Hansen: How the OPEC oil crisis caused mass migration

Interesting thesis but Hansen overly captured by his narrative as migration has existing for centuries as has elite exploitation of labour:

…By destroying economic growth and reconfiguring the global economy and geopolitics, the OPEC oil crisis set in motion processes that resulted in more than 100 million unexpected, and unwanted, labour migrants. Entire wage-debased sectors – meat processing, agriculture, construction, retail, textiles and garments, and domestic labour – are wholly dependent on badly paid, poorly treated low-skilled migrants. And oil-driven wars – the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Iran-Iraq War, and the two U.S. attacks on Iraq – generated about 15 million refugees. The world is awash in immigrants driven by war, drawn by work and destined to desire our insatiable consumer wants.

There is little evidence that anything will change. The dependence of multiple sectors, of middle-class affluence, and of economies as diverse as those of Germany, Thailand, the United States and Korea on low-skilled migrant labour suggests that, in the absence of a fundamental reform of how low-skilled work is valued and paid, such migration will continue. “Mass immigration,” is not, as economist Sir Paul Collier claims, “a temporary response to an ugly phase in which prosperity has not yet globalized.” Rather, large-scale, low-skilled, badly paid and ill-treated migrants are a structural feature of global capitalism and global politics. They, and the exploitation they suffer, are here to stay.

Source: How the OPEC oil crisis caused mass migration

Prousky: Canada’s housing crisis is fuelling a population crisis

Interesting turning around debates over immigration levels. But yes, levels have to come down given the time it takes to increase housing:

…The global pool from which to attract smart, employable immigrants is slowly shrinking. Africa is now the only region on Earth whose population is expected to grow by the end of the century. Meanwhile, the world’s population is expected to decrease in that time period. So in the coming century, rich nations – all of which have birth rates well below 2.1 – may be competing for the same small pool of working-age migrants.

Beyond immigration, there are a host of pro-natal policies that countries have devised to boost fertility. Governments in Asia have spent hundreds of billions of dollars to stave off looming population crises. Singapore, with one of the lowest fertility rates in the world at just 0.97, offers generous grants and tax rebates to parents with two or more children. But its fertility rate hasn’t budged.

It’s only a matter of time, it seems, before the Canadian government begins throwing big money at the country’s nascent fertility problem. The lesson from abroad is, don’t wait. Increasing the country’s housing supply today could be the best defence against a population crisis down the road.

Source: Canada’s housing crisis is fuelling a population crisis

Key Takeaways From the Republican Convention’s Message on Immigration

Useful summary:

Former President Donald J. Trump and Republicans are in lock step on the issue of immigration, further evidence that he has cemented his grip on the party during his third run for the White House.

At the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee this week, the rhetoric and the party platform match his vision of isolationism and border security, and his suspicion of the people crossing the 2,000-mile line dividing Mexico and the United States, as they have since his first run for president in 2016. But the broadsides have become darker and the language more conspiratorial.

Here are four immigration takeaways from the convention.

In panels and speeches at the convention, falsehoods about noncitizens’ voting have become more pervasive and central to Mr. Trump’s lie that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from him.

Mark Morgan, a former top Trump immigration official, claimed without evidence that Democrats were encouraging illegal immigration for political reasons, in order to bring more people into their party. Kari Lake, a Trump acolyte and Republican nominee for Senate in Arizona, falsely accused her Democratic opponent of voting “to let the millions of people who poured into our country illegally cast a ballot in this upcoming election.”

Senator Ted Cruz of Texas said Democrats “wanted votes from illegals more than they wanted to protect our children.” Senator Rick Scott of Florida recalled a nightmare, he said, in which “Biden and the Democrats flew so many illegals” into the United States that it “was easy for Democrats to rig the elections.”

Voter fraud is extraordinarily rare, and allegations that widespread numbers of undocumented immigrants are unlawfully voting have been consistently discredited. But Mr. Trump’s false claim, which is being used to disenfranchise Americans, has almost universally been adopted by his party.

Kate Steinle. Laken Riley. Rachel Morin. Republican political candidates and leaders are invoking the names of women, many of them young and white, who authorities have said were killed by undocumented immigrants. Their deaths have been used to amplify calls for mass deportations and other hard-line immigration restrictions.

On Tuesday, Mr. Cruz drew shudders from some audience members as he described sitting in homes with the grieving families of some the women. “Tonight, I speak for Kate and Laken and Rachel,” he said.

A day later, Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas named 12-year-old Jocelyn Nungaray, who was killed in Houston. Two undocumented Venezuelan men have been charged in her strangling. “She’s one of thousands whose lives have been destroyed by Joe Biden’s open border policies,” he said.

There is little comprehensive data on the crimes committed by undocumented immigrants. But many studies show that crime has gone down while illegal immigration has increased, and that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than are people born in the United States. Republicans say that any crime committed by a person not lawfully in the country is one too many.

Source: Key Takeaways From the Republican Convention’s Message on Immigration

‘Shocking and unjustifiable:’ Canada is deporting migrants at its highest rate in more than a decade [or is it?]

Cue the outrage. Cite statistics without context and you get a header like this.

Rather than absolute numbers, which indeed show the Liberal government having lower numbers that the previous Conservative government and a sharp spike in 2023/24, it is the percentage of removals compared to the number of temporary residents admitted that is relevant.

The last 9 years when numbers of temporary residents increased dramatically presents a different picture of removals compared to international students and asylum claimants:

Fiscal RemovalsStudentsAsylum ClaimantsTotal  %
201511,938219,03516,055235,0905.1%
20168,696264,28523,860288,1453.0%
20178,014314,98550,375365,3602.2%
20188,220354,27555,035409,3102.0%
20199,707400,58564,030464,6152.1%
202011,577255,57023,690279,2604.1%
202111,258443,61524,885468,5002.4%
20227,522548,43091,700640,1301.2%
202310,222682,430143,580826,0101.2%

So perhaps the header should have read: “‘Shocking and unjustifiable:’ Canada is deporting migrants at its lowest rate in more than a decade:”

Canada has spent more than $115 million deporting nearly 29,000 migrants since 2022, an unprecedented rate that flies in the face of the federal government’s promise to regularize the status of undocumented workers, advocates say.

In 2023, Ottawa spent more than $62 million on deportations, the highest amount spent in a year in over a decade, according to data from the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) dating back to 2011.

The deportation rate in 2023 was the highest since 2012, when more than 19,000 people were deported under Stephen Harper’s Conservative government. The deportations include “all removals enforced in each fiscal year,” the CBSA said, including refugee claimants, and migrants residing, working or studying in Canada who have overstayed their legal status.

When asked about the growth in deportations, the agency said “the number of removals enforced in any given year will fluctuate,” adding that the March 2023 expansion of the Safe Third Country Agreement, aimed at limiting asylum seekers entering Canada through unofficial entry points, has contributed to this year’s increase.

About 90 per cent of the total deportations since 2005 are due to “non-compliance,” the CBSA added, referring to migrants living in Canada without authorization. “Criminality,” the second most common reason for deportation, accounts for just over seven per cent of removals.

“The fact that $200 million has been spent to deport tens of thousands of people since 2020 — and after this promise has been made — is shocking and unjustifiable,” said Syed Hussan of the Migrant Rights Network, a national advocacy group for farmworkers, care workers, international students and undocumented people.

Advocates for migrant workers say the surge in deportations runs contrary to the government’s December 2021 commitment to a ‘regularization program’ for undocumented migrants. Such a program would allow migrants to stay in Canada as the government responds to historic labour shortages by ramping up immigration and issuing work permits to non-Canadians in record numbers.

Source: ‘Shocking and unjustifiable:’ Canada is deporting migrants at its highest rate in more than a decade

What Would It Take to Deport Millions of Immigrants? The G.O.P. Plan, Explained

Good long read on the practicalities and virtual impossibilities of doing so. Any such efforts would of course be divisive, disruptive, costly and likely only partially successful (like the partially completed wall in his presidency):

When Donald Trump ran for president in 2016, he vowed to build a wall to seal the border and keep criminals from entering the country. This campaign season, his immigration agenda has a new focus: a mass deportation program unlike anything the country has seen.

His party’s platform, ratified at the Republican convention in Milwaukee, promises the “largest deportation effort in American history,” and immigration was the theme of Tuesday’s gathering.

What would it take to deport millions of people? Is it even possible?

There were 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States in 2022, according to the latest government estimates, and more than eight out of 10 have been in the country for more than a decade. Mr. Trump said during the debate last month that there were 18 million, which is unsubstantiated.

Fleeing political and economic turmoil, migrants from countries like Venezuela have crossed the border in record numbers during the Biden administration.

Mr. Trump and the Republican platform have made broad declarations but thus far offered scant details about their intended operation.

The former president has suggested that any undocumented immigrant is subject to removal.

The party platform states that “the most dangerous criminals” would be prioritized.

It also said: “The Republican Party is committed to sending illegal aliens back home and removing those who have violated our laws.”

The consensus among immigration experts and former homeland security officials is that logistical, legal, bureaucratic and cost barriers would make it virtually impossible to carry out the mass deportations Mr. Trump seeks in the span of a four-year presidential term.

“It’s enormously complicated and an expensive thing to decide to deport people who have been here years,” said Laura Collins, an immigration expert at the George W. Bush Institute in Dallas.

Currently, ICE agents focus on locating and deporting convicted criminals, such as child molesters and others suspected of being a threat to public or national security.

Some one million immigrants with final removal orders living in the country could be a targeted group.

“Let’s say you find these people. You then have to detain them,” said Mr. Neifach. “How are you going to expand detention in a way that won’t blow the bank?”

Every potential deportee is held in a detention facility, and in the current fiscal year, Congress funded the detention of 41,500 immigrants daily at a cost of $3.4 billion, which would need to increase exponentially.

And many immigrants hail from countries that do not have diplomatic ties with the United States or that refuse to take back their nationals. They cannot be immediately flown out of the country, and the Supreme Court has ruled that people cannot remain detained for limitless periods awaiting removal.

The ICE budget for transportation and deportation in fiscal 2023 was $420 million, and the agency deported 142,580 people that year.

Another Trump administration could speed up deportations by terminating programs that the Biden administration has introduced.

For example, since 2022, some 500,000 people from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela have been allowed to fly to the United States and live and work for two years, provided they have a financial sponsor. Mr. Biden has also allowed nearly 700,000 migrants who make an appointment on a mobile app to cross the border through an official port of entry and receive work permits.

“Trump could flick the switch and revoke it,” said Mr. Neifach. But, he added, many of the migrants could make asylum claims and become part of the clogged courts.

Expedited removal at the border enables the swift deportation of migrants without a hearing, unless they convince an agent that they would face the threat of violence back home, and Mr. Biden in June issued an executive order currently being challenged in court to amplify use of this tool.

Mr. Trump could try to extend it to the interior, though he would likely face court challenges.

Mr. Trump has not addressed whether he would exercise any discretion, or make any exceptions.

More than one million Americans are married to an undocumented person, and a large share of undocumented immigrants have children who are U.S. citizens.

“When you are talking those kinds of numbers and law enforcement presence, you have to think at the end — what does that do to the atmosphere in the country?” said Ms. Napolitano, the former Homeland Security secretary.

Source: What Would It Take to Deport Millions of Immigrants? The G.O.P. Plan, Explained

Immigration Minister Miller admits gang members exploit vulnerabilities to gain entry

Not overly sugar coating:

Liberal Immigration Minister Marc Miller admitted that gang members were exploiting vulnerabilities in Canada’s immigration system and slipping into the country undetected.

In a press conference with ethnic media outlets on Monday, Miller was asked how criminals from India can slip through the vetting process and come to Canada.

Miller admitted that gang members are coming into the country, implying that it was inevitable when dealing with sophisticated criminal organizations.

“Well-determined actors regardless of the country, and particularly sophisticated gangs, are often able to get around even the most stringent immigration requirements,” said Miller.

“Canada has some of the most robust requirements in the world when we are checking people, but it’s not perfect.”

While Miller did not specifically name India, he said that the Canadian government often admits immigrants from countries whose governments are unreliable, allowing gang members to slip in with phoney police background checks.

“We all know how unreliable at times depending on the country that police certificates can be and if we were to rely on a country that is sometimes not the most – well I would say a reluctant partner, those certificates often become quite questionable as to their reliability.”

Miller touted the federal government’s immigration vetting process, however, admitted that criminals are coming into the country to commit crimes.

“Regrettably at times people do get in and they do commit crimes. Well-determined actors do have an ability despite best efforts to get in.”

Source: Immigration Minister Miller admits gang members exploit vulnerabilities to gain entry

Many onboarding processes are poorly suited to a multicultural workforce: McKenzie

Practical insights:

When it comes to onboarding recent immigrants and refugees, there’s a good chance your process is moving too quickly, according to Claude McKenzie, founder of Axiome Génie Conseil International.

In a breakout session at the Health and Safety Professionals Canada Professional Development Conference in Edmonton, McKenzie noted that many organizations rely on these workers to fill a labour gap. “We need them now,” he stressed. “Not tomorrow, not next week, now. This is where we have a problem.”

The push to fill a labour gap can lead to an onboarding program that moves too quickly for an employee adjusting to a new language, culture, social structure, or some combination of the three.

In fact, McKenzie shared, the four main causes of injuries in migrant workers are language barriers, lack of training, a mismatch between their education and their job, and the length of their stay in Canada, with workers here for less than five years being more apt to be injured on the job.

“People will take positions that are totally new to them, or they take positions that are similar, but not in the same conditions,” McKenzie said. “So, you are in Africa and you work in construction. You come here, you work in construction. I tell you – those are two [different] worlds.”

He related an experience on one construction site in Africa, where a worker fell from the fifth floor of an apartment building and died. After the fall, his coworkers gathered around him. “What did they say?” McKenzie asked. “Not ‘too bad’, but ‘it was his destiny.’”

This tragic example highlights how people’s understanding of the importance of protecting themselves can be highly cultural.

It also highlights another important cultural factor that health and safety professionals should bear in mind when working with recent immigrant and refugee populations.

“The price of life is not the same everywhere in the world,” McKenzie said. “How much does it cost if we have a worker getting killed on the job here in Alberta? Compared to Pakistan [where it’s] maybe a thousand dollars, maybe not even? So, do they put a lot of effort in health and safety? Do they train people in health and safety? No.”

That’s why McKenzie says health and safety professionals here in Canada need to understand the diversity that currently exists in their organization and how workers approach on-the-job safety. With that understanding, they can develop a plan to overcome any barriers that exist, and tailor onboarding as needed to ensure every new hire gets the information they need to stay safe on the job.

Source: Many onboarding processes are poorly suited to a multicultural workforce: McKenzie

Rudyard Griffiths: The curse of events and what a second Trump presidency means for Canada 

More speculation on what a Trump administration implementation of mass deportation could mean for Canada. The Northern border was already an issue and may have facilitated expanding the STCA to the entire border:

…The security argument could also help in the context of managing the chaos that is likely to occur at our shared border in the instance of mass U.S. deportations of migrants. As amply demonstrated in recent years, we lack the state capacity to effectively police our own border and will need American assistance in the face of a migration crisis. Having a secure northern as well as southern border is a core, high-conviction policy of Trump’s MAGA movement and one we can and should help with…

Source: Rudyard Griffiths: The curse of events and what a second Trump presidency means for Canada

Lang: Why Ottawa won’t come to grips with Canada’s productivity problem

Dispiriting but likely correct even without the exacerbation by ill-designed immigration policies (knew Lang when he worked in Deputy PMs office in the late 90s):

…Three reasons spring to mind for why Canada has done so little on the productivity front.

First, federal policy change is often driven less by the importance of the issue and more by a sense of urgency – it’s the classic dilemma: urgent crowds out the important. Unfortunately, long-run economic decline is never seen as a matter of urgency in government. It is the quintessential boiling-frog problem.

Second, persistent productivity weakness suggests deep-seated structural problems in the Canadian economy. You can’t meaningfully get at that without paradigm-shifting policy change. That entails risk, and all governments are masters of risk aversion. The irony here is that over the years the federal government has routinely chided Canadian business for insufficient investment in R&D, inadequate pursuit of foreign markets and weak entrepreneurialism, all of which boils down to risk-taking.

Third, when governments do get down to discussing innovation, the regional political imperative rears its head. Meaning innovation policies, especially spending programs, are usually designed to confer benefits on all regions of the country, seriously diluting their impact.

All previous federal innovation reports have tripped over some or all of these three hurdles. And this will likely continue. When the next government comes along, expect either indifference to Canada’s productivity crisis, or yet another study and report into the problem, which will be largely ignored. Then turn the heat up one more notch on the frog in the pot.

Source: Why Ottawa won’t come to grips with Canada’s productivity problem

Quebec’s attack on refugee sponsorship

Of note but unlikely to influence change in policy in Quebec:

There is a rich history of communities across Canada working together to raise funds to sponsor refugees who come to our country. Local groups with humanitarian goals are focused on ensuring a brighter future for people forced to flee their homelands. However, groups in Quebec are facing challenges not experienced elsewhere in Canada.

Sponsoring refugees changes lives and enriches our society. The arrival of refugees from Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos in the late 1970s was a notable point in our history, as was the more recent arrival of Syrians, about a decade ago. Both times, Quebec played an important role in these initiatives.

Perhaps less well-known is that more than 400,000 people have immigrated to Canada through refugee sponsorship. Sponsorship allows Canadians to respond to humanitarian crises and express solidarity. Today, groups support Afghans, Iraqis, Congolese and Eritreans. They also support other refugees, including LGBTQ individuals whose rights are not protected in their home countries.

The program relies on citizens who form sponsorship groups and provide financial aid and integration support for a refugee’s first year in Canada. Groups choose who they will help. Often, the refugee is a friend or relative of a group member. In all but Quebec, the program is administered solely by the federal government.

Many immigration policies in Quebec are distinct from the rest of Canada as the federal government allows the province more control over its affairs. Since the late 1990s, Quebec’s government has controlled aspects of refugee sponsorship. Four key differences show how Quebec’s program is threatened by its own government.

Reduced and insufficient landing targets

Quebec has drastically reduced the number of sponsored refugees allowed in the province. As part of its annual immigration target, the government has cut the figures this year to between 1,850 and 2,100 from a maximum of 4,400 six years ago.

Once targets are set, both levels of government must work to reach them, but Quebec has consistently failed in recent years to hold up its end, as figure 1 shows.

Travel restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic dampened numbers in 2020 and 2021. But the following year, as the world began to emerge from restrictions, 2,010 sponsored refugeesarrived out of a target of 2,750 to 3000. In 2023, the same goal was set, but only 1,190 arrived. This is in stark contrast to the over 4,000 sponsored refugees who arrived in Quebec each year from 2016 to 2018.

Quebec’s lower targets and inability to meet them contrast with the rest of the country, where targets have increased and have been met. Some 22,517 sponsored refugees arrived in Canada in 2022 and 27,655 in 2023. Quebec has the lowest rate of resettlement of all provinces.

Lengthy processing times

Finalizing fewer applications causes wait times to increase. News reports a year ago revealed the Quebec government had shelved applications from Afghan refugees while Ottawa prioritized those requests. As reported in Le Devoir, an application submitted by a Toronto group saw an Afghan family arrive within six months. But a Montreal group was still waiting a year later for Quebec to assess an application made at the same time.

Quebec Immigration Minister Christine Fréchette promised that all applications would be processed and sent to the federal government by the end of 2023, yet many organizations have not received any response on requests  submitted as far back as 2022, even as advocates for refugee sponsorship made clear calls for improvement.

Lengthy wait times leave refugees overseas in perilous situations. Afghan families who fled to countries such as Pakistan or Tajikistan to escape the Taliban often need to pay bribes to extend their immigration status or find housing. Some develop health concerns. Sponsor groups end up sending money abroad to help refugees, who can do little more than wait.

Lack of consultation and collaboration

Sponsored refugees receive permanent residence status upon arrival in Canada and their sponsors help them adjust to their new country. Governments and sponsorship groups need to work together for this approach to succeed.

The federal government makes significant efforts to collaborate with sponsorship groups. It funds training and supports co-ordination efforts by experienced sponsorship organizations, including regular meetings. This ensures clear communication and good program management.

The Quebec government provides some funding to employ a resource person for refugee sponsorship, but there is minimal interaction between organizations and government officials. Sponsor groups are left in the dark when policy changes are introduced.

Roadblocks for experienced organizations

Both federally and in Quebec, there are three types of sponsorship. First, small groups of individuals can step forward on an ad hoc basis in the group of five program at the federal level and the group of 2 to 5 program in Quebec. Second, community organizations can apply through specific programs in both jurisdictions. Third, large bodies with significant experience in sponsorship work with local groups or co-sponsors to help refugees once they arrive. These are known as sponsorship agreement holders (SAHs) in all but Quebec where they are called “experienced organizations.”

The larger, established organizations provide expertise to refugee sponsors and ensure consistent outcomes. At the federal level, most applications are supported by SAHs. In contrast, the Quebec government appears to prefer working with ad hoc groups. Over half the spots available for sponsorship applications in the province are reserved for them.

The Quebec government uses a lottery to select a limited number of applications. This is not the case under the federal program, although intake controls are under consideration. Refugee sponsorship advocates in Quebec have decried the lottery system.

Requirements for financial support vary depending on the type of sponsorship organization. All groups whose applications move forward must have enough money to support the refugees they sponsor. At the federal level, sponsors are encouraged to raise funds and keep them in a trust account. In Quebec, ad hoc sponsors are assessed on the income of the two to five membersin the group. A recent policy change in Quebec targets experienced sponsors and weakens program oversight.

Quebec recently notified organizations that keeping funds in trust is forbidden after investigating suspected cases of fraud. This has left sponsorship groups exasperated and uncertain how to manage. There was no discussion between the government and the sponsorship community on this new policy. Long-standing organizations have indicated they are uncertain if they can continue their work.

Prohibiting groups from keeping trust funds goes against the best practices for refugee sponsorship. These accounts ensure sponsors can provide for the needs of refugees once they arrive. Quebec’s approach of banning trusts and preferring ad hoc groups leaves no way to ensure compliance or good management of sponsorships.

Quebec must change course

Refugee sponsorship has long been a part of Canada’s identity. If Quebec wants to ensure sponsorship remains viable and that humanitarian objectives are respected it needs to reform its program. Many individuals and groups in the province are willing to sponsor refugees, but are disheartened by the roadblocks resulting from the government’s approach.

Targets must be raised, processing times must decrease, more collaboration is needed and sponsor groups should be encouraged to hold funds in trust to ensure a good welcome for newcomers. These changes would also support citizens who are eager to help refugees start a new life in Quebec.

Source: Quebec’s attack on refugee sponsorship