Business acumen is the antidote to the political backlash against migration

Interesting initiative, similar to Talent Beyond Boundaries:

…Some of those businesses, including Saint-Gobain, Colas, Purolator, Lafarge and Fragomen, are already participating in a new partnership launched by the France Canada Chamber of Commerce (Ontario), or FCCCO, this past February.

Project Starfish – the initiative’s name is a nod to returning stranded starfish to the sea – is working with the IOM to provide companies with access to globally displaced talent. Migrants, meanwhile, benefit from job opportunities that allow them to immediately contribute to the Canadian economy. The workers, who originally hail from Djibouti, Costa Rica and Mexico, only arrive in Canada after securing a job and a work permit.

“Virtual Interviews and recruitments are ongoing by companies,” said Riva Walia, founding managing director of FCCCO, adding that 52 candidates were being considered for various jobs as of last week.

Ms. Walia and Sanjay Tugnait, president and chief executive of Fairfax Digital Services, are also conducting a roadshow to solicit more corporate participation in Project Starfish.

“Canada is the best in class when it comes to matching work force needs with a migration policy,” Ms. Pope said. “And that gives Canada a competitive edge compared to other countries. That will become more and more relevant as we see these demographic trends become more and more acute.”…

Source: Business acumen is the antidote to the political backlash against migration

Saunders: Rishi Sunak’s Rwanda scheme is a global lesson in policy stupidity

Valid critique, and not helping the Conservatives much in the polls:

…Mr. Sunak’s scheme is faring even worse. Without having managed to deport a single migrant, his government has already paid $412-million to the government of Rwandan president Paul Kagame, who has an appalling human-rights record. Britain’s National Audit Office recently estimated that it will cost more than $900-million to deport the first 300 people – more than $3-million per migrant – though it seems unlikely that as many as 300 will ever be deported.

This vast cost, extraordinary inefficiency, policy pointlessness, unnecessary cruelty and general stupidity could all have been avoided if Mr. Sunak just paid attention to the very rational decision-making processes that guide those migrants. As experts have repeatedly pointed out, Channel crossings would all but disappear if it were easily possible to apply for British humanitarian and labour visas and family-reunification admissions en route, in Europe and elsewhere, creating safe legal paths for applicants.

That would increase his country’s refugee intake by a small, manageable margin (and would require some old-style deportations of those rejected), but it would all but end deadly illegal migration and its political consequences, at far lower cost. This would allow a politician to say “I ended this terrible problem” – something no number of flights to the middle of Africa will accomplish.

Source: Rishi Sunak’s Rwanda scheme is a global lesson in policy stupidity

Birth Outcomes Differ Across Canadian Immigration Categories

Significant difference for refugees, understandable given more arduous immigration journeys, well discussed in the article:

Adverse birth outcomes, such as preterm birth and stillbirth, are more likely to occur among refugees in Canada than among economic-class immigrants, according to a new study.

Overall, babies born to Canadian immigrant parents face increased risks for preterm birth, stillbirth, and small size for gestational age (SGA), but these risks vary according to the life experiences of different immigrant groups, the study authors wrote.

“Immigrants are often considered a single, homogeneous group. Scientific research also often focuses on health differences in immigrants versus native-born people,” lead author Seungmi Yang, PhD, associate professor of epidemiology, biostatistics, and occupational health at McGill University in Montreal, Canada, told Medscape Medical News.

“However, immigrants differ in their lived experiences before immigration, their motivations or reasons for immigrating, and their postimmigration environment,” she said. “Since Canada formally accepts immigrants by admission categories with distinct criteria, we thought the admission category would be a meaningful characteristic [by which] to separate immigrants into different groups. And if any important differences were observed, it may help in our creation and provision of healthcare and support programs for immigrants by tailoring to specific subgroups.”

The study was published online on April 2 in CMAJ.

Stillbirths Among Refugees

The investigators conducted a population-based retrospective study, analyzing Statistics Canada data for nearly 8 million Canadian births during the 25 years from 1993 to 2017. The research team looked at the differences in adverse birth and postnatal outcomes for immigrants in the following three categories: Economic-class immigrants (ie, those selected for their skills), family-class immigrants (those who reunified with their families), and refugees. They compared outcomes in these groups with the outcomes of Canadian-born parents. They focused on preterm births, SGA births, large-for-gestational-age (LGA) births, stillbirths, neonatal death within the first month, and overall infant death within the first year.

Among nearly 8 million births, more than 1.7 million (21.5%) were to immigrant mothers. Of the latter births, 50% were to family-class immigrants, 37% to economic-class immigrants, and 13% to refugees.

At the time of birth, immigrants were more frequently married than Canadian-born parents, although refugees were more often unmarried than other immigrants. Refugees were also more likely to have more children, while economic-class immigrants were more likely to be ages 35 years or older at delivery.

Compared with infants of Canadian-born parents, babies in the immigrant groups had higher risks for preterm birth, SGA birth, and stillbirth. They had a lower risk for LGA birth and neonatal death, however.

Compared with infants of economic-class immigrants, babies of refugees had higher risks for preterm birth and LGA birth but lower risk for SGA. On the other hand, infants of family-class immigrants had a higher risk for SGA birth. These trends were most significant for first births among immigrants.

After adjusting for several sociodemographic characteristics, the researchers found that the risks for stillbirth, neonatal death, and overall infant death did not differ significantly among the immigrant groups, although stillbirths were generally higher among refugees. The findings appear to support previous studies that indicate that refugees remain a vulnerable subgroup of immigrants, likely for several reasons, the study authors wrote.

“Differential risks of adverse outcomes between admission categories vary also across outcomes,” Yang said. “Other outcome-specific patterns of differential risks among immigrant subgroups would need to be further examined to better understand the heterogeneity in health experiences among immigrants and potentially reasons for differences.”

Additional factors may contribute to the differential risks for adverse birth outcomes, including socioeconomic challenges, systematic racism, or immigration experiences that have been linked to birth and postnatal outcomes, the study authors wrote.

Immigrants are typically considered healthier than native-born people in their receiving country and tend to be healthier than nonmigrants in their country of origin. This discrepancy is often called the “healthy immigrant effect.” However, information about birth outcomes among immigrants may change this belief and approach to healthcare policy.

‘Arduous Economic Conditions’

Commenting on the study for Medscape Medical News, Marcelo Urquia, PhD, associate professor of community health sciences at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Canada, said, “Immigrants have been shown to possess a health advantage yet are also more likely to reside in arduous economic conditions.”

Urquia, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched adverse birth outcomes among immigrants, as well as refugee maternal and perinatal health. He and his colleagues found that refugee mothers had higher maternal health risks and more adverse birth outcomes.

“Further research into stressors that refugee mothers experience in their countries of origin, in transition countries, and in countries of resettlement may help support the development of preconception and pregnancy stress prevention and management strategies,” he said. “To help facilitate international comparisons, refugee health researchers may find it useful to state if and how immigration policies shape the health of refugees, relative to other immigrants within their borders.”

Source: Birth Outcomes Differ Across Canadian Immigration Categories

The U.S. Is Rebuilding a Legal Pathway for Refugees. The Election Could Change That.

Indeed:

With national attention focused on the chaos at the southern border, President Biden has been steadily rebuilding a legal pathway for immigration that was gutted during the Trump administration.

The United States has allowed more than 40,000 refugees into the country in the first five months of the fiscal year after they passed a rigorous, often yearslong, screening process that includes security and medical vetting and interviews with American officers overseas.

The figure represents a significant expansion of the refugee program, which is at the heart of U.S. laws that provide desperate people from around the world with a legal way to find safe haven in the United States.

The United States has not granted refugee status to so many people in such a short period of time in more than seven years. The Biden administration is now on target to allow in 125,000 refugees this year, the most in three decades, said Angelo Fernández Hernández, a White House spokesman.

By comparison, roughly 64,000 refugees were admitted during the last three years of the Trump administration.

“The Biden administration has been talking a big talk about resettling more refugees since Biden took office,” said Julia Gelatt, an associate director at the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan research group in Washington. “Finally we are seeing the payoff in higher numbers.”

But as the presidential campaign heats up, immigration advocates fear that the gains will be wiped out if former President Donald J. Trump is elected. The former president has vowed to suspend the program if he takes office again, just as he did in 2017 for 120 days.

Mr. Trump has characterized the program as a security threat, even though refugees go through extensive background checks and screening. He reassigned officers, shuttered overseas posts and slashed the number of refugees allowed into the country every year.

The result, when Mr. Biden took office, was a system devoid of resources.

“The refugee program hangs in the balance with this election,” said Barbara L. Strack, the former lead refugee official at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services….

Source: The U.S. Is Rebuilding a Legal Pathway for Refugees. The Election Could Change That.

Près de 60 000 dossiers d’immigration approuvés s’empilent à cause des cibles de Québec

A noter:

Alors que les ministres de l’Immigration se défient et se déchirent, la pile de dossiers d’immigration déjà approuvés pour la résidence permanente ne cesse de s’épaissir à Ottawa. Créé par la divergence entre les demandes acceptées et les seuils de Québec, le goulot d’étranglement s’épaissit aussi de plus en plus vite.

La mécanique peut paraître complexe entre les deux ordres de gouvernement, mais il reste que le ministère fédéral de l’Immigration, des Réfugiés et de la Citoyenneté (IRCC) s’efforce « de respecter les demandes du Québec quant au nombre de nouveaux résidents permanents », nous écrit-on. Une personne qui a été jugée éligible à la résidence permanente par toutes les instances est donc en attente d’une place parmi les seuils de la province.

Il y a ainsi 38 000 réfugiés déjà reconnus qui vivent au Québec pour un seuil maximum de 3700 places fixé par le gouvernement de François Legault pour 2024 et 2025. Au rythme actuel, il leur faudra donc plus de 10 ans pour avoir accès à la résidence permanente pleinement. Entretemps, ces personnes ont accès aux services et peuvent travailler, mais elles ne peuvent pas demander de carte de résidence permanente. Ces années compteront-elles avant d’obtenir la citoyenneté ? IRCC reste muet sur ces éléments malgré nos questions.

« Il n’existe aucun délai maximal », nous écrit aussi ce ministère.

Il ne s’agit plus d’une simple antichambre de l’immigration, puisque la personne a déjà vu sa demande d’asile acceptée par Commission de l’Immigration et du statut de réfugié (CISR). Après une décision favorable, le demandeur d’asile approuvé se tourne vers le ministère provincial de l’Immigration, qui lui décerne un certificat de sélection du Québec.

La personne est donc ironiquement « sélectionnée » par Québec, mais sa demande de résidence stagne à Ottawa, car le ministère respecte les maximums établis par la province. Cet arriéré de résidents permanents en attente a aussi augmenté de 8000 individus en six mois, selon les chiffres déjà publiés par Le Devoir en août dernier….

Source: Près de 60 000 dossiers d’immigration approuvés s’empilent à cause des cibles de Québec

Aaron Wudrick: It’s time for a grown-up conversation on immigration

Wudrick weighs into the question of values even if to date, most critics have focussed on the practicalities (housing, healthcare, infrastructure etc) with little substantiation. However, the influx of 1,000 or so Gaza’s, fleeing the destruction, combined with the range of anti-semitic language and actions, provides a high profile example. Doesn’t appear to be an accident that applicants have to provide their social media links:

Canada has been shaped by large-scale immigration. With the exception of Indigenous Peoples, the vast majority of Canadians today are either immigrants or descendants thereof. Our nation has thrived as a pluralistic and multiethnic society, built through the gradual integration of people from around the world. 

While this is largely a good news story it should not obscure a hard truth: in the 21st century, the challenges associated with immigration are vastly different from those of 50 or 100 years ago, and until recently policymakers have been unwilling to discuss immigration policy accordingly. These challenges can be broadly categorized into three areas: economic impact; infrastructure capacity; and cultural friction.

When it comes to economic impact, immigration has historically, on balance, been beneficial to Canada’s economy and standard of living. But in recent years the evidence has become more mixed. In particular, the sheer number of new arrivals—over one million in 2022 alone—especially in the form of temporary and lower-skilled migrants, is increasingly being used as a substitute for Canadian labour, driving down wages. This downward pressure, while good news for employers trying to contain costs, has the dual effect of dragging down per-capita GDP, while disincentivizing business investment in labour-productivity-enhancing innovations. 

The cause of the jump in total migrants per year is also no secret: there has been an explosion in the number of international postsecondary students studying in Canada over the last decade—jumping from 248,000 in 2012 to 807,000 in 2022—largely as a result of postsecondary institutions seeking a more lucrative income stream since they are able to charge international students much higher fees. With no annual cap on foreign student visas, this has effectively become a massive back-door entry loophole to get into the country. Many of these students arrive with the hope of becoming permanent residents, which also entitles them to sponsor family members to come to Canada, further boosting migration levels.

Equally concerning has been the effect of this population growth on housing prices, which is a straightforward arithmetic function of supply and demand. Canada has some of the most expensive housing in the world, overwhelmingly a result of insufficient housing supply, especially in major cities. High levels of immigration, also concentrated in these cities, exacerbate the problem from the demand side. Both Canadians and newcomers suffer if they cannot afford a place to live. Similarly, many Canadians are unable to find a family doctor and face crowded schools, transit, hospitals, or other crumbling infrastructure. Rapid population growth makes these challenges harder to manage.

But, while concerns about immigration’s impact on our economy and infrastructure have slowly begun to attract more attention and public discussion, the issue of cultural friction remains largely taboo. 

It should be said that historically, Canada has been fairly successful at integrating people from diverse religious, linguistic, and racial backgrounds, and even today there is a strong case that Canada manages these challenges better than most other countries. What was once a fairly organic process that allowed for integration over years, if not generations, has been supplanted by activist government policy that preaches an official doctrine of big-M Multiculturalism, which fetishizes and subsidizes cultural differences while simultaneously erasing and downplaying Canadian history. In effect, the implicit social contract between Canada and newcomers has become unbalanced. Canada is and should remain a place where newcomers are free to retain their religion, language, and culture. But we must also actively invite all Canadians, new and old, to join a shared national project to ensure we are working towards living together rather than simply side by side.

In addition to counterproductive government policies, few have noted that the integration process has been dramatically changed by technological advance which now allows for immigrants to retain permanent, real-time cultural ties to their native countries. This phenomenon—where people can be physically present in one place but maintain daily cultural and social ties to their homeland—presents a special challenge to a country with a relatively weak national identity. This is particularly true of Canada’s large diaspora communities, including those from China, India, and Iran, which have increasingly impacted Canada’s international relationships and given rise to interference (alleged or proven) by these countries on Canadian soil.

Canada has historically enjoyed strong support for immigration across the political spectrum, a consensus that is not common in other countries. Recent opinion polling suggests that this consensus is rapidly eroding, if not already gone. We are long overdue for an honest, constructive, and robust debate about the way forward on immigration. We owe it to Canadians—both present and future.

Aaron Wudrick is the domestic policy director at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.

Source: Aaron Wudrick: It’s time for a grown-up conversation on immigration

Asylum claims jump at Canadian airports after Ottawa eases some visitor visa requirements

“Fix” one problem by creating another! Waiving the sufficient funds requirements and the demonstration of intent to leave requirement may have appeared a good idea at the time but did nobody at the official or political level not expect an increase in claimants?

Canada is experiencing a surge of asylum claims being made at domestic airports after a contentious move by the federal government to waive certain requirements for thousands of visitor visa applicants.

The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) has processed more than 26,000 asylum claimants at airports through September this year, an increase of 54 per cent from last year’s total, according to figures from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC). While the numbers have been rising since 2022, the trend accelerated in the spring.

In March, the federal government closed Roxham Road, a popular route into Quebec for those seeking asylum in Canada. The closure has forced would-be claimants to find new entry points.

But there was another, less-publicized move, that likely contributed to the trend. Earlier this year, Ottawa waived some eligibility requirements for visitor visa applicants – in particular, those individuals no longer have to prove they have sufficient funds to stay in Canada or demonstrate they will leave the country when their visas expire. The policy went into effect on Feb. 28 and lasts through the end of 2023.

The Globe and Mail reported in January that IRCC was considering such a move, after the newspaper leaked a government document that outlined ways to reduce a significant volume of visa applications.

The memo said that not all applicants for temporary resident visas, or TRVs, would be “genuine visitors,” and that in waiving eligibility requirements for those individuals, it could lead to an additional 8,600 asylum claims.

Still, Ottawa pressed ahead with the plan – although it didn’t disclose anything publicly until June, four months after the policy took effect. Radio-Canada was first to report on the change.

“The percentage of people coming to Canada on a TRV and claiming asylum remains low compared to the overall volume of TRVs the department typically issues each year,” IRCC spokesperson Mary Rose Sabater said in a statement. “In the current reality of increasing global migration, Canada, like many other countries, is experiencing a rise in the number of people claiming asylum.”

Many people connected to the immigration system, including lawyers and government employees, have criticized Ottawa’s approach to expediting the processing of applications. They say the immigration department is not performing its due diligence in screening all visitors, while also putting stress on the refugee system, which was already struggling to accommodate a rush of people seeking protection in Canada.

The change “makes our immigration system seem unreliable,” said Zeynab Ziaie Moayyed, an immigration lawyer in Toronto. It’s “a short-sighted way to reduce that backlog, but creates all kinds of other problems.”

At times last year, there were more than 2.6 million applications in IRCC’s inventories, including for visitor visas, work and study permits and permanent residency. As of Aug. 31, there were 2.2 million applications in the queue.

The IRCC memo, which dates to December, said waiving eligibility requirements would apply to roughly 450,000 TRV applications in the system.

The document said the stockpile of applications was “eroding the public’s trust” in the department and its ability to manage migration. Hopeful immigrants and visitors often complain that it can take years for the government to render a decision on their files.

“The accumulated visitor visa inventory is limiting Canada’s attractiveness for tourists and business persons, in addition to keeping families separated,” the government said on a webpage that announced the policy change. “Facilitating the processing of applications currently in the inventory by streamlining eligibility requirements will position Canada for a clean start and a return to pre-pandemic processing times, thereby ensuring our international competitiveness moving forward.”

The measure applies to visitor visa applications that were in the system by Jan. 16, coinciding with the date of The Globe’s story on the policies under consideration.

The government also waived a requirement – the need for foreign nationals to establish that they will leave the country by the end of their authorized stays – for those seeking “super visas,” which allow parents and grandparents of Canadian citizens or permanent residents to visit the country for five years at a time.

Despite the exemptions, prospective visitors are still subject to other screening procedures, such as those ensuring they aren’t a known threat to national security.

In a statement, the CBSA said it has seen an increase in the number of asylum claimants in recent weeks at airports, including Montréal–Trudeau International Airport and Toronto Pearson International Airport. The agency said the claimants were mainly from Mexico, India, Kenya, Ethiopia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nigeria and Uganda.

Federal data show that a majority of asylum claims made at airports occur in Quebec. Eric Forest, a spokesperson for Trudeau International Airport, said it is “not suited to receive a large number of asylum seekers daily nor should it be its mandate.”

The IRCC memo outlined the pros and cons of using “aggressive measures” to reduce its inventory of visa applications, which it described as a crisis situation. Among the drawbacks, there would be “increased pressure” on the asylum system, including for the CBSA, the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, hotels and airlines.

As of June 30, there were more than 103,000 refugee protection claims pending at the IRB, an increase of 47 per cent over six months.

Ms. Ziaie Moayyed questioned why IRCC would waive some requirements when it already has methods to process applications in bulk.

“They could have used the technology tools they have to process those applications,” she said. “It wouldn’t have created this really bad precedent that Canada will, at some point, if pushed, allow a large number of applications to go through without any eligibility assessment.”

Source: Asylum claims jump at Canadian airports after Ottawa eases some visitor visa requirements

Palestinians in the GTA appeal to federal government to help loved ones flee Gaza

As always, the response will be judged in relation to other groups fleeing violence like Syria, Ukraine, Afghanistan and others. Also as always, there will be degrees of inconsistency, and, security concerns regarding possible Hamas supporters.

Largely academic for the moment until there is a corridor for civilians to flee, which likely will be a secondary priority compared to Canadian citizens and Permanent Residents:

A group of Palestinians living in the GTA are appealing to the federal government to bring family members living in Gaza to Canada faster than standard immigration policies allow.

Milton local and permanent resident Abdallah Alhamadni says they’re hoping Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) will create a humanitarian pathway for Palestinians fleeing from the Israel-Hamas war, similar to those implemented for people escaping violence in places like Syria and Ukraine.

“I have a great hope, it’s not impossible to do that,” said Alhamadni, adding Canada has a reputation for helping people around the world find safe haven in the country during times of crises.

Source: Palestinians in the GTA appeal to federal government to help loved ones flee Gaza – CBC.ca

Canada-U.S. refugee pact changes expected to ‘exacerbate existing threats’: memo

It may, but to date the number of irregular arrivals remains under 100, a small number compared to likely visa and permit overstays:

A newly released memo shows federal officials warned last spring that expanding a bilateral refugee pact to the entire Canada-U.S. border would likely fuel smuggling networks and encourage people to seek more dangerous, remote crossing routes.

Officials feared the development would also strain RCMP resources as irregular migrants dispersed more widely across the vast border.

The April memo, made public by Public Safety Canada through the Access to Information Act, was prepared in advance of a Cross-Border Crime Forum meeting with American representatives.

Under the Safe Third Country Agreement, implemented in 2004, Canada and the United States recognize each other as havens to seek protection.

The pact has long allowed either country to turn back a prospective refugee who showed up at a land port of entry along the Canada-U.S. border — unless eligible for an exemption — on the basis they must pursue their claim in the country where they first arrived.

However, until this year it did not apply to those who crossed between official entry points.

On March 24, during U.S. President Joe Biden’s visit to Ottawa, the two countries announced the Safe Third Country Agreement would cover the entire land border effective the following day.

The move followed concern and debate about increases in irregular migration to both Canada and the United States.

The internal memo said the Cross-Border Crime Forum was an opportunity to reaffirm Canada’s commitment to ensuring fair, orderly migration between the two countries, in part through support for expansion of the refugee agreement.

The memo noted there was a drop in the number of irregular border interceptions by the RCMP between March 25 and April 25.

But “Despite preliminary positive results related to irregular migration volumes, changes to the (Safe Third Country Agreement) are expected to change the criminal threat environment and exacerbate existing threats to the Canada-U.S. border,” it noted.

It said individuals may be motivated to cross the border via more dangerous and remote routes in order to avoid law enforcement and circumvent the expanded protocol.

It is “highly likely that human smuggling networks will expand their operations and play a vital role in these clandestine entries” by providing services such as safe houses, fraudulent documents and transportation to and from the border, the memo said

“Human smuggling creates significant risks for irregular migrants and exposes them to dangerous conditions. Irregular crossings in remote, rural, or isolated locations may result in physical injury or fatalities.”

In addition, the memo said, the RCMP is aware that irregular migrants may become victims of physical or sexual abuse or human trafficking during their passage to Canada.

Irregular migration through isolated regions puts responding RCMP members’ health and safety at risk, the memo added. “These activities also produce challenges on the RCMP’s resources as irregular migrants become less concentrated and more dispersed across the Canada-U.S. border.”

The memo also warned that organized crime groups might use shifting irregular migration routes along the border to smuggle illicit commodities including drugs, guns and tobacco.

The internal warnings echoed concerns the Canadian Council for Refugees voiced upon expansion of the Safe Third Country Agreement. In that sense, the content of the memo is not surprising, said Gauri Sreenivasan, a co-executive director at the council.

“What’s very concerning is it underscores how clearly the government was aware of the dangers that were associated with closing down the border,” she said in an interview.

The council has consistently argued against the refugee pact, saying the U.S. is not always a safe country for people fleeing persecution.

The best public policy is to allow a claimant to show up safely at a border crossing and to hear their case fairly, Sreenivasan said. “There is nothing illegal about asking for protection. In fact, it’s a right protected under international human rights law.”

In late March, just after expansion of the refugee agreement, eight people drowned in the St. Lawrence River when an apparent attempt to smuggle them into the U.S. went awry.

A statement issued following the Cross-Border Crime Forum meeting in late April said cabinet members from the two countries asked officials to review recent incidents along the border to identify opportunities to improve intelligence, detection and interdiction to disrupt cross-border smuggling, investigate events and hold people accountable.

RCMP spokeswoman Marie-Eve Breton says co-operative efforts “have demonstrated that we can respond to the evolving threat environment encountered at the border.”

When people crossing between ports of entry are intercepted by the RCMP or local police, they are brought to a designated port of entry providing there are no national security or criminality concerns identified, Breton said. Once at the port of entry, the Canada Border Services Agency will then determine whether or not the claim is eligible under the Safe Third Country Agreement.

The border service agency says it works closely with Canadian and U.S. partners to ensure the lawful, safe and humane treatment of refugee claimants while maintaining border security.

“It is illegal to enter between ports of entry and it is not safe,” said border agency spokesperson Maria Ladouceur. “We encourage asylum seekers to cross the border at designated ports of entry.”

Breton also urged border-crossers to follow the rules. “This process is safer, faster and according to the law.”

Source: Canada-U.S. refugee pact changes expected to ‘exacerbate existing threats’: memo

Lederman: In Poland, an outrage over a movie shows the government’s fear of both fact and fiction

Of note:

“Only pigs sit in the cinema.” That phrase was coined during the Second World War by the Polish Home Army to discourage people from seeing Nazi propaganda films screening in German-occupied Poland.

But the resistance slogan is getting new life in today’s politically charged Poland, as controversy swirls over the feature film The Green Border, which has caused the far-right Law and Justice (PiS) government to lash out and compare the movie to, yes, “Nazi propaganda.” The outrage prompted 74-year-old director Agnieszka Holland to hire security as she travelled to Poland for the movie’s release.

The Green Border, which won the Special Jury Prize at the Venice Film Festival, is a harrowing look at Poland’s real-life migrant crisis. It is set largely along the natural, forested border, where refugees from the Middle East and Africa have been trying to enter the European Union through Poland. They are lured there by Belarusian dictator Alexander Lukashenko, whose government has offered the false promise of safe passage – a political strategy meant to antagonize the EU.

In the film, a group of desperate people, including a woman from Afghanistan and a family of Syrian refugees – three children, their parents and grandfather – fly to Minsk, and are shuttled from the airport to the barbed-wire border in the thick forest. There, they try to cross into Poland. Rather than being welcomed, they are forced into a terrible cross-border cat-and-mouse game while navigating the cold, swampy forest. Sadistic guards on both sides – and in the no man’s land in the middle – behave cruelly to these desperate people, including pregnant women, who are trying to escape homeland threats such as war and severe oppression. The human rights abuses they encounter as they try to claim asylum in Poland are in violation of international law.

The “only pigs” line was recently resurrected by Polish border guards who saw the film, and repeated by President Andrzej Duda, who has not. He made the ugly comment during a TV appearance, and called for an audience boycott, in objection to the film’s depiction of the country’s actions at the border.

With a runtime of more than two hours, the devastating black-and-white film – which is at the Vancouver International Film Festival this weekend, following screenings at TIFF – is excruciating to watch. But it is essential.

While heavily researched, this is not a documentary; it is a dramatization, with fictional characters. That doesn’t make it untrue.

A Polish journalist I recently met in Poland, Joanna Lopat-Reno, has documented the crisis – one where people “are repeatedly pushed around, intimidated, beaten, starved, whole families waiting in the forest,” she wrote in her European Press Prize-nominated article, “Ammar in the Polish wardrobe: A story about hiding refugees on the Polish-Belarusian border.” She is anxious to call attention to the issue. “That … fictional story is not very different from what happens in reality. Now. Because it is still happening.”

But on the day The Green Border opened in Poland, Deputy Prime Minister and PiS party leader Jaroslaw Kaczynski held a news conference where he called the film “simply shameful, repulsive and disgusting.” Polish Justice Minister Zbigniew Ziobro compared Ms. Holland to a Nazi propagandist. Ms. Holland’s father was Jewish, and his parents died in the Holocaust.

The government even produced its own short film warning viewers about the “untruths and distortions” of the feature, and ordered cinemas to play it ahead of screenings.

This is all happening in the run-up to Poland’s Oct. 15 election, in which the refugee crisis has been an issue. The PiS campaign is pushing its anti-immigration policies as it tries to win a third term. It is also asking this referendum question: “Do you support the admission of thousands of illegal immigrants from the Middle East and Africa?”

Ms. Holland has said the film’s release was not timed to coincide with the election, but with film festival season. She calls the government’s attacks on the film “an organized hate campaign.” 

In spite of the controversy – or perhaps because of it – The Green Borderhad the biggest opening weekend for a Polish film this year. Yet despite the film’s critical reception, Poland’s Oscar committee announced on Monday that it submitted a different entry to the Academy Awards for consideration in the international-feature category: the much prettier period film, The Peasants, which is easier on the eyes, and heart – and easier for the current government to stomach.

Art can bring attention to issues that are being largely ignored, and call attention to governments that are acting egregiously.

Will this film bring change? Impossible to know. But it will make you care. We need to pay attention to these people – and the lawmakers who hope to silence them.

Source: In Poland, an outrage over a movie shows the government’s fear of both fact and fiction