Immigration Minister Marc Miller says he expects tough conversations with the U.S. on border security

Understatement?

…Mr. Miller said Canada and the U.S. have had “equal challenges with respect to the flow coming from the U.S. into Canada, and have taken measures to secure it and to close some of the ways people get in here in an irregular fashion.”

“That’s going to continue,” he added, saying he would keep on working in the national interest of Canadians, which he believes “is aligned with the current administration and the one that is coming in to replace it.”

“I expect that conversation to continue fully, and I expect there to be some tough conversations,” he added.

In 2017, Haitians streamed into Canada from the U.S. after the first Trump administration ended temporary protected status for Haitians who had fled to the U.S. The policy sparked an influx of Haitians claiming asylum at the “irregular” Roxham Road border crossing into Quebec. After talks with the U.S., Roxham Road was closed in 2023. The Safe Third Country Agreement was renegotiated, barring migrants making it to Canada through irregular crossings, including Roxham Road, from claiming asylum.

With an estimated 11 million undocumented residents in the U.S. facing removal, Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet has predicted that the “saga of Roxham Road” could begin again.

Mr. Miller said the agreement has allowed Canada to have a managed flow of migrants that is important to Canada’s economic relationship with the U.S.

“Are there changes to be made at any particular point in time when we see behaviours changing, when we see our security agencies advising us to adopt a different posture? I think absolutely,” he said. “Those are conversations that won’t be had in public.”…

Source: Immigration Minister Marc Miller says he expects tough conversations with the U.S. on border security

Urback: In preparation for Trump 2.0, Ottawa must broadcast that our border is closed, Kheiriddin: In the age of Trump, Canada must stem the refugee tide

Two commentaries with similar suggestions:

…So what can Canada do? Start sucking up to Mr. Trump to try to protect the revised STCA? Hire more officers, more border control agents, more immigration staff? Build a wall, and make Mexico pay for it? Two of three are probably prudent actions. But there is something else Canada can do in the interim that is much more simple: start broadcasting, now, that asylum-seekers from the U.S. will be denied entry to Canada.

In 2017, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau rather infamously published a welcome to migrants of the world, tweeting, “To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength #WelcomeToCanada.” To now broadcast the opposite – through tweets, diplomatic missions, perhaps even advertisements – would be entirely off-brand for a government whose belief in its own sanctimony is probably powerful enough to run cars, but extraordinarily necessary considering the circumstances. Asylum-seekers risk their lives with human smugglers, treacherous conditions, and a dearth of resources and services when and if they do make it to Canada. It wouldn’t be fair to them, nor is it fair to those already in the country, for the government to leave the misconception that Canada can accommodate unchecked.

Source: In preparation for Trump 2.0, Ottawa must broadcast that our border is closed

…To discourage people from coming, the government must remove the 14-day exemption and require all refugee applications to be made solely from outside of Canada. It must also allocate more resources to speed up claim processing times.

Critics will say that this will drive migrants underground, like in the U.S., where they cross the border illegally and never seek status for fear of being deported. This is a risk notably in Canada’s seven designated “sanctuary cities,” where illegal migrants can receive services and benefits without having to disclose their status: Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal, Ajax, Edmonton, Hamilton and London. Since cities are legally creatures of the province, Ottawa needs to cooperate with provincial government to find a legal means of revoking or outlawing the designation.

Unfortunately, we may not get a lot of cooperation from our neighbours. American cities have already encouraged migrants to leave, including to Canada. All the more reason to send a tough signal now that we won’t let this happen, before Trump takes office — and before the migration tsunami hits.

Source: Tasha Kheiriddin: In the age of Trump, Canada must stem the refugee tide

Immigration minister says ‘not everyone is welcome’ in response to concerns about Trump deportation plan

Needed message from the minister and lawyers identifying a possible loophole:

…On Monday, several immigration lawyers urged Ottawa to change a policy that allows migrants fleeing from the U.S. to claim asylum here if they cross the border illegally and evade the authorities for two weeks.

In 2017, Haitians streamed into Canada from the U.S. after the first Trump administration ended temporary protected status for Haitians who had fled to the U.S. The policy sparked an influx of Haitians claiming asylum at the “irregular” Roxham Road border crossing into Quebec.

After talks with the U.S., the Safe Third Country Agreement was revised and Roxham Road was closed in 2023. The changes tightened the rules, but allowed someone entering Canada illegally from the U.S. and remaining undiscovered for 14 days to file a refugee claim in Canada. Those arriving from the U.S. at airports and regular border crossings are usually turned back.

The lawyers cautioned that unless Ottawa changes the policy quickly, record numbers of people facing deportation by Mr. Trump would try to make it to Canada, where they could qualify for a work permit and health care while waiting for their claim to be processed.

Winnipeg refugee and immigration lawyer David Matas urged the government to speak to the Biden administration now, before Mr. Trump takes office in January, about changing the agreement. He said the 14-day provision is “an incentive to traffickers to get round the system.”…

Source: Immigration minister says ‘not everyone is welcome’ in response to concerns about Trump deportation plan

Esses: Canada’s immigration strategy: How reduced targets can preserve positive attitudes

More wishful thinking than based on evidence and public opinion research. Striking her focus on Permanent Residents only, with no mention of temporary residents, which have grown the most. Perhaps she is trying to provide a case for pro-immigration academics and the like that there is a silver lining in the cuts. But control or management needs to be demonstrated in implementation, which Miller has started to do:

….In announcing the new targets for immigration levels, Immigration Minister Marc Miller said “Canadians want the federal government to better manage the immigration system.” By managing immigration, Miller suggests that the integrity of the immigration system will be preserved. 

These statements, paired with reduced immigration targets, may help restore Canadians’ sense of control over immigration. This, in turn, could prevent the potential cycle of perceived lack of control, negative attitudes toward immigrants and poor immigrant integration.

We recommend that public leaders continue to show that Canadians have control over immigration. At the same time, it is important for them to highlight the benefits of immigration for Canada. They should also express favourable views of all classes of immigrants, whether they are coming to work, join family in Canada or come as refugees. 

Expressing these views can help restore Canadians’ positive attitudes, as seen during the Syrian refugee crisis. In 2015, newly elected Prime Minister Justin Trudeau shared positive messages about Syrian refugees. This messaging, amplified by the media, made Canadians more open to the arrival of Syrian refugees. It also promoted more positive attitudes toward refugees in general

Reducing immigration levels could reinforce the blame placed on immigrants for current societal problems. However, it also provides an opportunity to promote more positive views. Political leaders can shift the focus away from negative views by emphasizing Canada’s control over immigration and the importance of immigrants to the country’s future. Business leaders are already proclaiming this importance and can contribute to the promotion of positive attitudes toward immigrants and immigration. 

By emphasizing both control and the benefits of immigration, leaders can preserve positive attitudes toward immigrants. They can also maintain support for the immigration system, ensuring it continues to meet Canada’s evolving needs. This approach can help build a welcoming society that values and recognizes immigrants as essential to Canada’s future.

Source: Canada’s immigration strategy: How reduced targets can preserve positive attitudes

Trump is stacking his White House with immigration hawks

Will be a bumpy ride and the direction is clear. As the economic and human toll becomes clearer, there may be some pushback:

President-elect Donald Trump is set to install immigration hawks for two major White House roles, key positions that don’t require Senate confirmation and will enable them to enact his sweeping immigration agenda across the federal government.

Tom Homan, his pick for “border czar,” and Stephen Miller, his deputy White House chief of staff for policy, won’t formally helm any arms of government, but they are likely to carry enormous sway with cabinet secretaries and agency directors. They are expected to be viewed as the president’s direct emissaries, empowered to push for specific actions and track progress implementing Trump’s agenda.

But beyond DHS, they will likely take interest in the Department of Health and Human Services — which plays a role in handling refugee resettlement and unaccompanied migrant children — and the Labor Department, which issues key certifications for certain employment-based visa programs.

The State Department, which issues visas, will also be a focus, as will the Justice Department, which runs the immigration courts.

The expected installation of Homan and Miller signals Trump intends to deliver on his promise of mass deportations. The Trump transition didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Homan formerly headed the DHS division responsible for arresting, detaining and deporting undocumented immigrants. He spent much of his career working on immigration enforcement, holding leadership roles at Immigration and Customs Enforcement during both the Obama and Trump administrations.

And Miller has spent more than a decade in Washington working to reduce legal immigration to the United States and increase deportations. He was one of the earliest supporters of Trump’s 2016 presidential bid and has remained closely allied with the president through the tumultuous years since.

“Trump is clearly being far more deliberate about how he’s making his appointments and spending his time working with people he knows and trusts,” said Daniel Stein, the president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which advocates for increased restrictions on immigration.

Source: Trump is stacking his White House with immigration hawks

Su: Institutions, not international students, are to blame for rising asylum claims

A really good analysis of the data, highlighting the bad actors among public and private institutions. Of course, the main responsibility lies with federal and provincial governments for allowing this situation to develop; the institutions were just responding to the conditions (and incentives) set:

…Among educational institutions, we know who the bad actors are. See table 1.

Of the 650 designated learning institutes, 301 did not have a single study permit holder apply for asylum, IRCC data shows.

On the other hand, 80 institutions had more than 100 asylum claims each, which account for 77 per cent of total asylum applications. Within that, there are 16 institutions with more than 500 asylum claims each and four institutions with more than 1,000 claims each.

https://e.infogram.com/4d844113-a432-4f28-87dc-38d8f9bf2b92?parent_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpolicyoptions.irpp.org%2Fmagazines%2Fnovember-2024%2Finstitutions-students-asylum%2F&src=embed#async_embed

The absolute number of asylum claims is high and the increase over the last seven years is steep, especially after 2022, when pandemic border restrictions were lifted. But the percentage of international students who applied for asylum is low.

https://e.infogram.com/c3343ba8-0a7d-4cde-98fb-2e0e9e6aa167?parent_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpolicyoptions.irpp.org%2Fmagazines%2Fnovember-2024%2Finstitutions-students-asylum%2F&src=embed#async_embed

However, there were 37 institutions where 10 per cent or more of study-permit holders applied for asylum. Here are the 11 where the percentage was higher than 30 per cent:

https://e.infogram.com/6e093816-71ac-490d-94a4-9edf5c9a3d71?parent_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpolicyoptions.irpp.org%2Fmagazines%2Fnovember-2024%2Finstitutions-students-asylum%2F&src=embed#async_embed

The high percentage of international students applying for asylum from these institutions could point to someone at the institution, or the institution itself, suggesting or assisting students with their applications.

Or the institution could be advertising to potential study-permit holders that applying for asylum once they arrive is a viable pathway to staying in Canada amid the changing policy environment.

Specifically, I found a handful of colleges where 100 per cent of their international students have claimed asylum in recent years.

In 2020, the Institute of Technology Development of Canada (ITD) had 10 study permits approved and 10 asylum claims made. In 2023, the Canadian Technology College had 10 study permits approved and 10 asylum claims made, while DEA Canadian College had five study permits approved and five asylum claims made.

More concerning is that while some institutions do not have a 100-per-cent asylum application rate among their study permit holders, their absolute numbers are high.

In 2024, CIMT College had 330 study permits approved and 280 asylum claims – an 85-per-cent rate.

The numbers are similar at the Canadian Career Education College, which had 265 study permits approved and 200 asylum claims made – a 75-per-cent rate. While it is unclear from the data what year the study-permit holders who applied for asylum got their study permits, the trend is worth examining…

Source: Institutions, not international students, are to blame for rising asylum claims

Statelessness in Canada Webinar: My Analysis of Self-Reported and Operational Data

The Lanark & Renfrew LIP organized a webinar, Statelessness: A Global, a Canadian, and a Human Perspective, featuring Deny Dobobrov: Director of International Relations, World Roma Federation, Jamie Chai Yun Lew: Author, Professor, and Lawyer, University of Ottawa and myself.

My presentation is below:

Keller: What will be the economic consequences of Donald Trump?

Good series of questions:

..The challenge for Canada is that if the Trump administration decides on an aggressive policy of alien removal, or if non-citizens in the U.S. fear that such a policy is coming, many of them may choose to simply walk across the border into Canada. It could be a repeat of Roxham Road, on a potentially far larger scale.

Since 2023, Canada has an expanded Safe Third Country Agreement with the U.S., under which a foreigner in the U.S. who comes to Canada to make an asylum claim is supposed to be quickly returned to the U.S. But if hundreds of thousands of people that the Trump administration wants to deport decide to self-deport themselves to Canada, will the Trump administration follow the letter of the agreement and take them back?

The MAGA movement gets a lot of mileage out of “owning the Libs,” and Mr. Trump could make great sport out this situation. He could say that, while the Biden administration was marked by scenes of migrants flooding across the southern border on the nightly news, the Trump administration is delivering the opposite, namely scenes of illegal immigrants flooding out of the U.S. and across the northern border. Could a border crisis for Canada be played as a deportation triumph for Mr. Trump?

It might be a variation on Republican border-state governors busing migrants to Democratic strongholds such as New York – a move that not only owned the libs but upended U.S. politics, spurring some blue state voters to become more conservative and helping elect Mr. Trump.

Canada’s refugee-claims system is already massively overloaded and backlogged, as is the system for removing failed claimants. Anyone making a refugee claim can expect to live in Canada for many years pending a decision, and possibly many more years, even indefinitely, after that.

To avoid an influx of people from the U.S., Canada is counting on a couple of conditions that may not hold for much longer. First, that if someone comes from the U.S. to make a refugee claim, we can send them back. And second, that there aren’t very many people in the U.S. who would want to bypass the refugee process, sneak into Canada and become an illegal immigrant – even though it’s relatively easy to walk into Canada at thousands of quiet spots from coast to coast.

What does Mr. Trump have in store for us? We are about to find out.

Source: What will be the economic consequences of Donald Trump?

Ministers urged to explain how they will prevent a surge in asylum seekers from U.S. after Trump election

Suggests major increase in funding for the IRB along with some process re-engineering will be needed. Nothing reduces public support more than the perception that immigration is not being well managed as we have seen over the past two years:

Federal ministers came under pressure from MPs Thursday to explain how they plan to prevent an influx of asylum seekers from the United States after the election of Donald Trump, as a senior official at the Immigration and Refugee Board disclosed it now takes almost four years for asylum claims to be processed.

Roula Eatrides, deputy chairperson of IRB’s refugee protection division, told the Commons immigration committee Thursday that it now takes 44 months for a refugee claim to be dealt with after being referred to the board. She said the IRB has a record backlog of about 250,000 cases.

On Wednesday, immigration lawyer Richard Kurland told The Globe and Mail that because asylum claims take so long to process, undocumented migrants facing deportation from the U.S. may try to find a safe haven and “buy time” in Canada, though he said few are likely to have their claims approved.

During his campaign, Mr. Trump promised to conduct the largest deportation in American history of people living there illegally. On Thursday, Mr. Trump said he will move forward with that pledge. “Really, we have no choice,” he told NBC News. There are an estimated 11 million undocumented migrants in the U.S.

The RCMP’s national headquarters confirmed Thursday it has a plan to deal with a predicted influx of migrants, informed by its experience of a surge during the first Trump presidency…

Source: Ministers urged to explain how they will prevent a surge in asylum seekers from U.S. after Trump election

Le Devoir: Éditorial | Tout est dans la manière

More commentary on international students.

Comparable comments apply to the federal government that only slammed on the breaks after ignoring the impacts on housing, healthcare etc., along with “puppy mill” international student populations:

Engagé dans une course folle pour diminuer le nombre d’immigrants temporaires qu’abrite le Québec, le gouvernement de François Legault irrite plus qu’il ne rassure, car son plan de match manque de cohérence. Derniers d’une longue série de protagonistes à avoir été vexés, les universités et les cégeps implorent Québec de ne pas leur imposer un plafond d’étudiants étrangers, car cela viendrait bouleverser tout leur écosystème — de même que leur compte en banque.

Cégeps et universités ont défilé cette semaine devant la Commission des relations avec les citoyens pour se vider le coeur à propos du projet de loi 74. Cette future « Loi visant principalement à améliorer l’encadrement relatif aux étudiants étrangers » viendrait littéralement couper l’herbe sous le pied des établissements d’enseignement supérieur. Autonomes depuis belle lurette pour ce qui concerne le recrutement des étudiants venus de l’étranger, ces établissements se verront dépossédés de ce pouvoir, entièrement remis au gouvernement, qui prendrait « les décisions relatives à la gestion des demandes présentées à titre d’étudiant étranger ». Cette cassure est majeure.

Le ministre de l’Immigration, de la Francisation et de l’Intégration, Jean-François Roberge, espère que cette loi pourra freiner l’augmentation trop importante de ce groupe d’étudiants, qui a crû de 140 % de 2014 à 2023. Québec pourrait ainsi par décret fixer une limite au nombre d’étudiants étrangers admissibles. Il manque encore une donnée cruciale dans le baluchon du ministre : on ne sait pas à quelle cible il pense quand il annonce son intention de fixer un plafond. Sur les 124 000 étudiants internationaux que compte le Québec désormais, la majorité occupe les bancs des universités, puis des cégeps, mais ce nombre comprend aussi des étudiants en formation professionnelle et des élèves du niveau secondaire.

On ne pourra pas reprocher au gouvernement Legault de tenter des efforts pour juguler des entrées qu’il juge désormais excessives. Il n’a pas cessé de pointer l’indolence d’Ottawa dans le dossier migratoire, l’accusant d’être en partie responsable d’un nombre de migrants trop important au Québec en regard de sa population. Il était donc dans l’ordre des choses qu’il s’ausculte lui-même pour amoindrir le problème. Le problème principal réside dans deux pans : d’abord, le brusque changement de cap de Québec, qui le pousse à des actions brutales ; ensuite, le manque de cohérence et de vision transpirant des décisions intempestives.

Les établissements d’enseignement supérieur font totalement les frais de ce virage à 180 degrés. Peut-on vraiment blâmer les universités et les cégeps de s’insurger contre un plafond alors qu’hier encore on les encourageait à faire entrer à pleines vannes ces étudiants étrangers censés revigorer et notre économie et notre tissu social ? Il n’y a pas à aller bien loin pour trouver une magnifique trace d’incohérence. Dans le Plan stratégique 2023-2027 du ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur du Québec, dirigé par la ministre Pascale Déry, on lit bel et bien qu’« attirer davantage d’étudiants internationaux dans les collèges et les universités francophones de la province est une priorité gouvernementale. […] Ce nombre a connu une augmentation de 148 % au cours de la dernière décennie (2010-2011 à 2020-2021), dans un contexte caractérisé par une course planétaire aux talents. […] La rétention des étudiants internationaux, une fois diplômés, est une priorité gouvernementale. Elle constitue une opportunité mutuellement bénéfique à toutes les parties. D’une part, ces étudiants pourront contribuer au développement et à la croissance du Québec, et d’autre part, ils auront la possibilité de s’épanouir personnellement et professionnellement dans une société prospère et équitable ».

Bien sûr, on opposera à cet apparent manque de vision le fait que le contexte a changé et que le Québec n’a plus d’infrastructures et de services suffisamment solides pour bien intégrer un nombre aussi important de migrants. Si, en effet, « les temps changent », cela ne doit pas pour autant rendre plus acceptables des actions draconiennes qui pourraient menacer l’équilibre financier de certains établissements d’enseignement, sans compter la viabilité de quelques programmes d’études, au cégep principalement. Si l’afflux massif d’étudiants étrangers, surtout indiens, venus gonfler les rangs de certains collèges privés non subventionnés pendant la pandémie méritait une mesure comme celle imposée par Québec (couper l’accès au permis de travail postdiplôme), on ne peut pas en dire autant des groupes d’étudiants internationaux devenus une part importante et essentielle des contingents en enseignement supérieur. Ils ont leur raison d’être, et le Québec a tout fait depuis au moins le début des années 2000 pour favoriser ce rayonnement international.

Il y a le fond — une volonté de mieux contrôler les entrées migratoires — et il y a la manière. Il semble qu’avec un projet de loi aussi intrusif dans les affaires universitaires et collégiales, le Québec a négligé la manière en agissant de façon draconienne. Les universités et les cégeps sont en droit de protester.

Source: Éditorial | Tout est dans la manière

Engaged in a crazy race to reduce the number of temporary immigrants in Quebec, François Legault’s government irritates more than it reassures, because its match plan lacks coherence. The last of a long series of protagonists to have been offended, universities and CEGEPs are imploring Quebec not to impose a ceiling on foreign students, because it would upset their entire ecosystem – as well as their bank account.

CEGEPs and universities marched this week before the Citizens’ Relations Commission to empty their hearts about Bill 74. This future “Law aimed mainly at improving the supervision of foreign students” would literally cut the grass under the feet of higher education institutions. Autonomous for a long time with regard to the recruitment of students from abroad, these institutions will be dispossessed of this power, entirely given to the government, which would make “decisions relating to the management of applications submitted as foreign students”. This break is major.

The Minister of Immigration, Francisation and Integration, Jean-François Roberge, hopes that this law will be able to curb the excessive increase in this group of students, which grew by 140% from 2014 to 2023. Quebec could thus by decree set a limit on the number of eligible foreign students. A crucial fact is still missing in the minister’s baluchon: we do not know what target he is thinking of when he announces his intention to set a ceiling. Of the 124,000 international students that Quebec now has, the majority occupy the benches of universities, then CEGEPs, but this number also includes students in vocational training and high school students.

The Legault government cannot be blamed for trying efforts to curb entries that it now considers excessive. He did not stop pointing out Ottawa’s indolence in the migration file, accusing it of being partly responsible for too many migrants in Quebec compared to its population. He was therefore in the order of things that he auscultates himself to reduce the problem. The main problem lies in two sections: first, the abrupt change of course in Quebec City, which pushes it to brutal actions; second, the lack of coherence and vision transpiring from untimely decisions.

Higher education institutions are fully paying the price for this 180-degree turn. Can we really blame universities and CEGEPs for rebelling against a ceiling when only yesterday they were encouraged to bring these foreign students supposed to reinvigorate and our economy and our social fabric into full valves? You don’t have to go far to find a magnificent trace of incoherence. In the 2023-2027 Strategic Plan of the Quebec Ministry of Higher Education, led by Minister Pascale Déry, we read that “attracting more international students to French-speaking colleges and universities in the province is a government priority. […] This number has increased by 148% over the last decade (2010-2011 to 2020-2021), in a context characterized by a global race for talent. […] The retention of international students, once they graduate, is a government priority. It is a mutually beneficial opportunity for all parties. On the one hand, these students will be able to contribute to the development and growth of Quebec, and on the other hand, they will have the opportunity to flourish personally and professionally in a prosperous and equitable society.”

Of course, this apparent lack of vision will be opposed to the fact that the context has changed and that Quebec no longer has sufficiently strong infrastructure and services to properly integrate such a large number of migrants. If, indeed, “times change”, this should not make more acceptable draconian actions that could threaten the financial balance of some educational institutions, not to mention the viability of some study programs, mainly at CEGEP. If the massive influx of foreign students, especially Indians, who came to inflate the ranks of some non-subsidized private colleges during the pandemic deserved a measure like the one imposed by Quebec (cutting off access to the post-graduate work permit), the same cannot be said of the groups of international students who have become an important and essential part of the quotas in higher education. They have their raison d’être, and Quebec has done everything since at least the early 2000s to promote this international influence.

There is the substance — a desire to better control migratory inflows — and there is the way. It seems that with a bill so intrusive in university and collegiate affairs, Quebec has neglected the manner by acting in a draconian way. Universities and CEGEPs have the right to protest.