Wagner: Work permit change urged for Afghans now needed for Ukrainians to come to Canada

More pressures:

Many thousands are leaving Ukraine with heartbreaking separations from spouses, parents and homes. Meanwhile, in Canada, a single change to work permits can support people in far larger numbers to come here after being forced from their homes. That change is waiving a rule that requires someone to prove they can leave Canada again.

All applicants to temporary visas must demonstrate their ability and willingness to leave Canada by showing they have somewhere else to go, even if they already applied for permanent residence, or intend to.

This is an old rule that predates Canada’s goal of retaining its international workforce, once they arrive, through permanent residence programs. If it’s arcane for others, it’s absurd and prohibitive for those in refugee circumstances.

Among the Afghans who left as the Taliban took power in August were lawyers, cooks, electricians, and software developers — skills needed across Canada — yet so many are in a humanitarian queue instead of here on work permits. The same barrier faces Ukrainians.

In effect, Canada’s largest immigration option is closed as soon as someone needs it most. In 2019, before the pandemic, Canada welcomed over 404,000 people on work permits, many of whom go on to become permanent residents. For comparison, the refugee resettlement target the same year was 46,450.

blob:https://multiculturalmeanderings.wordpress.com/27e4c896-162d-472c-8c0f-cf96eb3fe425

Only recently has the idea of using skilled immigration as an additional option to refugee resettlement gained traction globally and in Canada. Canada first launched the Economic Mobility Pathways Pilot in 2018 as a test to help people in refugee circumstances, who got job offers in Canada, to work through barriers, such as needing a valid passport and police certificates, which are impossible for many in displacement to get.

The test cases were a runaway success. But for all the pilot’s innovation, its main drawback is significant. The flexibility introduced, like accepting expired passports, only applies to permanent residence pathways and not to work permits and the barriers that come with them.

This disadvantages displaced talent for two main reasons: A lack of speed and space. Skilled immigration largely relies on a job offer and most employers can’t hire someone on a permanent residence timeline, which is eight months or longer. And only a portion of skilled immigration space is left open when work permits are off the table.

We analyzed 66 permanent residence pathways and found just 15 are free of a requirement for in-Canada work experience or points systems that reward it. In other words, 77 per cent of these pathways are either inaccessible by or disadvantageous to displaced applicants who can‘t access work permits.

Many people displaced by conflict have in-demand skills and, despite the timeline, incredible Canadian teams are already hiring and relocating them. More companies want to. We need to unlock these opportunities.

Work permits promise speed and scale. By waiving a single requirement and extending the flexibility now in place for displaced applicants under an innovative pilot, Canada can open a major route to safety and opportunity for Ukrainians, Afghans and others before them.

Dana Wagner is co-founder and managing director of TalentLift, a non-profit talent agency.

Source: Work permit change urged for Afghans now needed for Ukrainians to come to Canada

Europe’s different approach to Ukrainian and Syrian refugees draws accusations of racism

Of note. But important to distinguish whether the intent was more factual, e.g., “refugee wave we have been used to,” unfortunate contrasts “these people are intelligent” implying others are not, and more right wing deliberate anti-immigrant language.

That being said, the situation of many non-Ukrainians fleeing the invasion, is extremely disturbing:

They file into neighbouring countries by the hundreds of thousands — refugees from Ukraine clutching children in one arm, belongings in the other. And they’re being heartily welcomed, by leaders of countries such as Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Moldova and Romania.

But while the hospitality has been applauded, it has also highlighted stark differences in treatment given to migrants and refugees from the Middle East and Africa, particularly Syrians who came in 2015. Some among them say the language they are hearing from leaders now welcoming refugees has been disturbing and hurtful.

“These are not the refugees we are used to; these people are Europeans,” Bulgarian Prime Minister Kiril Petkov told journalists earlier this week. “These people are intelligent. They are educated people…. This is not the refugee wave we have been used to, people we were not sure about their identity, people with unclear pasts, who could have been even terrorists.

“In other words, there is not a single European country now which is afraid of the current wave of refugees.”

‘Racism and Islamophobia’

Syrian journalist Okba Mohammad says that statement “mixes racism and Islamophobia.”

Mohammad fled his hometown of Daraa in 2018. He now lives in Spain and with other Syrian refugees founded a bilingual magazine in Arabic and Spanish. He described a sense of déjà vu as he followed events in Ukraine.

He also had sheltered underground to protect himself from Russian bombs. He also struggled to board an overcrowded bus to flee his town. He also was separated from his family at the border.

“A refugee is a refugee, whether European, African or Asian,” Mohammad said.

The change in tone of some of Europe’s leaders who in the past have expressed among the most extreme anti-migration views in the bloc has been striking. They have shifted from “We aren’t going to let anyone in” to “We’re letting everyone in.”

Those comments were made only three months apart by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban. The first quote is from statements he made in December when he was addressing migrants and refugees from the Middle East and Africa. The second from comments made this week addressing people from Ukraine.

Some journalists, too, are being criticized for descriptions of Ukrainian refugees.

“These are prosperous, middle-class people,” an Al Jazeera English television presenter said. “These are not obviously refugees trying to get away from areas in the Middle East … in North Africa. They look like any European family that you would live next door to.”

The channel issued an apology saying the comments were insensitive and irresponsible.

CBS news apologized after one of its correspondents said the conflict in Kyiv wasn’t “like Iraq or Afghanistan that has seen conflict raging for decades. This is a relatively civilized, relatively European” city.

Reports of Nigerians, Indians and Lebanese stuck at borders

As more and more people scrambled to flee Ukraine, several reports emerged of residents, including Nigerians, Indians and Lebanese, getting stuck at borders. Unlike Ukrainians, many non-Europeans need visas to get into neighbouring countries. Embassies around the world were scrambling to assist their citizens in getting through.

Videos shared on social media under the hashtag #AfricansinUkraine allegedly showed African students being kept from boarding trains out of Ukraine to make space for Ukrainians.

The African Union in Nairobi said Monday that everyone has the right to cross international borders to flee conflict. The continental body said “reports that Africans are singled out for unacceptable dissimilar treatment would be shockingly racist and in breach of international law.”

It urged all countries to “show the same empathy and support to all people fleeing war notwithstanding their racial identity.”

Polish UN Ambassador Krzysztof Szczerski said at the General Assembly on Monday that assertions of race- or religion-based discrimination at Poland’s border are “a complete lie and a terrible insult to us.”

“The nationals of all countries who suffered from Russian aggression or whose life is at risk can seek shelter in my country,” he said.

Szczerski said people of some 125 nationalities had been admitted to Poland on Monday morning from Ukraine, including Ukrainian, Uzbek, Nigerian, Indian, Moroccan, Pakistani, Afghan, Belarusian, Algerian and more. Overall, he said, 300,000 people have arrived during the crisis.

Hostility toward Syrian refugees in Europe

When over a million people crossed into Europe in 2015, support for refugees fleeing wars in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan was relatively high at first. There were also moments of hostility — such as when a Hungarian camerawoman was filmed kicking and possibly tripping migrants along the country’s border with Serbia.

Still, back then, Germany’s then chancellor, Angela Merkel, famously said “Wir schaffen das” (“We can do it”), and the Swedish prime minister urged citizens to “open your hearts” to refugees.

Volunteers gathered on Greek beaches to rescue exhausted families crossing on boats from Turkey. In Germany, they were greeted with applause at train and bus stations.

But the warm welcome soon ended after EU nations disagreed over how to share responsibility, with the main pushback coming from Central European countries such as Hungary and Poland. One by one, governments across Europe toughened migration and asylum policies, earning the nickname “Fortress Europe.”

Just last week, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees denounced the increasing “violence and serious human rights violations” across European borders, specifically pointing the finger at Greece.

Last year, hundreds of people, mainly from Iraq and Syria but also from Africa, were left stranded in a no man’s land between Poland and Belarus as the EU accused Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko of luring thousands of foreigners to his country’s borders in retaliation for sanctions. At the time, Poland blocked access to aid groups and journalists. More than 15 people died in the cold.

‘Deeply embedded racism’

Meanwhile, in the Mediterranean, the European Union has been criticized for paying Libya to intercept migrants trying to reach its shores, helping to return them to abusive and often deadly detention centres.

“There is no way to avoid questions around the deeply embedded racism of European migration policies when we see how different the reactions of national governments and EU elites are to the people trying to reach Europe,” Lena Karamanidou, an independent migration and asylum researcher in Greece, wrote on Twitter.

Jeff Crisp, a former head of policy, development and evaluation at UNHCR, agreed that race and religion influenced treatment of refugees.

“Countries that had been really negative on the refugee issue and have made it very difficult for the EU to develop coherent refugee policy over the last decade, suddenly come forward with a much more positive response,” Crisp said.

Much of Orban’s opposition to migration is based on his belief that to “preserve cultural homogeneity and ethnic homogeneity,” Hungary should not accept refugees from different cultures and different religions.

Members of Poland’s conservative nationalist ruling party have echoed Orban’s thinking, saying they want to protect Poland’s identity as a Christian nation and guarantee its security.

These arguments have not been applied to their Ukrainian neighbours, with whom they share historical and cultural ties. Parts of Ukraine today were once also parts of Poland and Hungary. Over one million Ukrainians live and work in Poland and hundreds of thousands more are scattered across Europe. Some 150,000 ethnic Hungarians also live in Western Ukraine, many of whom have Hungarian passports.

“It is not completely unnatural for people to feel more comfortable with people who come from nearby, who speak the [similar] language or have a [similar] culture,” Crisp said.

In Poland, Ruchir Kataria, an Indian volunteer, told The Associated Press on Sunday that his compatriots got stuck on the Ukrainian side of the border crossing into Medyka, Poland. In Ukraine, they were initially told to go to Romania, hundreds of kilometres away, he said, after they had already made long journeys on foot to the border, not eating for three days. Finally, on Monday they got through.

Source: Europe’s different approach to Ukrainian and Syrian refugees draws accusations of racism

Québec loin de sa cible pour les réfugiés afghans

Of note (and not blaming the feds):

Six mois après la crise en Afghanistan, Québec peine à accueillir les 300 réfugiés afghans qu’il s’était engagé à recevoir, a constaté Le Devoir. Selon des chiffres fournis par le ministère de l’Immigration, de la Francisation et de l’Intégration (MIFI), à peine 89 d’entre eux se sont installés au Québec dans le cadre du Programme spécial pour les Afghans qui ont aidé le gouvernement du Canada au mois d’août dernier, alors qu’ils sont plusieurs milliers dans le reste du pays.

En comparant cette opération humanitaire à celle menée pour les Syriens en 2015-2016, où plus de 5000 réfugiés syriens avaient été accueillis par le Québec, force est d’admettre qu’elle n’a pas la même ampleur, admet Stephan Reichhold, directeur de la Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes (TCRI). « C’est quand même assez décevant. En août et septembre dernier, on pensait qu’on recevrait des milliers d’Afghans, la Ville de Montréal était hypermobilisée, et finalement très peu d’Afghans sont arrivés au Québec, dit-il. Au moins, [le gouvernement] aura essayé. »

Pour toute l’année 2021, hormis les 89 venus au Québec grâce au programme spécial du fédéral, 232 Afghans ont été admis comme réfugiés dans la province, à la suite de l’aboutissement de demandes de parrainages privés déposées au cours des années précédentes. La cible du gouvernement Legault pour 2021 est de 7500 réfugiés, toutes origines confondues.

Quant au gouvernement canadien, il disait la semaine dernière qu’il travaillait « d’arrache-pied » pour atteindre sa cible de 40 000 réfugiés afghans. Or, jusqu’ici, 7885 Afghans sont arrivés, soit 4600 dans le cadre du Programme spécial pour les Afghans ayant aidé le gouvernement et 3285 grâce à un autre programme humanitaire canadien destiné aux plus vulnérables (femmes leaders, personnes LGBTI, etc.).

Rétention difficile

Selon le MIFI, les réfugiés afghans venus au Québec dans le cadre du programme de réinstallation fédéral se sont surtout installés à Montréal, Longueuil et Brossard. Malgré le fait que Sherbrooke abrite la deuxième communauté afghane en importance, à peine 11 personnes, venues grâce au programme fédéral, y ont élu domicile, mais 52 réfugiés, entrés par la « voie régulière » que constituent les parrainages, s’y sont aussi installés. Alors que les premières familles arrivaient en septembre dernier, la directrice du Service d’aide aux néo-Canadiens (SANC) de l’époque, Mercedes Orellana, reconnaissait déjà qu’un nombre moins important que prévu allait s’installer en Estrie et au Québec en général.

À l’époque, une intervenante et interprète afghane du SANC s’était rendue à Toronto à la demande du MIFI pour tenter de convaincre les nouveaux arrivants de venir s’installer au Québec. Selon Mme Orellana, il était important de vérifier si la famille avait des attaches ou un intérêt particulier à venir s’installer dans une province comme le Québec qui a ses particularités, notamment la langue française. « C’est bien de vérifier, car ça va être un facteur de rétention pour plus tard », avait-elle indiqué. À l’étranger, le Canada est plus connu que le Québec.

Le MIFI explique aussi le déficit d’attraction du Québec par la popularité de grandes villes canadiennes. « Le Québec était prêt à accueillir plus de familles, cependant, il semble qu’une part importante des personnes réfugiées afghanes arrivées à ce jour ont préféré demeurer dans la grande région de Toronto, où des membres de leurs familles ou des proches étaient déjà installés », a déclaré Émilie Vézina, porte-parole du MIFI.

Un « manque d’ambition »

Le député de Québec solidaire et porte-parole en matière d’immigration, Andrés Fontecilla, estime que la cible d’accueil fixée était trop faible et ne reflétait pas les besoins. « Trois cents personnes nous apparaissaient très peu. À 4personnes par famille, ce n’est même pas 80 familles », a-t-il dit au Devoir. Il rappelle que, l’été dernier, accueillir les Afghans au Canada était une « urgence ». « On disait qu’on allait faire immigrer le plus grand nombre possible [d’Afghans]. Le résultat est vraiment décevant. »

Le député libéral Saul Polo déplore lui aussi le « manque d’ambition » du gouvernement du Québec. « Pour avoir été en contact avec un grand nombre de personnes afghanes, à Laval, mais aussi dans d’autres villes comme Sherbrooke, je peux dire qu’elles sont déçues et frustrées du manque d’ambition du gouvernement face à la situation afghane. Il semble que le gouvernement ne tient pas compte du fait que la communauté est prête à se mobiliser pour les accueillir et les intégrer. »

C’est ce qu’aimeraient justement faire Nancy Green-Grégoire et Clothilde Parent-Chartier, toutes deux membres de Tri-Parish + Friends for Refugees, un groupe de parrainage collectif (parrainage privé). Dans une lettre ouverte publiée en septembre dernier, elles demandaient que le parrainage collectif puisse être mis à contribution pour les Afghans, ce que les plafonds imposés ne permettaient pas. « Il y a des [gens] ici qui étaient prêts à parrainer et qui voulaient réagir rapidement, comme lors de la crise syrienne, mais ce n’était pas possible », rappelle Mme Parent-Chartier, en disant voir le parrainage collectif comme étant complémentaire au parrainage de l’État.

En 2020, le groupe a notamment parrainé une famille d’Afghans, réfugiée au Pakistan, qui n’est pas encore arrivée. Il a aussi déposé, le mois dernier, trois autres dossiers d’Afghans membres d’une même famille ayant fui au Pakistan, qui n’ont pas encore réussi à obtenir un statut officiel de réfugiés. « On ne sait pas s’ils vont répondre aux critères [du MIFI]. Vont-ils pouvoir bénéficier d’un traitement particulier alors que c’est très difficile pour eux d’obtenir une preuve du Haut-commissariat aux réfugiés ? » s’inquiète Mme Parent-Chartier.

Source: Québec loin de sa cible pour les réfugiés afghans

Refugees in Quebec will have to learn French within 6 months

Not realistic and discriminatory (but not surprising), unfortunately):

The Quebec government is moving ahead with a controversial part of its proposed language bill, which will require all government officials to communicate with new immigrants exclusively in French, six months after their arrival — with no exceptions for refugees and asylum seekers.

The article of Bill 96, which was introduced at the National Assembly last May, was recently approved by the legislative committee studying the bill, amid criticism from opposition Liberal and Québec Solidaire MNAs. The bill is expected to become law this spring but still faces detailed study in committee.

Some organizations, opposition members and even the union representing public servants tried to persuade the government to soften the rule, to no avail.

“For newly arriving immigrants, the basic principle of the law is clear: as of Day 1, it’s exclusively in French,” said Simon Jolin-Barrette, justice minister and minister responsible for the French language.

There are exemptions in the law, which allow communication in a language other than French, “where health, public safety or the principles of natural justice so require” such as getting health care.

As well, the bill allows for a six-month grace period for “particular situations that require the use of a language other than French with new immigrants” according to Élisabeth Gosselin, spokesperson for Jolin-Barrette.

The bill says after that six-month period has lapsed, communication must be in French.

“Currently, the government communicates with immigrants who have requested it, sometimes for years, or for their whole lifetime, in a language other than French, which does not foster integration,” Gosselin said.

Learning French in 6 months

Community organizations working with newly arrived immigrants have been calling on the government to extend the six-month grace period.

“We all agree that the government cannot respond to immigrants in every language. But we have to give them time to learn French,” said Élodie Combes, member of the Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes (TCRI), a working group that represents community organizations working with immigrants.

Combes believes that the bill may actually hinder the integration of immigrants, by making it more difficult for them to get government services.

“It’s as if we’re telling them to retreat into their lingustic minority, that the government is not there for them, because they aren’t francophone enough,” she said.

Garine Papazian-Zohrabian, an associate professor in educational psychology at the Université de Montréal who researches French-language training for immigrants, says the six-month hard cap will be most harmful for refugees and asylum seekers, who are arriving in a vulnerable state.

“Members of this population are already disoriented, arriving in Quebec. They can been burdened by a difficult past and face cultural challenges. They’re not ready to learn a new language, like French, right after their arrival,” said Papazian-Zohrabian.

“You might as well say that we don’t accept refugees or immigrants, rather than place so many obstacles in front of them,” she added.

Opposition slams ‘excessive’ measures in bill

The union representing 40,000 Quebec civil servants, the Syndicat de la fonction publique et parapublique du Québec (SFPQ), is also in favour of extending the six-month grace period.

In its submission to the committee examining the bill, the union suggested the delay could be extended to two years, to allow new immigrants more time to adapt.

Ruba Ghazal, Québec Solidaire MNA for the Mercier riding in Montreal, proposed a grace period of three years, saying that Jolin-Barrette is “totally disconnected from the reality of newly arrived immigrants.”

“The minister makes no distinction between a refugee and an economic class immigrant,” she said. “These people need more kindness and understanding.”

Jolin-Barrette dismissed the idea of extending the grace period, saying six months was a “reasonable” period.

Ghazal said while the bill takes a harsh stand with newly arrived immigrants, it contains a clause that allows the government to continue to communicate in languages other than French with people who immigrated to Quebec in the past.

Source: Refugees in Quebec will have to learn French within 6 months

Germans less skeptical of immigration

Significant shift with respect to skilled immigrants, concerns re refugees (similar pattern in Canada):

Christian Osterhaus knows only too well what the term Willkommenskultur (“welcome culture”) means: When hundreds of thousands of people seeking protection arrived in Germany in 2015, he was one of the first to co-found a local refugee aid organization.

“We didn’t want to repeat the mistakes of the past,” he tells DW. By welcoming the refugees, he and his team wanted to show “that we don’t exclude people again.” With around 30 fellow campaigners, Osterhaus got involved in Bonn in the fall of 2015. The group cared for 40 to 50 refugees, most of whom came from Syria.

Osterhaus was one of hundreds of thousands of people in Germany who set out to help those fleeing civil war in Syria and other countries, and to help integrate them into German society. “We wanted to give these people a new home,” Osterhaus says looking back.

The special effort at integration became known as Germany’s welcome culture. But in 2015 and 2016, many people also had little understanding for this attitude. They did not want to take in refugees and migrants. The xenophobic protest movement gave rise to the far-right populist Alternative for Germany party (AfD).

More people see benefits of migration

In its representative study “Willkommenskultur zwischen Stabilität und Aufbruch,” (Welcome Culture Between Stability and Departure) the nonprofit Bertelsmann Foundation has now taken a closer look at changes in Germans’ attitudes and identified a trend: Germans are more optimistic about migration and immigration than they were a few years ago.

“In essence, our survey shows that skepticism toward immigration is still widespread in Germany, but it has continually declined in recent years,” says Ulrike Wieland, co-author of the study: “More people now see the potential benefits of migration; especially for the economy. When it comes to perceptions of integration, we find that more respondents than in previous years see inequality of opportunity and discrimination as significant obstacles hampering integration of individuals.”

The Bertelsmann Foundation has been conducting representative surveys since 2012. In the beginning, the researchers set out to determine how Germans felt about the immigration of skilled workers. But in response to the influx of large numbers of refugees in 2015-2016, researchers wanted to gauge attitudes towards these people.

As to long-term effects of immigration, positive and negative assessments roughly balance each other out. But the debate on refugees has somewhat tipped the scales.

Today, many see immigration as a way to help solve Germany’s demographic and economic problems. For example, two out of three respondents see immigration as helping to balance out an aging society, more than half of those polled said it could also compensate for the ongoing shortage of skilled workers, and half of all respondents expect immigrants to generate additional revenue for Germany’s pension fund.

But many respondents remain skeptical: 67% say that immigrants place an additional burden on the welfare state, 66% say they worry about conflicts erupting between people born and raised in Germany and immigrants, and many respondents fear that schools are facing major problems integrating immigrant students.

But there is an important differentiation to make: skilled immigrants seeking employment or academic opportunities are more accepted (71%) than refugees who are primarily seeking protection (59 %).

More than a third don’t want more refugees

The Bertelsmann Foundation study also clearly shows that there is still a lot of skepticism in Germany when it comes to refugees.

Christian Osterhaus notes that many helpers have turned away because of the decrease in acceptance for their work for refugees. “In the beginning we were part of a social movement and felt supported, but for several years we have been working against the social mainstream,” is how Osterhaus describes it to DW.

Germans have overall become more accepting of refugees. But over one-third of respondents (36%) believe that Germany cannot take in any more of them. In 2017, that number stood at 54%. Currently, 20% consider the refugees to be “temporary guests” who do not need to be integrated into society.

“We see that one-fifth of the population is skeptical of refugees or outright rejects them. These people seem to have a worldview that supports the idea of a (far-reaching) social closure against migration,” explains co-author Ulrike Wieland.

Germany should see itself as an immigration society,’ says the study’s co-author, Ulrike Wieland

People with an immigrant background are underrepresented in politics, corporate management and the media in Germany. Respondents see German language skills as a pivotal prerequisite to integration. But many of them also believe that legislation needs to be changed to combat existing inequality when it comes to finding housing, dealing with authorities or schools.

The new coalition government of center-left Social Democrats (SPD), environmentalist Greens and neoliberal Free Democrats (FDP) has already made clear it wants to focus more on integration. For example, they are planning to ensure that even rejected asylum seekers are given the opportunity to stay in Germany permanently if they have learned German and have found work to earn a sufficient income. Family reunification is to be extended to all refugees and it is to become easier to obtain German nationality.

That is basically the right way to go, says researcher Ulrike Wieland: “But it is also important for Germany to develop a positive self-image as an immigration society. To achieve this, politicians and civil society must work together. They must actively shape a diverse society.”

Aid worker Christian Osterhaus looks back at when he started working with refugees: “At the time, I really had the impression that German society had opened up and changed and had actually learned a lot.” He believes that interpersonal connections and friendships are the foundation for the path to building a real welcome culture in Germany.

Source: Germans less skeptical of immigration

Falconer and Damian Smith: Asylum-seeker smuggling is a symptom, not a root cause

Good arguments in favour of a managed approach to asylum seekers (as Canada largely has with even Roxham Road given how the government processes claims). On the other hand, just as “cracking down” incentivises more crossings between official points of entry, so does having “unofficial” points of entry like Roxham Road, with the important and real difference that they are known and identified, and have to go through the official process.

So the hard part is ensuring a quick, efficient and fair efficient determination process that is subject to enforcement, without the endless appeal processes that undermine confidence among Canadians:

Earlier this month, the Patels – a family of four from India – died of cold exposure trying to walk south through the Canada-U.S. border, near Emerson, Man.

But rather than look at how policies incentivize such irregular migration and produce such tragedies, Canadian politicians and news media have been quick to parrot rhetoric from other rich countries, speculating about the responsibility of criminal smugglers and wider networks of nefarious actors. “It is so tragic to see a family perish like this, victims of human traffickers, misinformation and people who have taken advantage of their desire to build a better world,” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said.

Just three months earlier, the U.K.’s Interior Minister blamed smugglers for the death of 31 peoplewhen a boat capsized in the English Channel, and vowed to pass laws to make it illegal to claim asylum. And the U.S., which for decades has forced irregular migrants to make deadly desert crossings, has criminalized humanitarian groups as smugglers.

But while the Florida man arrested in the Patels’ case allegedly sought to profit from their desperation, he did not cause it.

What the political rhetoric around irregular migration misses is that human smuggling is a symptom of the friction between the desire to migrate or find protection, and the absence of safe and legal pathways to do so. Prohibition in the face of high demand only fosters illicit markets, and “cracking down” on small-time criminals addresses symptoms, not the causes.

The number of U.S. green cards offered every year has been capped at 675,000 since 1991, resulting in an average wait time of 7.5 years for eligible immigrants. But it varies by country; for an Indian professional, wait times to enter the U.S. can reach up to 50 years. Roughly 14 per cent of potential applicants will die of old age before receiving a green card.

The U.S. has taken an even more restrictive approach to asylum. The Biden administration has continued a series of Trump era policies to expel asylum seekers without a hearing, or force them to remain in Mexico until it is heard. That led the backlog to surpass 1.6 million last December, pushing wait times to more than five years.

While Canadian immigration quotas are larger per capita – 421,000 for 2022 – the federal government has taken a similar approach to asylum. The majority of asylum seekers are recognized as refugees; they differ from resettled refugees, such as those from Afghanistan and Syria, only by the manner in which they arrived. Nevertheless, they are often unfairly assailed as “queue jumpers” or “bogus refugees,” or accused of “asylum shopping.” These accusations miss the entire point of why people migrate.

Since 2004, Canada and the U.S. have returned asylum seekers to each other under a Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA), which applies only to official ports of entry, leading to what is often called a “loophole” in the agreement. In fact, governmental discussions in 2001 recognized that sealing the border would mean more smuggling and a larger undocumented population.

Many asylum seekers have crossed between border points to avoid being returned to the U.S., where they would likely face imprisonment and deportation. The route the Patels were using developed precisely because the STCA incentivized irregular crossings.

In 2017, Canada established an informal humanitarian corridor at Roxham Road, but from March, 2020, to November 2021, it turned back almost every asylum seeker on public health grounds. Inland claims increased significantly. Most will be from people on visas, but many have been forced to bypass new restrictions through clandestine crossings.

Canada has stated that it is now in the process of “modernizing” the STCA. While details are murky, it will likely mean expanding measures to turn back asylum seekers. This is particularly troubling with the Supreme Court of Canada set to rule on the agreement’s constitutionality.

Because a reformed STCA would limit asylum access, rather than affect demand, there will only be more clandestine journeys, more organized smuggling and more dangerous modes of border crossings. Enforcing an expanded STCA will also require massive expenditures to surveil and police the border, resulting in more incarceration, a larger undocumented population, and corruption among border guards. Securitization is a self-fulfilling policy.

Canada is at a crossroads. It can choose hard line policies to the benefit of the Canadian security establishment and create more smugglers, even as its politicians heap blame on them when tragedy strikes. Or it can choose to manage the border by investing in a timelier, fairer asylum system and rethinking how it responds to demand for migration.

Robert Falconer is a research associate at the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy. Craig Damian Smith is a senior research associate at the Canada Excellence Research Chair in Migration & Integration program at Ryerson University.

Source: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-asylum-seeker-smuggling-is-a-symptom-not-a-root-cause/

Sears: Canada is still admitting Afghan refugees at a glacial pace. Justin Trudeau must set a fire underneath our immigration officials

Overly harsh on IRCC staff and under-estimating the issues and processes involved but valid critique of the pace of bringing them to Canada in a more timely manner. Risks feeding the “over-promise, under-deliver” government narrative:

I suspect being a senior immigration official is only marginally less boring than being a night watchman, and that might sour their view of the world. Nonetheless, on three continents over several decades it has been my experience that those who control the visa stamps are all conditioned to find a way to say “No,” or “Later,” or “We’ll get back to you” — and then don’t. Ours are no different.

A young relative of mine was denied entry into Canada, after an especially obnoxious senior Canadian immigration official declared to her mother that they were not convinced that this was a “sincere adoption” — the staggering assumption being, I suppose, that the new mother would sell her beloved infant on arriving in Canada. Serious political pressure was required to reverse the insulting judgment. Plenty of Canadians have similarly awful stories to tell.

This is the reality that too many terrified Afghan refugees are facing today. The Taliban threaten their lives and their families constantly; Canadian NGOs desperately struggle to find paths out for them; and our senior immigration officials are unresponsive or unreachable. This too will require serious political pressure to fix, from the prime minister.

The parallel with Syria is quite plain. There, our immigration officials also tried their usual delaying devices until two very determined ministers, supported by PM Justin Trudeau, said, “Enough! Get this done.” Thousands of Syrians were quickly welcomed to Canada. Though the Syrians were fleeing a war zone, the risks the Afghans face are far more specific, urgent and life-threatening.

A favourite blocage used today is, of course, national security. As in “Yes Minister,” a Canadian Sir Humphrey might ooze, “Well, minister, that would be very courageous, questioning the advice of our national security advisers. Highly politically risky, but courageous, ma’am!” I was not aware that we have had a rash of terrorist attacks in the six years since thousands of Syrians built new lives for their families here.

We had little previous knowledge of many of the Syrians we admitted then. But many of the Afghans desperate to be rescued from tyranny now are men and women who put their lives at risk assisting Canadian soldiers, diplomats, journalists and NGOs. Hundreds of Canadians know these Afghan families personally.

It is especially embarrassing that we promised safe havens to 40,000 Afghans and have admitted fewer than 7,000. The United States, who have not outranked us in our welcome for immigrants and refugees for many, many years, have admitted over 10 times as many.

At this rate of foot-dragging — fewer than 50 refugees per day — we will be approaching the end of 2023 before we have kept our promise. By then, many of these desperate families will have been tortured and killed. Are we really willing to risk the humiliation and international opprobrium of having their blood on our hands?

Source: Canada is still admitting Afghan refugees at a glacial pace. Justin Trudeau must set a fire underneath our immigration officials

Themrise Khan: The incoherence of Canada’s refugee policy

Overly simplistic in its focus on the “whiteness” of refugee policy given the many restrictions on refugees and discrimination of minorities in non-white countries.

And while one can characterize Afghan interpreters and the like as “helping imperial forces during an (illegal) occupation,” seems a bit divorced from the reality of the Taliban’s rule.

As for her recommendations, fine as far as they go but the challenge is not at the general principles, which most policy makers agree with, but actually implementing them in a real-time basis, where I believe the main failures likely were:

Over the past year the lives of refugees and asylum seekers of the Global South have been put at risk more than ever by potential receiving countries of the Global North. Militarized migrant pushbacks at the Poland-Belarus border. Increasing migrant deaths in the English Channel. Draconian asylum and refugee policies being proposed by the U.K. A United States that continues to be refugee-averse despite a change in government. In essence, we are witnessing the “whiteness” of refugee policy – a shift by countries of the Global North toward using the lives of refugees to wield greater power over the Global South, all the while retaining the false narrative of the white saviour.

Canada’s current refugee policy is nowhere as extreme as those examples, but it is not so distanced from this narrative either. The Afghan refugee crisis in the summer of 2021 was meant to be a moment for Canada to exhibit its good policy, particularly since it played an active part in post-conflict Afghanistan and maintained a presence in the country. Instead, the Canadian response exposed the contradictions in its refugee policy, many of them a long time coming. Whiteness does not only mean discriminating against the “other.” It also means being completely disconnected from the situation outside the Global North. Canada’s response to the Afghan crisis has provided us with several illustrations of this disconnect.

Canada’s response – gaps and discrepancies

From being one of the first northern countries to shutter its embassy when the Taliban took over to when it ended its evacuation mission in the following days, Canada’s disconnect from reality was clear. There were thousands of refugee and asylum cases that had been pending since at least 2014, and the decision to create new refugee programs or expanding existing ones at the 11th hour was a bureaucratic scramble, rather than a well thought out policy response. It stranded people in other countries, which meant Canada had to negotiate special agreements so these countries would temporarily house refugees destined for Canada. The ethics and optics were particularly weak when this involved countries like Pakistan that had closed their borders and were hostile to Afghan refugees.

The situation of Afghan interpreters and fixers who assisted Western forces, including Canada, illustrates the biggest policy disconnect from reality. Their roles were prone to being romanticized in the media, as they perfectly invoke the image of the Western white saviour and the oppressed Afghan working together against a common evil. However, Afghans did not necessarily help Western forces because the West came to save them. They did it primarily for economic survival, as some studies have found, and as a way out of the country for their families in the aftermath of a brutal conflict. This does not negate their right to seek refuge. But suggesting the prospect of asylum in return for helping imperial forces during an (illegal) occupation is a flawed and incoherent premise in the context of refugee policy.

In effect, Western interventionism created multiple tiers of refugees in a system that was never meant to view some as being more deserving than others. In Canada’s case, this threatens the lives of Afghans who directly worked with us by encouraging them with the prospect of asylum and then failing to deliver even before it was too late – all because such cases required a force-fit within a law that recognizes them as just one of many deserving groups.

What the Afghanistan situation most clearly illustrates is the absence of mechanisms within Canada’s refugee policy to respond to complex emergencies on the ground. Canada’s refugee system, like many others, looks to the United NationsHigh Commissioner for Refugees’ (UNHCR) referral program. Inthis program the UNHCR refers the applications of refugees officially registered with the organization to third countries thatare offering resettlement opportunities. These third countries, such as Canada, then select who to admit by applying their own criteria to the applications referred to them by the UNHCR. This is how Canada responded to the Syrian refugee crisis in 2015. In the recent Afghan case, however, the system was redundantsince the urgency created by the Taliban takeover was to removeAfghans from within Afghanistan, not from refugee camps elsewhere. Not anticipating this, and also leaving existing Afghan applications stagnating within our refugee system, was perhaps Canada’s worst failing in this crisis. 

Recommendations for better policy and practice

The Afghanistan case blindsided Canada’s refugee response system, but it didn’t have to. We must redesign our refugee policy to be proactive instead of reactive. For this, Canada must:

  • Design better mechanisms to predict and understand conflict-induced displacement

The West obsessively predicts large-scale displacement related to climate change and hunger. But it does little to predict or understand how armed conflict or political power imbalances can force people to flee, especially in the Global South. This includes ignoring voices within the Global South that are better able to judge tension and displacement in their countries. Afghanistan has been a location of conflict for as long as the Taliban have existed. Misjudging this was a tactical error that exposed Canada’s disregard for the views of potential refugees themselves. Refugee policy must invest in a more Southern-led understanding of how conflict manifests over time and can affect people’s lives, including the voices of refugees. It must move away from being simply a paper-pushing exercise.

  • Integrate inter-departmental efforts to respond to refugees and displacement 

Canada was involved in pre- and post-conflict Afghanistan not just militarily, but also via its development programming and humanitarian support. Information gathered by the various departmental channels is vital to developing an integrated response to potential human displacement across government. Better inter-governmental co-ordination would improve refugee response systems, particularly in countries where Canada is diplomatically present.

  • Adopt emergency measures to respond to crises

Canada rather proudly states that it responded to the Afghan crisis by effectively accommodating on-ground challenges. This included bypassing and altering screening and documentation requirements. But this was done only after the realization that regular, peace-time processing measures were not working. Precious time was lost in the process of coming to this realization. Had such measures been in place beforehand, the response would have been immediate. Therefore, it is imperative to acknowledge the distinction between and the need for peace-time and conflict-related refugee processing mechanisms.

A Canadian government official recently commented on Canada’s refusal to bring in relatives of Afghan refugee applicants who were deemed inadmissible. He said: “the hard part of the job has been telling people: ‘I’m sorry, this is the policy.”

This comment in a nutshell sums up Canada’s disconnect from reality as it relates to its refugee response. The Afghan case has demonstrated that whiteness manifests itself not only in racial discrimination but also in policies that are largely oblivious to reality outside our borders. Canada prioritized its bureaucracy and interventions over the risks faced by the Afghan people, and the system ignored the urgency of a country on the brink of collapse. If this is what our refugee system is built around, it is clearly geared toward helping Canada, and not the vulnerable.

Source: https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/january-2022/the-incoherence-of-canadas-refugee-policy/

UK tightens criteria for Afghans to enter despite ‘warm welcome’ pledge

Yet another example by far too many countries:

The Home Office has tightened the criteria allowing Afghans to enter the UK despite promises from Boris Johnson to give a “warm welcome” to those who assisted British forces or worked with the government.

The department announced changes to the Afghan relocations and assistance policy (Arap) which narrows the criteria from that used during the Operation Pitting evacuation in August 2021.

After the UK’s chaotic exit from Kabul in August, the prime minister launched “operation warm welcome” to ensure the safety of staff in fear for their lives from the Taliban.

“I am determined that we welcome them with open arms and that my government puts in place the support they need to rebuild their lives,” Johnson said at the time. “We will never forget the brave sacrifice made by Afghans who chose to work with us, at great risk to themselves.”

Source: UK tightens criteria for Afghans to enter despite ‘warm welcome’ pledge

Syrian refugees who now call Canada home look to help Afghan newcomers

Nice:

The living room at Zoheir and Nadia Darrouba’s home is a hive of activity in the late afternoon – their older children, just back from school, are taking turns carrying around their baby brother as their parents look on.

It’s a simple scene but one that makes Zoheir Darrouba feel at home in the mid-size Ontario city the Syrian refugee family of eight has now put down roots in.

“We have settled here. We cannot live outside Peterborough,” he says. “It’s a good and quiet city. There are not problems here … People are helpful and nice.”

The family is among nearly 46,000 Syrian refugees who were resettled in Canada under a program introduced by the Liberal government in 2015. The first flight carrying Syrian refugees landed in Toronto on Dec. 10, 2015, exactly six years ago.

The Darroubas, who made their way to Canada under the resettlement program in November 2016, used to live in Idlib, in northwest Syria, one of the first regions where local uprisings escalated into widespread violence. The family lived for a period of time in Lebanon before finding themselves settling in Peterborough.

Now, as they consider themselves firmly established locals, the family is looking to help Afghan refugees who’ve started arriving in the city following the Taliban’s takeover of Kabul earlier this year, although the pandemic has made that effort a bit more complicated.

“There are several (Afghan) families here … They are in quarantine, unlike before,” said Darrouba, who wants to offer support because he knows first-hand how hard starting over in a new country can be.

“When we came here, we didn’t know anyone here. If someone showed up to visit us, we would feel it’s great support.”

Darrouba currently works as a driver delivering COVID-19 PCR test samples for local pharmacies in Peterborough to a lab in east Toronto.

The family’s five older children, ranging in age from eight to 16, are all doing well at school, their father says, while their mother is staying home to care for her two-month-old.

Nadia Darrouba says she’s content with her Canadian home.

“In my first days in Canada, I used to look at the snow from the window and cry thinking when the winter will be over,” she recalled. “We are very comfortable now. My children grow up here. They don’t know Syria.”

Two of her daughters, who are blind, say they’re well-supported at school and feel set up for success.

“If I compare where I was and where I’m now, it’s a huge achievement … I used to speak English but it wasn’t so good. Now my English is a lot better … My grades are very good,” said Aya Darrouba.

The 16-year-old, like her father, said she feels drawn to helping Afghan refugees who are now beginning a new chapter, just as her family did.

She volunteers with a local settlement agency that’s helping Afghan refugees and, since the pandemic has made it challenging to meet in person, recently helped it make a video offering advice to the newcomers.

“I just tried to make them feel at home,” she said of the video. “I told them your first days in Canada will be difficult but you will get used to the country.”

The federal government has committed to resettling 40,000 Afghan refugees, with 3,625 now in Canada, including about 80 in Peterborough, according to government data.

Marwa Khobie, executive director at the Syrian Canadian Foundation, said Syrian refugees are well placed to help the Afghan refugees who started arriving in Canada in the last few months.

Her organization, which is based in Mississauga, Ont., launched a campaign this week to raise money for Afghan newcomers and connect them with 100 Syrian refugees.

“Now that Afghan refugees have arrived, it was kind of a way to refresh our memories and remember what we went through five years ago,” she said.

“Many Syrian newcomers were actually asking and telling us: ‘How can we support Afghan refugees? What can we do? How can we meet them?'”

Her organization has partnered with four other groups that are supporting Afghan refugees to provide opportunities for now-settled Syrian refugees to help the newcomers in the Greater Toronto Area, she said.

Khobie said the campaign, called From Syria to Afghanistan, will also have a positive impact on Syrian refugees.

Sharing their success stories, remembering what they went through – this is a way to empower Syrian newcomers and Afghan refugees at the same time,” she said.

“For Afghan refugees, we want them to feel welcomed here in Canada, a sense of belonging, knowing that they’re not alone in the community, and everybody is willing to support in every way possible.”

Source: Syrian refugees who now call Canada home look to help Afghan newcomers