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.

Lavoie: U.S. election’s greatest fallout: a new immigration challenge for Canada

Bit light on practical advice. But of course our immigration strategy needs to be broader than a numbers game yet not be disconnected from the numbers:

…Democratic institutions governing people with diverse cultures on an equal footing is a relatively new phenomenon. We are living a great experiment, and racial, religious and cultural tensions observed in many countries suggest it will not be an easy ride. The different cultures of immigrants test and challenge our own institutions and culture, making us uncomfortable. But research shows it is possible for very different people to build trust with time. If rich countries like ours fail with this experiment, the future of the global order will be rather bleak.

Ultimately, the solution to slowing the flow of migration and truly helping people is for Canada, the U.S. and other wealthy countries to contribute to the global effort to limit climate change and reduce global inequalities. Research from the recent winners of the Nobel Prize for economics suggests that helping poorer countries develop better institutions is the best way to reduce these inequalities. The disastrous experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan show how bad we are at this. More international research and co-operation are needed.

Unfortunately, the results of Tuesday’s election will not stop the U.S. from moving toward more nationalistic policies. This is a call for Canada to stand up. Our immigration strategy should be broader than just a numbers game.

Source: U.S. election’s greatest fallout: a new immigration challenge for Canada

Dade: Start reading policy papers from U.S. right-wing think tanks, Canada

Sound advice. Explore other bubbles, not just the comfortable ones. Important to understand the ideas and arguments :

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s win in Tuesday’s U.S. election is poised to bring larger economic harm to Canada than anything the country has seen in the modern area of its engagement with the United States.

To defend against the coming challenges, there are two key points for Canada to be able to anticipate, understand and survive a second Trump administration.

The first is that as a second administration, as opposed to the first, Mr. Trump and those who will populate his cabinet will not be surprised to be in power this time – they will be prepared.

The second point, related to the first, is to follow the paper and people. Instead of the tweets issued in a void of serious policy work, this time there is “substance” – for lack of a better term – to help determine which of his tweets and seemingly random announcements aren’t that random.

With this Trump administration, there are MAGA-affiliated think tanks and individuals, many of whom will likely be in the administration, who have been doing the research and policy formation to implement a Make America Great Again agenda, or their particular variant of it….

Source: Start reading policy papers from U.S. right-wing think tanks, Canada

Immigrants Didn’t Steal the Election After All

Yet another myth questioned:

Among the rampant absurdities about immigration that spread from both the obscure and prominent corners of the Internet, the idea that the Biden administration was “importing” voters from abroad to help Kamala Harris win was simultaneously the silliest and the most common. Setting aside the conspiracy theories, the 2024 election provides the best evidence to date that Republicans can compete when immigration is high.

For reasons I can’t appreciate, many Republicans act as if they cannot do well if there are many immigrants in the electorate. Vice President-elect JD Vance saidrecently that immigration would permanently tilt the balance of power in favor of the Democrats. He said this even as his running mate was poised to make historic gains among Hispanic voters, many of whom are immigrants or children of immigrants. Regardless, the historical evidence shows that GOP performance improves with more immigration, so there are no data behind Vance’s fears.

The immigrant share isn’t associated with a stronger performance of either party in presidential elections. But there is a relationship between stronger Republican performance and a larger immigrant share of the US population. The Democrats controlled both houses of Congress for 83 percent of the years from 1935 to 1994 when the immigrant share of the US population was below 10 percent. Since 1995, Democrats have not controlled either house of Congress 53 percent of the time.

Republicans have performed much better during the high immigration periods of US history. Why? Not only do new populations assimilate, but the more Democrats compete and cater to the votes of naturalized citizens, the more US-born voters drift toward Republicans. An additional factor is that the immigrant share has been high when the unionized share of the labor force has been low, possibly because immigrants undermine unionization. 

Unions were historically the base of the Democratic Party until recently. Any benefit from naturalized citizens did not outweigh losses among the unionized population.

Does this mean that Democrats needed to be even more anti-immigrant to win? That was Kamala Harris’s assessment of the situation. But my view is that her (and Biden’s) immigration gambit backfired. Polls show that from 2019 to 2023 the share of voters saying immigration should be decreased grew just 6 points. Even though illegal immigration fell sharply in 2024, the share of Americans saying that immigration should be restricted suddenly jumped 14 points in June 2024.

Here’s what happened: Harris and Biden endorsed a bill to “shut the border” in 2024, which they reiterated as their position repeatedly before finally acting unilaterally to ban asylum in June 2024. It’s no surprise that when the heads of both parties endorse immigration restrictions, more people move toward that position. We have seen similar swings on other issues, like trade, when the head of a party (Trump) suddenly endorses a different view. Rather than neutralizing Trump’s immigration attacks, Harris’s flip validated them.

Source: Immigrants Didn’t Steal the Election After All

Canada preparing for influx of U.S. migrants facing deportation after Trump’s victory, Le retour de Trump pourrait provoquer des vagues d’immigration à la frontière 

Here we go again and we will see whether the revised STCA helps manage the potential flow:

RCMP in Quebec say they have prepared contingency plans in case of an influx of migrants from the United States after Donald Trump’s victory, as Quebec Premier François Legault and Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet raised fears about asylum claimants streaming into the province.

Mr. Legault warned about “turbulence” at the border, saying Wednesday that he expects a stream of asylum seekers from the U.S. and arguing that the capacity of Quebec to integrate new arrivals had already been exceeded.

Mr. Blanchet challenged Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in the Commons about whether Canada was prepared to deal with such an influx. He said there could be millions of people in the U.S. who may want to leave and a significant number could come to Canada.

Mr. Trudeau replied that Ottawa would protect the integrity of Canadian borders….

Source: Canada preparing for influx of U.S. migrants facing deportation after Trump’s victory

Alors qu’un vent de panique se répand dans certaines communautés aux États-Unis, des experts croient qu’il faut se préparer dès maintenant à des vagues d’immigration à la frontière canadienne, à l’instar de la classe politique québécoise. La ruée pourrait être rapide et plus « désordonnée » que celle du chemin Roxham, disent-ils, et les traversées plus « périlleuses », puisque les voies normales sont presque entièrement bouchées.

En campagne, Donald Trump a promis de lancer le plus grand programme d’expulsion d’immigrants de l’histoire au jour 1 de sa présidence en utilisant la Loi sur les ennemis étrangers, un texte législatif écrit pour les périodes de guerre. Plus de 11 millions de personnes vivent sans statut aux États-Unis, et des centaines de milliers d’autres ont un statut temporaire qui expire dans les prochains mois.

« Le gouvernement doit se préparer pour affronter une potentielle crise humanitaire. » Cette exhortation sans détour vient de Fen Hampson, président du Conseil mondial pour les réfugiés et la migration.

Si ces personnes ne se qualifient pas pour demander l’asile à un poste-frontière sur la base des rares exceptions, c’est « à travers bois » et possiblement durant l’hiver qu’elles tenteront leur passage vers le Canada, entrevoit Stephan Reichhold, directeur de la Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes. Les traversées sont déjà « plus périlleuses » depuis la « fermeture » du chemin Roxham, et le risque « va s’intensifier », prévient cet observateur de longue date.

À la frontière, la Gendarmerie royale du Canada (GRC) s’active déjà en prévision d’une augmentation des passages en provenance de chez nos voisins du Sud. Dans un échange avec Le Devoir, le sergent Charles Poirier a confirmé que l’élection de M. Trump risquait d’avoir « une grosse incidence sur le nombre d’entrées irrégulières au Canada ». Un « plan de contingence » qui détermine les ressources supplémentaires à déployer à la frontière a été élaboré.

Craignant des « turbulences » migratoires un an et demi après la fermeture du chemin Roxham, le premier ministre du Québec, François Legault, a toutefois affirmé mercredi qu’il souhaitait s’assurer « que le gouvernement fédéral protège [les] frontières » avec les États-Unis.

Source: Le retour de Trump pourrait provoquer des vagues d’immigration à la frontière

As a wind of panic spreads in some communities in the United States, experts believe that we must prepare now for waves of immigration on the Canadian border, like the Quebec political class. The rush could be fast and more “messy” than that of Roxham Road, they say, and the crossings more “dangerous”, since the normal tracks are almost completely blocked.

During the campaign, Donald Trump promised to launch the largest immigrant expulsion program in history on day 1 of his presidency using the Foreign Enemies Act, a legislative text written for times of war. More than 11 million people live without status in the United States, and hundreds of thousands more have a temporary status that expires in the coming months.

“The government must prepare to face a potential humanitarian crisis. This blunt exhortation comes from Fen Hampson, president of the World Council for Refugees and Migration.

If these people do not qualify to apply for asylum at a border post on the basis of the few exceptions, it is “through the wood” and possibly during the winter that they will try their way to Canada, sees Stephan Reichhold, director of the Consultation Table of Organizations Serving Refugees and Immigrants. Crossings are already “more dangerous” since the “closure” of Roxham Road, and the risk “will intensify”, warns this long-time observer.

At the border, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) is already working in anticipation of an increase in crossings from our southern neighbours. In an exchange with Le Devoir, Sergeant Charles Poirier confirmed that the election of Mr. Trump risked having “a big impact on the number of irregular entries into Canada”. A “contingency plan” that determines the additional resources to be deployed at the border has been developed.

Fearing migratory “turmoil” a year and a half after the closure of Roxham Road, Quebec’s Prime Minister, François Legault, said on Wednesday that he wanted to ensure “that the federal government protects [the] borders” with the United States.