “thinking about what’s right for the next generation.” Respondents also placed a high value on leaders who “think a lot about the future of the world”, are “open-minded about different lifestyles” and “care about the poor.”

Buried in the list, however, is a possible rationale for Leitch’s controversial survey question.

Only 18 per cent of the respondents to the Abacus poll said that a leader must embrace the idea that “immigration is good for Canada.” Understanding different parts of the world is one thing, apparently, while welcoming them here is another matter entirely.

Nick Kouvalis, Leitch’s campaign manager, has said that the survey was based on what the campaign had been hearing out on the road over the summer. Kouvalis, for those who may have forgotten, has not been shy in the past about courting controversy with provocative survey questions. His firm, Campaign Research, was scolded by the Commons Speaker several years ago for polling Montreal residents about Irwin Cotler’s allegedly imminent resignation. (Cotler, then the MP for Mount Royal, protested in the Commons that the survey breached his parliamentary privileges, though he did eventually step down before the last election.)

Kouvalis, let’s also remember, was one of the early backers and staffers for former Toronto mayor Rob Ford (he was also one of the first to walk away when things started to go crazy in Fordland). Kouvalis was on John Tory’s team in the last mayoralty election in Toronto and helped B.C. Premier Christy Clark pull off an unexpected victory in 2013.

On Twitter, Kouvalis has been predicting that all the leadership candidates eventually will perform some “world-class gymnastics” to embrace Leitch’s views on screening immigrants for anti-Canadian values. Clearly, her campaign manager believes this issue taps into a rich vein of support, at least in Conservative circles. Which could explain why Bernier called the idea “unworkable” rather than, say, “egregious.”

Among the other admirable leadership qualities cited by respondents to that Abacus poll were the ability to “ask for help when you need it,” to “seek advice from smart people everywhere” and to “apologize when you make a mistake.”

One can’t help but notice that Leitch hasn’t apologized for this survey question — perhaps on the advice she needed from people she considers smart.

“Oftentimes, debating and discussing these complex policies requires tough conversations — conversations that go well beyond media sound bites and simplified labels,” Leitch wrote in an emailed statement after the controversy.

“I am committed to having these conversations, to debating theses issues, and I invite Canadians to give their feedback.”

So, like it or not, immigration may become a hot-button issue in the Conservative leadership race. Consider this an early warning — especially for those complacent Canadians who say that Donald Trump’s rhetoric on immigration couldn’t possibly work here.

The people in Leitch’s Conservative party may not be the biggest fans of female leaders under 50, but this particular candidate could be giving them the campaign’s sleeper issue. In other words, the debate about “barbaric cultural practices” didn’t die in 2015; it’s simply been slumbering, waiting for an opening.

Source: Why the ‘barbaric cultural practices’ debate won’t go away

ICYMI: CAQ wants to let fewer immigrants into Quebec

It is always amazing – but not necessarily surprising – that politicians pick numbers out of a hat without any real justification (apart from it being a nice round number (20 percent or 10,000).

But  we are likely to see a similar approach with the Liberal government’s strong indications of a substantial increase in immigration.

Not every criticism of increased immigration fans “the flames of intolerance,” it depends on the words used and the concerns raised:

The Coalition Avenir Québec wants to decrease the number of immigrants allowed into Quebec.

The right-leaning party says it would reduce the province’s immigration threshold by 20 per cent, from 50,000 to 40,000 people per year.

Leader François Legault announced his party’s newest idea in Saint-Jérôme Tuesday, the last day of caucus meetings ahead of the fall parliamentary session.

He said thousands of immigrants haven’t mastered French and haven’t entered the job market.

“We have to open our eyes. We have a real problem,” he said.

When asked whether current immigration policies threaten Quebec identity, Legault said that he can “objectively” see that certain people who live in the province “don’t adhere to a fundamental value, equality between men and women.”

However, Legault said he still believes the majority of Quebecers believe in that equality.

“But we have to be careful, we have to ask questions, like the ones they’re asking in Europe,” he said.

In April, Immigration Minister Kathleen Weil said the provincial government is planning to keep the threshold at 50,000 people for 2017.

In an interview with Radio-Canada, immigration lawyer Stéphane Handfield questioned the reason for a 20 per cent decrease.

“Why not 45,000, why not 30,000, why not 35,000?” he said.

During the announcement, Legault repeatedly mentioned the need to protect the French language.

Quebec has a special agreement with the Canadian government when it comes to immigration — skilled workers must obtain what is called a selection certificate from the Quebec government before applying for permanent residency.

Handfield said while he is all for protecting the French language, he pointed out skilled workers who want to immigrate to Quebec must demonstrate they can speak French in order to obtain that certificate.

Quebec’s Trump?

Both Premier Philippe Couillard and Québec Solidaire MNA Françoise David have recently compared Legault to U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump.

In March, Couillard accused Legault of “fanning the flames of intolerance” when Legault questioned a possible increase in the province’s immigration threshold.

Source: CAQ wants to let fewer immigrants into Quebec – Montreal – CBC News

Les immigrantes victimes de violence conjugale sont mal protégées par l’État, selon les maisons d’hébergement

One of the harder issues to address given the difficulties for many immigrant women to report abuse or leave their spouse, and the resulting risk of deportation:

Souvent brimées par leur conjoint les parrainant et menacées de déportation, les immigrantes victimes de violence conjugale sont mal protégées par l’État québécois, déplore la Fédération des maisons d’hébergement pour femmes (FMHF).

Lors de la commission parlementaire qui porte sur la planification de l’immigration au Québec pour la période 2017-2019, la directrice de la fédération, Manon Monastesse, et sa coordonnatrice Marie-Hélène Senay ont décrit la situation d’immigrantes qui ne connaissent ni le français ni l’anglais et qui se réfugient dans une maison d’hébergement pour échapper à un conjoint violent ou encore à leur proxénète. Ces femmes risquent la déportation si elles quittent avant une période de deux ans leur conjoint les parrainant. Les immigrantes qui sont dans une situation jugée irrégulière par Immigration Canada — le visa que leur a procuré leur conjoint étant expiré, par exemple — risquent d’être dénoncées par ce dernier.

En novembre dernier, la FMHF a produit une étude financée par le ministère de l’Immigration, de la Diversité et de l’Inclusion (MIDI) sur l’adaptation de l’intervention et des services fournis aux immigrantes par les maisons d’hébergement. « Certains statuts d’immigration ou, pire, l’absence de titre de séjour confinent les femmes dans des situations de grande vulnérabilité. C’est le cas des femmes parrainéesqui sontdès lors, complètement dépendantes du conjoint. […] Cette situation laisse libre cours au contrôle du conjoint violent, qui détient l’ultime menace de la dénonciation menant à la déportation si la femme ne se conforme pas à ses exigences », peut-on lire dans le rapport de 86 pages.

Manon Monastesse a cité entre autres le cas de cette immigrante déportée qui a dû laisser derrière elle son enfant, qu’elle allaitait encore et que la Cour a confié au conjoint québécois qui l’avait dénoncée. « Les cas qu’on vous présente, ce ne sont pas des cas anecdotiques. C’est le quotidien qu’on voit », a-t-elle dit aux parlementaires.

Pas d’engagement de la ministre Weil

Elle a plaidé pour que l’État mette en place un mécanisme de suivi des immigrantes parrainées et de leur conjoint. « C’est inacceptable, ici au Québec, que des femmes soient enfermées pendant des années sans aucun contact avec la société », a-t-elle dénoncé. Dans certains cas, le parrain — un bon citoyen québécois — prend à sa charge plus d’une immigrante. « On voit de plus en plus d’hommes québécois se chercher des femmes soumises, a-t-elle révélé. Nous, on les voit : la numéro un, la numéro deux, la numéro trois. On s’aperçoit que c’est le même conjoint. »

La directrice du FMHF a aussi proposé que l’État suspende les procédures d’expulsion des immigrantes victimes de violence. « Il n’y a pas de mécanisme pour les protéger pendant qu’elles s’affranchissent d’un contexte de violence », a-t-elle fait observer.

Source: Les immigrantes victimes de violence conjugale sont mal protégées par l’État, selon les maisons d’hébergement | Le Devoir

Can immigrants be told where they must live in Canada?

Interesting arguments by Michael Barutciski. While location incentives are one thing, not sure that creating a new type of temporary foreign worker with a location condition is feasible from an operational perspective.

Curious to see what kind of response this generates from other commentators:

Can the government legally require some immigrants to settle in small towns and rural areas?

We do not have the answer for the simple reason that our courts have not been asked to deal with this question and how it is affected by the relevant Charter subsection. If it is determined that such a limitation is indeed a violation of mobility rights, then it would have to pass what is known as the Oakes test.

The federal government would have to show there is a pressing and substantial objective in settling some immigrants in small towns and rural areas. Mr. McCallum’s statements so far suggest he is taking an economic perspective that emphasizes business concerns about labour shortages in remote areas. Courts would likely consider this a justifiable purpose.

Similarly, the actual restrictions imposed on these newcomers would have to limit their mobility rights as little as is reasonably possible. Courts would have to be convinced that the benefits of the measure outweigh the seriousness of the infringement.

The fact that the limitation would be temporary (for the duration of the immigrant visa, for example) would help the government’s case. And by structuring the immigrant-selection criteria in a way that grants more points for applicants willing to work in small towns or rural areas, it could also be presented as one option among many available to potential immigrants, who could otherwise apply under the regular economic stream. In other words, the limitation accepted voluntarily by some immigrants would be balanced by the fact that their choice would give them a better chance of obtaining permanent resident status.

Along with clarifying the constitutional question around mobility rights, the policy could play an important role in reinforcing the notion that immigration is not only about the personal well-being and advancement of foreign applicants, but also about the needs of the receiving country.

This latter point is crucial in securing public support for any increase in admissions envisioned by Mr. McCallum. Canadians will naturally be more supportive if they believe new arrivals are helping their huge country with its specific challenges involving underpopulated regions and demographic distribution.

Two of Canada’s main competitors for skilled immigrants, Australia and New Zealand, provide incentives to encourage immigrants to find employment outside large urban centres. If such an approach with bonus points in the selection criteria is not possible in Canada given its constitutional protections, then a new category of temporary workers (who would not be covered by the Charter’s mobility clause) could be created that would include geographic conditions and that would benefit from a more direct pathway to permanent resident status once the conditions were fulfilled.

Canada would be well served if Mr. McCallum were to champion the idea that some control on where immigrants settle is reasonable, in order to secure public support for immigration to this geographically challenging country.

Source: Can immigrants be told where they must live in Canada? – The Globe and Mail

US temporarily freezes EB-1 citizenship visa for China and India as applicants hit the limit – Firstpost

Does appear to be shortsighted and the number of 7 percent maximum per country arbitrary:

A sought-after visa that offers a speedy path to US citizenship is temporarily closed to Chinese and Indian nationals. The US State Department announced it would stop processing EB-1 applications from Indian and Chinese nationals until later in October.

Immigration lawyers explained that the EB-1 visa is available to three categories of candidates: people with extraordinary abilities in arts, science and business; researchers and professors; and multinational business executives and managers.

EB-1 visas are typically limited to 40,135 for this fiscal year, and no more than 7 percent can go to immigrants from any one country. Currently, we have a problem because there are too many Indian and Chinese trying to get their hands on the EB-1, exhausting the limit. The last time this happened was back in 2007.

Representational image. Reuters

Representational image. Reuters

“Why do we continue to artificially limit this program?” asked immigration lawyer David Parker. “It defies logic that we are turning away extraordinary and outstanding artists, scientists and business people from India and China,” he added.

The EB-1 visa typically results in a green card in less than a year — one of the quickest pathways to receive one. And unlike many visas, some kinds of EB-1 visas don’t require applicants to be sponsored by employers. This is a godsend as it gives talented artists and brilliant scientists frustrated with the more traditional path to US citizenship, like the H-1B visa, a speedy alternative.

The H-1B is one of the most heavily used visas by Indian techies and professionals. Demand far exceeds the annual allotment. The H-1B requires workers to be sponsored by an employer and leaves applicants at the whim of lotteries. This year demand for H-1B visas surpassed the entire year’s allocation within five days and the US government ultimately awarded H-1Bs through a computer generated random lottery.

“A lot of people saw the EB-1 as the light at the end of the tunnel,” Shah Peerally, who heads up an immigration law firm in Newark, California, told CNN.

Source: US temporarily freezes EB-1 citizenship visa for China and India as applicants hit the limit – Firstpost