Immigration policy will be part of election conversation, opposition says | Toronto Star

Pretty skimpy on the details, given the range of changes implemented by the Conservative government.

We may see more precision when the electoral platforms are released, however the tone is markedly different:

Immigration policy under the Conservative party’s watch has changed substantially, with many rules and regulations making it harder for refugees and immigrants to make Canada their home.

The Tories’ tough-on-immigration stance has won over some ethnic groups; others are less than keen. Critics in Parliament have argued vigorously against the changes. But the Tories argue that their changes have saved taxpayers money, streamlined processes, cut waiting times and stopped “bogus” refugees. A spokesman for the Minister of Immigration Chris Alexander said he wasn’t available to talk to the Star to discuss the changes or what lies ahead.

But according to University of Toronto’s assistant political science professor Erin Tolley, immigration rarely makes it as a central election issue because it “has the potential to alienate.”

But this time around both the Liberal and the NDP say they are going to make immigration policy part of the election conversation.

Key points:

NDP:

  • family reunification emphasis
  • loosening of citizenship language test requirements
  • more welcoming approach to refugees

Liberals:

  • Restore pre-Permanent Residence time 50 percent credit for citizenship
  • Repeal intent to reside provision
  • Reduce overall processing times
  • Commit to larger number of refugees, strengthen due process
  • Not assume “every second person is a criminal”

Interesting that revocation not mentioned.

Immigration policy will be part of election conversation, opposition says | Toronto Star.

Refugee board members’ rulings varied widely in 2014, data suggests

Good and necessary analysis and wonder if the IRB uses this data as a quality control measure. There may be valid reasons for variation, and the sample sizes are relatively small, but generally variation on this scale suggests “automatic thinking” and biases may be playing a role.

The good news is that under the new system and a better selection process for judges, the variation appears to be decreasing:

The data show many decisions by adjudicators fall far below the average rate of acceptance that would be expected based on country of origin, and others far above. And that’s the case in both the old, or “legacy,” system and the new system, which is supposed to be more fair.

As examples, Rehaag pointed to some judges least likely to grant refugee status:

In the legacy system, Edward Robinson (2 claims granted out of 65 total decisions, or 3.1 per cent) and David McBean (1 out of 21 decisions, or 4.8 per cent).

In the new system, Teresa Maziarz (15 of 53 decisions, 28.3 per cent) and Brenda Lloyd (25 of 64 decisions, 39 per cent).

He also pointed to others on the other end of the scale, who granted refugee status in most of the cases they heard:

In the legacy system, Barry Barnes (59 of 77 decisions, 76.6 per cent) and Kevin Fainbloom (53 of 75 decisions, 70.7 per cent).

In the new system Nina Stanwick (35 of 38 decisions, 92.1 per cent) and Rabin Tiwari (104 of 117 decisions, 88.9 per cent).

In a written response, a spokesperson for the IRB noted there are many factors that can cause variations in acceptance rates.

“Each refugee protection claim is unique and is determined by members on its individual merit,” Melissa Anderson wrote.

Anderson cited as factors the region or city in which claimants lived, their ethnicity or nationality, their gender, whether they spent time in a third country without making a refugee claim before coming to Canada, and the evidence they or their lawyer presents to the refugee protection division.

Analysis of data on Immigration and Refugee Board decisions shows a wide variance in outcomes depending on who is hearing a case.

She also noted that the credibility of the claimant can be a key factor in the decision.

Still, immigration lawyers who regularly appear before the board say those factors don’t explain the extreme discrepancies among some decision-makers.

Immigration lawyer Lorne Waldman says he’s always worried if he has to argue a case before certain judges.

Waldman added, that while there is still inconsistency among adjudicators in the new system, he believes the variation is “less extreme” for cases post-2012.

He attributes the change to a new selection process for board members that includes people from outside the IRB.

Refugee board members’ rulings varied widely in 2014, data suggests – Politics – CBC News.

The real reasons why migrants risk everything for a new life elsewhere: Saunders

Good in-depth piece by Doug Saunders, putting the current situation in context:

Even in its worst years, the Mediterranean boat-people flow is only a small part of the migration picture: tens of thousands of entrants in a continent of half a billion people that receives three million immigrants a year. Most Africans living in Europe are fully legal, visa-carrying immigrants who arrive at airports. Even the majority of illegal African immigrants in Europe aren’t boat people: They’re legal visitors who’ve overstayed their visas.

What has compounded the matter during the past 24 months has been the conflict in Syria. While only a fraction of people fleeing that country have attempted to go to Europe – the vast majority are encamped in Turkey, Jordan or Lebanon – that fraction has multiplied the numbers of boat people dramatically in 2014 and 2015. It now accounts for perhaps half of Mediterranean boat migrants (though the boat that was the subject of last weekend’s tragedy carried passengers almost entirely from sub-Saharan Africa).

Refugees tend to be temporary (the much larger exodus of asylum seekers that confronted Western Europe during the Balkan wars of the 1990s – a population shift that seemed even more intractable – mostly returned to their countries after the conflicts ended), and are dealt with through different policies than are migrants. In Europe, those policies are deeply dysfunctional, with little agreement among the 28 EU countries about how to handle refugee claimants or how to deport illegitimate ones – which has contributed to the death toll.

“There should be no reason for Syrian refugees to be getting on these boats, except that there has been no proper pathway for safe refugee acceptance opened up,” Dr. de Haas says. If Western countries would take their United Nations refugee responsibilities more seriously, Syrians wouldn’t be dying at sea.

The most insidious notion is the one that holds that the Africans on the boats are starving villagers escaping famine and death. In fact, every boat person I’ve met has been ambitious, urban, educated, and, if not middle-class (though a surprising number are, as are an even larger number of Syrian refugees), then far from subsistence peasantry. They are very poor by European standards, but often comfortable by African and Middle Eastern ones. And no wonder: The boats cost upward of $2,000 to board (and you need more money to make a start in Europe). That’s a year’s income in many African countries.

Why would somebody risk their life, and their comfort, for a journey that at best would promise a marginal life in the underground economies of Europe?

Linguère Mously Mbaye, a scholar at the Bonn-based Institute for the Study of Labour, conducted a study of hundreds of people in Dakar, Senegal, who were planning to make the crossing to Europe.

The migrants tended not to be very poor. And they tended to be well-connected in Europe: They knew large numbers of people from their home country already living in Europe and working in similar occupations. In other words, they were tied into “migration networks” that communicated information about employment, small-business, housing and migration opportunities. Migrants tend to choose their European destinations not according to culture, language or history, but according to the number of people from their network who are living there – and also according to the economic success of their destination country.

The Syrian refugees are less tactical – and not as well linked into existing economies – than the Africans, but they, too, tend to come because they have connections to people or organizations in Europe. Concludes Dr. Mbaye, “Illegal migration starts first in thoughts, based upon the belief that success is only possible abroad.”

Both major studies found that the Africans who get onto the boats are not running from something awful, but running toward a specific, chosen opportunity, in employment or small business.

That’s a big reason that the boat-people flows have gone up and down so dramatically: Dr. de Haas’s studies found that the main driver of cross-Mediterranean migration is not any economic or political factor in Africa but “sustained demand [in Europe] for cheap labour in agriculture, services, and other informal sectors.” Even those who are fleeing – the Syrians, some Eritreans – are choosing where they flee based on a sense of opportunity.

The real reasons why migrants risk everything for a new life elsewhere – The Globe and Mail.

Odds stacked against Roma refugees, researchers find

Good statistical analysis highlighting issue:

Researchers from Osgoode Hall Law School and Western University reviewed Immigration and Refugee Board decisions on 11,333 Hungarian refugees — a group highlighted by Ottawa for abuse of the system and as a cause for reforms — between 2008 and 2012, broken down by adjudicators and lawyers representing the claimants.

It found:

  • Roma made up 85 per cent of all Hungarian refugees, the rest from other ethnicities.
  • Only 660, or 18.1 per cent, of the claims were granted, compared with 54,290, or 47.2 per cent, from all countries.
  • Among refugee judges who had handled 20 or more Hungarian cases during the period, acceptance rates ranged from 77.8 per cent to zero.
  • Three Toronto-area lawyers represented 1,139 Hungarian cases, accounting for more than a third of the total cases in the five years.
  • Lawyers who represented 25 or more Hungarian cases had success rates ranging broadly, from 1.1 per cent to 30.6 per cent. The combination of significantly below-average success rates and very high volumes of cases is identified as a concern.

The study cautioned against drawing inferences about the quality of legal representation from asylum success rates, but said, “The combination of significantly below-average success rates and very high volumes of cases does, in our view, raise serious concerns.”

It found three of the six highest-volume lawyers involved in Roma cases are currently facing disciplinary proceedings at the Law Society of Upper Canada.

Lawyer Viktor Hohots had a 1.2 per cent success rate out of 504 cases; Elizabeth Jaszi, 1.1 per cent out of 80 claims; and Joseph Farkas, 6.7 per cent out of 223.

Hohots has admitted to professional misconduct in negligence complaints made by 13 Roma, most of whom were denied asylum and deported, and is awaiting a penalty hearing. According to the study, Jaszi faces accusations of failing to properly prepare documents, while Farkas is alleged to have failed to supervise a non-lawyer who prepared refugee claims in his office. The allegations against Jaszi and Farkas have yet to be proven.

None of the three responded to the Star’s repeated requests for comment.

The study acknowledged that 52.5 per cent of the 7,669 Hungarian claims were either withdrawn or abandoned, compared with 18.3 per cent of cases from all countries.

Odds stacked against Roma refugees, researchers find | Toronto Star.

Many older Canadian immigrants live on less than $11,000 per year

Some of the challenges facing older refugees:

Immigrants and refugees who come to Canada later in life face unique challenges in terms of income, livelihood and social integration, said Chris Friesen, director of settlement services for the Immigrant Services Society of B.C. The problems are especially acute for seniors who are not from one of the region’s larger ethnocultural communities, such as Chinese, Indian or Filipino, where larger social networks are in place. They represent a small but growing share of immigrants to B.C. and Canada, Friesen said.

“The new and few, we call them.”

On Tuesday, Khaleghi and other immigrant seniors will have the chance to share their stories with key decision-makers and recommend changes to help others like them. The forum, called Moving Forward: Unheard Voices, will include representatives of city governments, health authorities, Citizenship and Immigration Canada and the B.C. Seniors Advocate, among others.

Recent policy changes have made things more difficult for immigrant seniors, who typically come to Canada either as sponsored family members or refugees, Friesen said. Citizenship and Immigration Canada recently increased the amount of time families must commit to financially supporting relatives to 20 years from 10 years, which means that only the wealthiest families are able to be reunited on a permanent basis. On the refugee side, Canada now selects people based on need of protection versus ability to settle.

“All these things are colliding together that impact the livelihood and life and dignity of these folks as they age in Canada,” Friesen said. “What was kind of an eye opener for me is, if you arrive at 65 and you have no financial means, your baseline entitlement is under $11,000 (per year) that you have to live on. On top that, if you’re a refugee, not only is it less than $11,000 but you also have to repay your transportation loan that provided you the opportunity to come to Canada.”

Many older Canadian immigrants live on less than $11,000 per year.

Canada’s refugee acceptance rate up despite asylum restrictions | Toronto Star

Some of the initial comparative data on the impact of refugee reforms of 2012:

Canada received 20,223 refugee claims in 2012 but the number dropped to 10,356 in 2013 after the asylum reforms. The number of claims climbed last year to 13,652.

The main refugee source countries have remained steady, led by China and Pakistan, with Hungary, Colombia, Syria, Nigeria, Afghanistan and Haiti next; their overall acceptance rate was at 67 per cent in 2014.

The Conservative government introduced the changes to the refugee system in 2012 to crack down on bogus refugee claims from democratic countries and reduce the then growing backlogs by expediting the process.

Processing of new asylum claims is down to three months from more than 20 months under the old system, with the backlog reduced by two-thirds to 9,877 claims — one-fifth of them in the system for more than three years — from the peak of 30,750 in 2012.

“I’m heartened that under the new system, Canada is still granting refugee protection to a significant number of claimants,” said Osgoode Hall Law School professor Sean Rehaag. “The overall figures challenge the government’s assertion that Canada is having its generosity abused by fraudulent claimants.”

Canada’s refugee acceptance rate up despite asylum restrictions | Toronto Star.

The attached table provides the details:

2014

2013

China

42%

34%

Pakistan

78%

72%

Hungary

35%

20%

Colombia

52%

38%

Syria

93%

90%

Nigeria

53%

35%

India

18%

15%

Korea (North)

0%

0%

Afghanistan

77%

71%

Haiti

41%

40%

Congo

43%

49%

Iraq

82%

63%

Sri Lanka

58%

51%

Croatia

11%

11%

Slovakia

52%

8%

Ukraine

59%

41%

Bangladesh

64%

39%

Iran

71%

75%

Egypt

86%

89%

Somalia

54%

59%

Ottawa spent $1.4M in court to fight for refugee health cuts

Not surprised at the legal costs in defending the cuts to refugee claimant healthcare but one of the consequences of a bad initial decision:

In November, the government announced to partially restore the service cuts while it appealed the ruling.

“It is unfortunate that the government had chosen not to spend the money on the care of pregnant women and sick children,” said Dr. Meb Rashid of the Canadian Doctors for Refugee Care, one of five groups and individuals who took the government to court. “$1.4 million can buy a lot of vaccinations.”

On Tuesday, the court also heard a motion by the advocates to compel the government to fully reverse the cut. A decision is pending.

“We will continue to appeal the flawed ruling. . . by the Federal Court. Our government is defending the interests of Canadian taxpayers as well as the integrity of our refugee determination system,” said Kevin Menard, spokesman for Immigration Minister Chris Alexander.

Ottawa spent $1.4M in court to fight for refugee health cuts | Toronto Star.

Paying failed refugee claimants to leave Canada didn’t work: Review

Classic case of anecdote driving assumptions, assumptions not validated prior to launch. It would be interesting to know what was CBSA and CIC advice to the political level on the design of this program: was it ‘fearless’ or going along with the flow?

And an interesting reference to “like many aspects of the refugee reform,” suggesting other aspects were similarly driven more by anecdote than evidence:

But an evaluation by Canada Border Services Agency found that’s not what happened.

“The need for the AVRR as currently designed is questionable in that removals take longer and cost more compared to other low-risk removals since the refugee reform came into effect,” the evaluation found.

The controversial program was part of the Conservative government’s overhaul of the refugee system, launched in a bid to crack down on people making unfounded refugee claims and tying up government resources.

Critics said the changes were made without considering the implications, a point echoed by the government’s own evaluation of the return project.

“Like many aspects of the refugee reform, the pilot program was designed based on a set of assumptions that could not be validated prior to launch, some of which proved not to be accurate,” the evaluation said.

Among them: the idea that giving people money to help them resettle in their home countries would convince them to stop trying to appeal negative decisions.

“Since the assistance received decreases with each additional appeal made, it was expected that more failed refugee claimants would choose to leave instead of filing an appeal,” the evaluation report said.

“The assistance paid so far shows this was not the case as more participants made two appeals in 2013-2014 than in 2012-2013.”

Those making claims from so-called safe countries, known as DCOs, were offered $500 and those from elsewhere were eligible for up to $2,000.

That didn’t work as planned either.

“The Immigration and Refugee Board databases did not initially include a marker to indicate which failed refugee claimants were from a DCO,” the report said.

However, the evaluation process worked, and it was a pilot program. Sometimes you have to try things to see if they will work, but better testing and challenge of assumptions would help reduce risk of failure.

Paying failed refugee claimants to leave Canada didn’t work: Review.

Link to evaluation here.

Refugee health-care advocates criticize government inaction

The risks of trying to be too clever in  implementing partially a Federal Court ruling. Will see the Court rules on the motion:

The Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers and the Canadian Doctors for Refugee Care, however, say the government re-repealed that measure on Nov. 6, 2014, only two days after it was supposed to restore the health coverage.

The advocates first pointed out the return to the repealed measure in December, but the Canadian Medical Association Journal drew attention to it in an article published Wednesday.

Waldman said the Federal Court was clear the government was supposed to restore the pre-2012 coverage. He’s filed a motion to the court asking for a finding that the government has breached the court order.

A spokesman for Immigration Minister Chris Alexander declined an interview request and responded by email. He called the court ruling “flawed.”

“Our government is defending the interests of Canadian taxpayers as well as the integrity of our refugee determination system,” Kevin Menard wrote.

“We have implemented temporary health-care measures as per the Federal Court’s ruling on Nov. 5. Regrettably, the Federal Court’s ruling is costing taxpayers an extra $4 million a year.”

Dr. Philip Berger, one of the founders of Canadian Doctors for Refugee Health, says the government showed contempt for refugee claimants and doctors and is now extending that contempt to the Federal Court.

“There’s nothing the federal government says about refugee health that can be believed,” he said.

“The costs have simply been downloaded to the provinces and to hospitals who must see people in emergency departments and doctors who are prepared to provide coverage for free.”

Refugee health-care advocates criticize government inaction – Politics – CBC News.

Canada vows to accept 13,000 more refugees from Syria and Iraq

Good commitment – finally, now the challenge will be in implementation:

Canada has already accepted 20,000 Iraqis and since mid-2013 has brought 1,060 Syrian refugees to Canada. Total approvals for resettled Syrian refugees now exceed 1,275, with thousands more applications still being processed. This number doesn’t include the many more Syrians who’ve been accepted as refugees after making “inland claims” from within Canada.

The government also announced another $90-million in humanitarian assistance for people affected by the intensifying violence in both Iraq and Syria, home to a long-running civil war as well as battles between Islamic jihadis and government forces. The assistance will be distributed via UN agencies, the Red Cross and aid groups.

Mr. Alexander said the 10,000 new Syrian refugees will be resettled in Canada through both government and private-organization sponsorship. He said he expects roughly 60 per cent will be supported by private sponsors such as church groups and 40 per cent through government arrangements – “roughly the same proportions we’ve always had.”

Refugee sponsor groups said it will be a huge task to help 6,000, or 60 per cent of Syrian refugees, settle in Canada over 36 months. This is on top of the 3,000 additional Iraqi refugees Canada is now accepting.

Some said they hadn’t been officially informed of the proportion that private sponsors are expected to shoulder.

“Over three years, it will be probably on the edge of possible,” Alexandra Kotyk, director of sponsorship at AURA, a charitable organization representing the Anglican Diocese of Toronto and the Toronto Conference of the United Church of Canada.

I have less of an issue than some critics on the issue of need and possible preference given to Christian refugees, as it is hard to argue that Christians, and other minorities, are not likely at more risk than others.

Canada vows to accept 13,000 more refugees from Syria and Iraq – The Globe and Mail.