Tasha Kheiriddin: Marc Miller ignores potential threat from Syrian refugees

Does not appear that Kheiriddin has read the government evaluation (Syrian Outcomes Report) that shows, by and large, that Syrian refugees have integrated reasonably well. Certainly, seeing the happy Syrians celebrating the fall of the Assad regime reinforces that assessment.

However, she is right to worry about former supporters and officials from the Assad regime finding their way to Canada, as we have seen with some Iranian refugees who are former members of the Iranian regime:

..And then there’s Canada. On Tuesday, Immigration Minister Marc Miller said that Ottawa will continue to process Syrian refugee claims but will “monitor” the situation. “We don’t face that flow in Canada, I don’t know what rank they (Syrian refugees) occupy in terms of source countries for asylum seekers, but it’s pretty low,” Miller said. Canada has just shy of 1,600 pending refugee claims from Syria as of Sept. 30, while Germany has over 47,000.

The government’s response is predictable — and misguided. Canada took in 45,000 Syrian refugees between 2015 and 2020. The influx was highly politicized: in the 2015 election campaign, the image of Syrian refugee child Aylan Kurdi dead on a Turkish beach broke the internet and the hearts of Canadian voters. The Liberals accused Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper of dragging his feet on additional refugee admissions and promised to bring in 25,000. Following his election, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made a great show of greeting Syrian refugees at airports — and spending a lot of money to support them.

To date, Canada has spent $1 billion on humanitarian support for Syria, on top of the supports we provided government-sponsored refugees in Canada. Private Canadian sponsors also opened their hearts and homes to the newcomers, raising funds to give 18,000 a new life here, which wasn’t easy. Syrians had a tougher time than other communities: many spoke neither English or French and had difficulty finding housing for large families.

In short, we’ve done a lot. But Canada should now follow the lead of our European counterparts and end refugee applications from Syria. It’s not just about people who are already here, but there is concern that supporters of the Assad regime, including “terrorist fighters,” could now seek to escape. And while Syria’s transitional government, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, promises to treat minorities humanely, it could provoke another wave of refugees — at a time where Canada is already bracing for a tsunami of illegal migrants from the U.S., and our government is already preparing to spend a billion dollars to secure our borders.

Canada is a humanitarian country, but we must ask ourselves hard questions — and make some hard decisions — about our refugee policy. We must ensure that we act humanely, but also respect the interests of our own citizens, and our ability to provide social services for both newcomers and citizens alike. And we also need to avoid politicizing the issue, as this government has done in the past — and as Canada cannot afford to do in the future.

Source: Tasha Kheiriddin: Marc Miller ignores potential threat from Syrian refugees

Globe editorial – On the Brink: Ottawa has to change its old thinking about a new border

More from the Globe:

…The Trudeau government lost control of Canada’s immigration system, and yet it appears to have never occurred to it that this would be an issue for the only country with which it shares a land border.

Fixing that begins with the federal government taking control of its refugee claims crisis (more on that in our next editorial in this series), restoring the primacy of points-based immigration, and working with the U.S. to ensure neither country is a backdoor into the other.

It also calls for Ottawa to streamline the way the RCMP and the CBSA patrol the border, and to provide the manpower, drones, helicopters, sensors and other equipment needed to defend 9,000 kilometres of boundary area against human traffickers, drug and gun smugglers, and other threats.

Ottawa should do this not to appease Mr. Trump, but in the interests of Canada. If our border with the U.S. is to be a symbol of anything, it should be that of a pragmatic country that welcomes immigration but is also unsentimental about its security and defence.

Source: On the Brink: Ottawa has to change its old thinking about a new border

Bulgutch | Canada’s international student crisis was predicted — and ignored

Indeed:

…All of this is bad news. But what I find remarkable about the frenzy to deal with the apocalypse is that it was all foreseeable. In fact, it was foreseen. And no one did anything about it.

An advocacy group called One Voice used the Freedom of Information Act to unearth, “internal government documents,” warning that, “international student tuition has been increasingly supporting the financial sustainability of post-secondary education institutions.”

But who needed some internal secret document to figure that out? The 2022 report of Ontario’s auditor-general, which is freely available, was released with the usual fanfare, and was covered extensively in the media, said this: “Relying heavily on international student fees makes universities more susceptible to steep and sudden drops in revenue that could result when global circumstances and federal immigration policies change, and international student intake declines.”

It could not have been said more clearly.

In the movies, when some scientist discovers that an asteroid is going to collide with our planet and destroy us all, the powers-that-be spring into action, and figure out how to prevent disaster.

In real life, either no one read the auditor-general’s report, or everyone concluded it was best to keep taking in all that foreign money today and worry about tomorrow only after the asteroid hits.

We could blame the universities and colleges, but it’s hard to do that. They were hungry for foreign tuition money because the Ontario government doesn’t support them nearly enough.

Last year, a panel of experts appointed by the government itself noted that provinces outside Ontario provide universities an average of $20,772 per full-time student. Ontario coughs up $11,471. To catch up — that is to be just average — would require spending another $7 billion a year. Ontario has responded by promising $1.3 billion over three years. 

The Colleges and Universities minister called that an “historic investment.” She also told the schools they were stuck with a tuition freeze first imposed in 2019 for at least three more years.

Most people would be hard pressed to come up with the name of the auditor general of Ontario. People who dig into the government’s books are not superheroes. They’re just public servants in a relatively small department (total budget — $26,194,700) who report on whether taxpayers are getting value for their money.

That 2022 auditor general’s report by Bonnie Lysyk concluded that the government of Ontario had, “no clear strategy or long-term vision for the post-secondary sector.”

It appears the auditor general’s report was worthy of an A-plus.

Source: Opinion | Canada’s international student crisis was predicted — and ignored

Globe editorial – On the Brink: Ottawa needs to restore the point of immigration – skilled workers

More editorials on immigration in the Globe:

…It’s time to take the hammer to both the new and old kinks in the system. Ottawa should scrap the special categories and restore the simplicity of the points-based ranking. And the federal government and the provinces together must streamline the inflow of newcomers – both new immigrants and those already here – into all regulated professions.

It’s the right thing to do for the Canadian economy, and for talented newcomers who want to make this country home.

Source: On the Brink: Ottawa needs to restore the point of immigration – skilled workers

And in a previous editorial:

…But there are problems of Ottawa’s own making that threaten to further undermine the immigration system. One is the Liberals’ continued insistence on using immigration to micromanage the labour market. That was the foundation of the government’s error on the immigration file in the postpandemic years: buying into the pitch from business lobbies that huge numbers of temporary migrants were needed to close a massive labour shortage.

That same interventionist mindset is still at work, corroding the points-based system for permanent residents. Rather than simply aim to bring in the highest-skilled migrants, the Liberals have whittled down the points system to instead grant permanent residency to less qualified candidates who can fill perceived skills gaps. And then there is the bigger threat to the points system of using it as a vehicle to allow large numbers of international students to remain in Canada, even though they would not have otherwise qualified.

The federal Liberals’ mistakes on immigration have pushed Canada’s once-enviable system to the brink. And their failure to learn from their mistakes threatens to push it even further.

Source: On the Brink: Canada’s pillars of immigration are crumbling


Courts warn of ‘critical’ budget pressures as immigration cases delayed in Canada’s 3 largest cities

Yet another example where high levels of immigration have contributed to pressures on government services, in this cases, the courts. IRCC has about 80 percent of cases against the federal government:

Federal Justice Minister Arif Virani is set to meet with the chief justices of Canada’s four federal courts on Friday, after they warned of a budgetary shortfall creating “critical” pressure on their operations, including efforts to clear a backlog of immigration filings in three major cities.

The Federal Court alone is estimating that it’s on track for an almost 50 per cent increase in the filings this year.

The four courts also said they have an estimated $35 million annual gap in funding impacting court operations. The National Post first reported about the budgetary issues faced by the courts on Thursday.

“At a minimum, cases will take longer to be heard, and modernization efforts will be slowed down or stopped, to the detriment of litigants and access to justice,” the Courts Administration Service (CAS) said in a statement to CBC News. The arm’s-length federal body serves the Federal Court and Canada’s three other federal courts, the Federal Court of Appeal, the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada and the Tax Court of Canada.

“Immigration cases are already being delayed and are not being heard within the statutory time limit,” the CAS said.

It noted that the Federal Court expects to reach 24,000 immigration and refugee case filings this year, an increase of 44 per cent over 2023, and quadruple the average number of filings it had in the pre-COVID days….

Source: Courts warn of ‘critical’ budget pressures as immigration cases delayed in Canada’s 3 largest cities

I gave up a comfortable life to come to Canada – and my immigrant story is more common than you may think

I often think it is hardest for those like Syed who were professionals living in Gulf countries or equivalent and whose experience and knowledge is under recognized along with their position in society, and thus the contrast with expectations and reality are greatest (hopefully, some potential employers will reach out to him):

…After all those struggles over five-plus years, I realized a proper job would be almost impossible to get. I used my remaining savings to buy a few properties to ensure a small but regular rental income – smaller, in fact, than my expenses. But these were my only sources of income, until recently.

And then there are the unique challenges of coming to Canada as a Muslim. I eat only halal foods, for instance, and it is still difficult for me to decipher what is religiously permitted for Muslims and what is not; fortunately, my children are better at figuring this out. The rise of right-wing populism in Canada has also worried me ever since the deadly 2017 shooting at the Islamic Cultural Centre of Quebec City. I can vividly recall my apprehension in the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan, four months after six worshippers were killed, as I offered my traveeh prayer at my mosque after breaking the day’s fast. I found myself fearing that anyone could start spraying bullets, and that I could easily be one of the victims. The 2021 murder of four members of the Afzaal family in London, Ont., only helped consolidate my feeling that being a minority in Canada could threaten my life.

This is not just my story; I know that other immigrants have experienced similar things. I have seen people go into a shell during these difficult resettlement years. It is never easy to get out of that psychological trauma; it could take even more years. And yet, despite our contributions to society – from bringing our savings to Canada to increasing the labour force and ultimately becoming a taxpayer – some still view us as burdens on society. That hurts!

Being burdens – that is not our story. And I refuse to let that define me.

Source: I gave up a comfortable life to come to Canada – and my immigrant story is more common than you may think

Report: Disparate swings in asylum outcomes by US immigration judges

Sean Rehaag has been showing similar discrepancies in Canada. Kahneman argues persuasively that automated systems are the preferred approach to deliver consistent rulings, albeit great care is needed to ensure that no unfortunate biases get coded into the system.

Wide swings in judicial outcomes for immigration asylum cases nationwide since 2019 are noted in a recent report.

Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse reports individual asylum decisions for over 800 immigration judges that finds some have denied asylum in 100% of their cases, while another judge has denied just 1% of cases.

But, on average, more than half of all asylum cases in the United States over the past five years have been denied, a sentiment that has repeatedly been said by at least one South Texas congressman.

The nationwide asylum denial rate from 2019 through 2024 was 57.7%, according to the TRAC report released in November.

“To grant or deny an asylum application is among the most consequential decisions an immigration judge makes. For this reason, understanding how asylum decisions vary across time, across courts, and across judges warrants more attention — particularly in current public policy debates on immigration enforcement policies to reduce the court’s backlog of cases. The lessons that are evident from past decades should not be ignored. For many asylum seekers our current system has not delivered a fast and fair resolution of their cases. Often it has delivered neither,” the TRAC report found.
(TRAC Graphic)
Some of the reasons for wide variations in outcome of asylum cases could be that fewer valid claims came before certain courts. Asylum applicants typically submit their claims to the court nearest their residency. Immigrants from the same country also tend to live in the same communities and their claims and outcomes can be correlated, the report found.

Other significant factors that can influence asylum outcomes includes the availability of skilled immigration attorneys in various communities, as well as court and docket size for number of immigration cases assigned to each judge, according to TRAC.

Two immigration judges in Houston — Monique Harris and Bruce Imbacuan, were cited in the report as having denied 100% of asylum cases in their courts. Harris has adjudicated 108 cases, Imbacuan has heard 105 cases with no cases granted asylum and no cases granted some type of relief, according to TRAC.

Bios on these judges show Harris previously worked as legal counsel for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Her case denials all fell within 2019, according to TRAC. Imbacuan was appointed in 2020 and all of his denial cases occurred in 2020. He previously worked for ICE in Cleveland, Ohio, TRAC reports.

That’s contrary to other judges within the very same court who have denial rates of 70% and 79% but who also have heard many ore cases, 430 and 235, respectively.

In South Texas, the nine immigration judges deciding cases in Harlingen, vary in denial rates from 57.8% to 84.3%. The 11 judges in the Laredo immigration courts vary with denial rates from 24.5% to 90.2%. And the five judges in Los Fresnos, Texas, have had denial rates from 77.5% to 90.6%, the report finds.
In West Texas, the El Paso immigration court judges have issued denial rates ranging from 14.7% to 85.5%.

Judge Lorely Ramirez Fernandez, in El Paso, heard 129 cases since 2019 and has granted asylum to 70.5% of cases and some type of relief to 14.7% of other asylum cases, TRAC says. Her bio lists her as having served as a staff attorney with Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center in El Paso in 2007.
San Francisco immigration Judge Elisa Brasil has denied just 1.3% of cases since 2023, since she has been on the bench, according to TRAC. She previously represented clients before the Executive Office of Immigration Review, which are immigration courts, TRAC found.

“Although denial rates are shaped by each judge’s judicial philosophy, denial rates are also shaped by other factors, such as the types of cases on the judge’s docket, the detained status of immigrant respondents, current immigration policies, and other factors beyond an individual judge’s control,” the report found.

TRAC reports that, to date, there are over 3.7 million immigration cases pending.

Source: Report: Disparate swings in asylum outcomes by US immigration judges



Immigration department received intelligence about huge rise in clandestine U.S.-Canada border crossings last year

Good questions regarding senior official and minister awareness:

Intelligence experts within Canada’s border agency informed the federal immigration department last December about a big rise in illegal crossings of the Canada-U.S. border, including into the States, which raises questions about why action to curb it was not taken earlier.

An intelligence document sent to senior Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada officials, says smugglers were moving people across the border in both directions, with some foreign nationals flying into Canada at major airports and swiftly slipping across the border into the United States.

The Canada Border Services Agency’s intelligence analysis says clandestine entries have led to thousands of refugee claims, mostly in the Greater Toronto Area.

The document says “the Southbound movement into the United States (US) has grown significantly since 2022″ adding that “the majority of individuals who attempt to cross southbound illegally arrive by air, mainly at Montreal Trudeau International Airport and Toronto Pearson International Airport and move quickly.”

It found that “the vast majority were very likely in Canada for less than 6 months of which a large portion were in Canada for less than 3 weeks.”

Ministers have insisted in recent weeks, amid heightened tensions between U.S. president-elect Donald Trump and Ottawa over illegal immigration into the U.S., that Canada’s borders are secure.

But the emergence of the detailed analysis by the CBSA’s Intelligence and Investigations Directorate raises questions about whether ministers were ignorant of the extent of people smuggling into the U.S. from Canada, and in the other direction….

Source: Immigration department received intelligence about huge rise in clandestine U.S.-Canada border crossings last year

Ottawa faces calls to scrap rule allowing migrants crossing border covertly to claim asylum after two weeks

Will see what government does but my guess is that the pressures to do so will be hard to resist:

…Opposition politicians and provincial premiers have raised fears about an influx of migrants to Canada from the U.S. after president-elect Donald Trump threatened to deport about 11 million people living there illegally.

“At a minimum, the 14-day rule should be suspended temporarily until we know what we are dealing with,” said immigration lawyer Richard Kurland, who obtained the border agency’s intelligence document through an access to information request.

Under the Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and the U.S., asylum-seekers must make their claim in the first country in which they arrive. In March last year, the two countries restricted the agreement, ending the ability to claim asylum after crossing at Roxham Road.

Both Canada and the U.S. can terminate the agreement with six months’ notice, and they can also negotiate changes. Immigration lawyer David Matas said “the agreement could be extended by removing the possibility of staying in Canada if one enters Canada illegally and remains hidden for 14 days or more.

“That would be even more effective in discouraging traversal of the U.S. than the present form of the agreement.”

Canada does not return people to the United States if they have been charged with an offence that could subject them to the death penalty.

Warda Shazadi Meighen, a lawyer at Landings LLP, said Canada would have the power to enact additional public-interest exemptions to help people facing persecution if they were returned to the United States.

“One can imagine a scenario where women fleeing gender-based violence, and individuals facing LGBTQ+ persecution, for example, would not get adequate protection under certain administrations in the United States,” she said.

Source: Ottawa faces calls to scrap rule allowing migrants crossing border covertly to claim asylum after two weeks

Su | Trudeau’s government just sent the clearest signal yet that Canada’s doors are closing

Well, the message needed to be sent given the rapid growth of asylum seekers (encouraged by the Liberal government’s previous policies), the concerns of most Canadians and the reality of the Trump administration.

My general take, rather than just raising their legitimate concerns, academics and settlement organizations have to think what kind of advice and advocacy will be most effective in the current environment. I do think that Su’s example of privately sponsored refugees as a cornerstone is appropriate but perhaps a second step would be to suggest a respective cut in the government assisted refugees. Recognizing trade-offs in a context of zero-sums:

The Canadian government’s recent announcement of a $250,000 global ad campaign warning migrants that seeking asylum here is “not easy,” coupled with the suspension of private refugee sponsorships, is sending a chilling message: Canada’s doors are closing and so too are our commitments to humanitarian principles, multiculturalism and our international obligations to uphold the rights of refugees.

But as the federal Liberal government continues its campaign to look tough on immigration in response to internal as well as external pressures from our neighbours to the south, it is prioritizing optics over meaningful, humane solutions. The government has said immigration restrictions are necessary to reduce pressure on housing, infrastructure and social services.  

The ad campaign is part of troubling shift in our immigration policies that isn’t just short-sighted but a betrayal of our values. It underlines our long-standing identity as a welcome place of refuge and opportunity, risking Canada’s transformation into yet another country using human lives as political pawns.

We are borrowing from the failed playbooks of Australia’s Operation Sovereign Borders and U.K.’s “Stop the Boats” campaign. Campaigns widely associated with cruelty, exclusion and human rights abuse. While these programs may have reduced irregular arrivals on paper, they came at enormous human and ethical costs. Canada, once the antithesis of such approaches, risks following a similar path.

Equally concerning is the suspension of new private sponsorship applications for refugees from groups of five and community organizations citing an “oversupply” of applications and a desire not to give people fleeing war zones false hope.

Private refugee sponsorship has been a cornerstone of Canada’s refugee program and our model has been praised globally for its success. In 2015, the Canadian government proudly said, “Canada can and will do more to help Syrian refugees who are desperately seeking safety, by offering them a new home.”

By 2018, Canada accepted close to 52,000 Syrian refugees, about half of whom were privately sponsored. Since 2013, more refugees have arrived in Canada through private sponsorship than through government support and in 2019, two-thirds of refugees entered through private or community sponsorship.

Not only is the program successful and low-cost for the government, it also enables communities to welcome and integrate newcomers, embodying the very values of generosity and solidarity that underpin Canada’s self-image. Limiting this program feels like a betrayal of our history, one that risks leaving countless vulnerable individuals in limbo.

These policies reflect a dangerous pivot in Canada’s immigration philosophy — from one of proactive humanitarianism to reactive gatekeeping. While the government claims these measures address systemic challenges, they risk conflating the inefficiencies of bureaucracy with the actions of migrants themselves.

These policies are also sowing division among immigrant communities. A recent poll found 65 per cent of Canadians surveys believe the Canada government’s current plans will admit too many people. And most immigrants(67 per cent) support stricter international student policies.

However, the flip side of the growing anti-immigrant and anti-refugee sentiments that is not getting as much attention is that this rhetoric increases racism and discrimination for the whole immigrant population, not just newcomers or international students. The same poll found that over a third of immigrants have faced discrimination at work, especially younger BIPOC immigrants.

Hate crimes reported by the police have also doubled from 2019 to 2023, with 44.5 per cent of incidents in 2023 motivated by ethnicity or race. One will never be able to calculate the social costs of a Canada where the fabric of multiculturalism is being picked apart one policy change at a time, but we will be able to feel it.

Rupinder Singh, a Sikh man living in Scarborough, felt it when he had his turban snatched off his head by someone who jumped into a car and sped off. Singh says he is planning to go back home because of this incident because he no longer feels safe in Canada. Singh is part of a growing trend of newcomers leaving Canada.

Statistics Canada data shows that more than 15 per cent of immigrants left Canada within 20 years of landing and advocates are asking for policies on immigrant retention.

So, a $250,000 global ad campaign might not be necessary to keep people away from Canada when word-of-mouth and the high cost of living is already doing the advertising for us. That money could be better spent on developing immigration policies that prioritize dignity over deterrence. If Canada continues down this path, we risk undermining the Canadian values of generosity, multiculturalism and inclusion that has been our foundation for so long.

Source: Opinion | Trudeau’s government just sent the clearest signal yet that Canada’s doors are closing