Donald Trump’s latest anti-immigration policies may drive migrants to Canada. But are they welcome here?

Not with open arms given overall public opinion on immigration having risen too much before the recent reductions:

Since late last month, Toronto resident Hazat Wahriz has been approached by Afghan friends and acquaintances in the U.S. desperately asking about refuge in Canada.

With Washington pausing and reviewing the entire asylum system and immigration processing of applicants from certain countries including Afghanistan, he said his compatriots south of the border are fearful of losing their already precarious status and being deported to the embrace of the Taliban.

“Just imagine you belong to a community that is inadmissible there and is not welcome,” said Wahriz, a former university professor and diplomat in Afghanistan, who came to Canada for asylum in 2013 and is a citizen. “Now the U.S. is not a safe country for them. Deportation for most of these people is going to be a sentence to death.”…

Montreal immigration lawyer Marc-André Séguin said it’s too early to predict how Trump’s policies would affect the refugee flow to Canada, but Ottawa’s stronger border enforcement — and slashing of immigration levels — sends a strong message to would-be claimants abroad. 

“Canada is certainly trying to make it more challenging for asylum seekers to seek refuge on Canadian soil,” said Séguin, who practises American and Canadian immigration law, and has been retained by U.S. clients concerned about their status there.   

“Canada in the recent past has done a lot to to make itself less attractive. To what extent will that play a role in possible demand? It’s hard to say at the moment.”…

Source: Donald Trump’s latest anti-immigration policies may drive migrants to Canada. But are they welcome here?

More Canadians, including children, detained in U.S. for immigration violations, new data show

Not surprising, inevitable result of sweeping crackdowns:

A sweeping immigration crackdown in the United States is increasingly ensnaring Canadians who don’t have criminal records – including at least six children – new U.S. government data show. 

An estimated 207 Canadians have now been held in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody at some point since January, when President Donald Trump took office. The total number of Canadians held in 2024 was 130.

Earlier this year, an initial Globe and Mail analysis revealed that ICE had detained two Canadian toddlers in May at a remote facility in Texas. The analysis also showed that Canadians held by ICE were more likely to have criminal records than many other nationalities swept up in the White House’s mass deportation campaign, which has primarily targeted immigrants from Latin America. 

In the first half of 2025, almost 70 per cent of Canadians placed in immigration detention had criminal convictions or pending criminal charges. 

Now, a growing number of Canadian detainees are being held on immigration violations alone, updated enforcement data covering late July to mid-October show.

Of the Canadians detained during this period, some 44 per cent had no criminal records or pending charges against them, The Globe has found. The detainees include four children ranging in age from under two years old to about 16 years old.

Source: More Canadians, including children, detained in U.S. for immigration violations, new data show

2025 is not 1984: Bob Rae Notes on President Trump’s “National Security Strategy”

Money quote:

…2025 is not 1984. War is not peace. Freedom is not slavery. Ignorance is not strength. 2 plus 2 does not equal 5. And we still choose not to love Big Brother. It will be a world of difficult choices, but our moral integrity and our determination to make our way in the world make subjugation and acquiescence an unacceptable choice. 

Source: 2025 is not 1984: Bob Rae Notes on President Trump’s “National Security Strategy”

Trump official signals potential rollback of changes to census racial categories

Not unexpected but still shortsighted and further demonstration of an age of ignorance:

A Trump administration official on Friday signaled a potential rollback of the racial and ethnic categories approved for the 2030 census and other future federal government forms.

Supporters of those categories fear that any last-minute modifications to the U.S. government’s standards for data about race and ethnicity could hurt the accuracy of census data and other future statistics used for redrawing voting districts, enforcing civil rights protections and guiding policymaking.

Those standards were last revised in 2024 during the Biden administration, after Census Bureau research and public discussion.

A White House agency at the time approved, among other changes, new checkboxes for “Middle Eastern or North African” and “Hispanic or Latino” under a reformatted question that asks survey participants: “What is your race and/or ethnicity?” The revisions also require the federal government to stop automatically categorizing people who identify with Middle Eastern or North African groups as white.

But at a Friday meeting of the Council of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics in Washington, D.C., the chief statistician within the White House’s Office of Management and Budget revealed that the Trump administration has started a new review of those standards and how the 2024 revisions were approved.

“We’re still at the very beginning of a review. And this, again, is not prejudging any particular outcome. I think we just wanted to be able to take a look at the process and decide where we wanted to end up on a number of these questions,” said Mark Calabria. “I’ve certainly heard a wide range of views within the administration. So it’s just premature to say where we’ll end up.”

OMB’s press office did not immediately respond to NPR’s request for comment.

Source: Trump official signals potential rollback of changes to census racial categories

The New Speech Wars

Recognition that speech policing under the Trump administration and its followers is significantly worse than more organization and individual specific policing:

…Mchangama’s observation was made during a discussion about free-speech hypocrisies (also recorded as a Persuasion podcast) in which three of the four panelists had been strong critics of progressive illiberalism: Mchangama himself, Persuasion magazine founder and editor-in-chief Yascha Mounk, and Brookings Institution fellow Jonathan Rauch, whose critique of progressive speech-policing, Kindly Inquisitorsappeared in 1993. Now, he is adamant that speech-policing by the government is unequivocally worse: “I would argue it is an order of magnitude more concerning because government can yank your license, investigate you, try you, put you in jail.” We have seen, for instance, television networks being dragged into a Trump-friendly orbit through a combination of bogus lawsuits from Trump and strong-arming by the Federal Communications Commission via its power to regulate media-company mergers. Rauch expressed his dismay at “how quickly we are moving toward Hungary,” where Viktor Orbán’s ruling party has consolidated much of the media landscape in its hands through a combination of direct government control and ownership by Orbán cronies. Except that, Rauch said, America’s slide toward authoritarianism-lite has been happening “on a very fast time scale”—it is already perhaps halfway there after only eight months of Trump’s second term, compared to the fifteen years it took Orbán. It’s not creeping Orbánisation so much as galloping Orbánisation.

Other summit sessions also bore witness to the changed climate in America. The two panels dealing with higher education would once, no doubt, have focused solely on the speech-chilling effects of campus conduct codes or investigations based on student complaints over offensive language, or on the problem of left-skewed ideological uniformity. Now, the focus was also on the Trump administration’s efforts to wrestle universities into submission—including a “compact” offering expanded federal benefits contingent on the promotion of conservative viewpoints—and the danger of non-citizen students being targeted by the feds in retaliation for the expression of disfavoured opinions.

Is there room for a “both sides” argument here? In the session on challenges to academic freedom, some speakers pointed out that federal arm-twisting of academic institutions did not exactly start with Trump. Fourteen years ago, the Obama administration pressured schools to change their handling of Title IX sexual-misconduct cases in ways that weakened due process for accused students. And yet Rauch, who was also on this panel and who was also highly critical of the Title IX reform push under Obama, emphasised the difference: where the Obama administration conducted investigations and took legal action, arguably with “abuse of regulatory authority,” the Trump administration simply issues demands, makes threats, and cuts off or freezes federal funds, including money for vital medical research, to force compliance. It’s not just overreach, said Rauch; it’s “flatly illegal.”

Do universities need reform to promote more open debate and intellectual diversity? At the free-speech summit, the answer was a resounding yes. But there was an equally strong consensus that presidential bullying is not the way, and not just because of principle. Rikki Schlott, the self-described right-leaning libertarian journalist who co-authored The Canceling of the American Mind with FIRE’s Greg Lukianoff, pointed out that “grassroots organic change is the only way that’s actually a meaningful and lasting effect: what happens when the next administration has a different set of demands?” Rauch also disputed the notion that no such organic change was possible within academia until Trump rode to the rescue. In fact, he said, “campuses all over the country were adopting institutional neutrality and the Chicago principles,” which emphasise open discussion and free inquiry. And, if anything, the administration’s heavy-handed interventions “may lead to backlash in the other direction,” assuming that at some point the heavy hand will be gone.


While there is no need to pretend that past American administrations were devoted to free expression, both-sideism under Trump is unconvincing. The Biden administration’s sometimes tense and even heavy-handed interactions with social-media companies about moderating disinformation related to COVID-19 and to election integrity are a favourite “whatabout” response to criticism of the Trump administration’s aggressions against the media.

And yet, as Georgetown professor and social-media researcher Renée diResta argued on the summit’s free-speech hypocrisy panel, the comparison is entirely fallacious: it relies on uncritical acceptance of questionable GOP narratives as well as a bizarre “amnesia” that blames the “Biden censorship regime” for things that happened under the first Trump administration, such as the brief social-media blocking of links to the New York Post story on Hunter Biden’s laptop. (DiResta herself once became a target of right-wing attacks as a “government censor” because of her research on online disinformation and her past receipt of government grants. She says that while she used to support private tech-platform moderation to reduce the visibility of disinformation and extremism, she has since come to believe that giving users more control over their social-media algorithms is a far better and less antagonising solution.)…

Source: The New Speech Wars

USA: New Immigration Policy Likely To Block Many Family Immigrants

Of course, that is the point:

The Trump administration has proposed a new immigration policy likely to block many family-based immigrants from coming to America. The policy would label more family immigrants a “public charge,” allowing officials to prevent their entry. However, new research undermines the policy push, finding that a recent Federal Register notice ignores crucial empirical evidence: Individuals entering as family immigrants start with lower initial earnings but quickly adapt by trying new jobs and investing in skills and education that lead to rapid earnings growth. They are also unlikely to receive public assistance income.

Individuals who immigrate with family members or join them in the United States have been a central feature of immigration throughout American history. After Intel’s Andy Grove immigrated to America as a refugee following the Hungarian Revolution, he immediately pursued ways to sponsor his parents, who joined him in the United States. Years earlier, in 1885, a 16-year-old Friedrich Trump, Donald Trump’s grandfather, immigrated to America to join his sister Katherine, who “had immigrated to New York a year earlier,” according to Trump biographer Gwenda Blair.In 1930, Mary Anne MacLeod immigrated to America from Scotland as an unskilled 18-year-old to live with her married sister in Queens. Six years later, she met Fred Trump at a party, they married and had children, one of whom was Donald Trump. “Donald Trump is a product of (family) ‘chain migration,’” according to Columbia University historian Mae M. Ngai.

…DHS concedes in the Federal Register notice that new immigrants are not eligible for federal means-tested public benefits for at least five years after entering the United States. (The rules differ for refugees and asylees.) DHS also notes that sponsors of family immigrants sign legally binding affidavits of support. If considered, the affidavits of support should mitigate concerns that individuals may become a public charge since sponsors can reimburse benefit costs.

DHS does not express or cite concern that removing a structured review of applicants detailed by regulation in favor of subjective determinations by consular officers and others will, based on previous estimates, result in hundreds of thousands of immigrants annually being denied entry. The proposed rule does not consider it a cost that the DHS action will prevent many Americans from living in the United States with a spouse, child or other close relative, which will be the primary impact of the new policy.

The Federal Register notice cannot detail any quantitative benefits from the new policy, stating “DHS anticipates this proposed rule will produce benefits but is limited to providing a qualitative analysis.” The “qualitative” benefits DHS anticipates will not go to Americans or the U.S. economy, but to government personnel who will not be “unnecessarily” limited in their “ability to make public charge inadmissibility determinations.”

In recent weeks, the State Department issued a notice to consular officers to direct them to deny visas to people with obesity, diabetes or other health issues if they could be considered potential public charges. “A diplomat who received last week’s cable, and also spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media, said State Department leadership has been very active in finding new ways to deny foreigners entry into the U.S. or just slow down the system,” reported the Washington Post (November 13, 2025)….

Source: New Immigration Policy Likely To Block Many Family Immigrants

Trump Immigration Rule Could Make H-1B Visa Holders Too Costly To Hire

Of note. May make Canada relatively more attractive:

The Trump administration will publish a new immigration rule expected to price many H-1B visa holders and employment-based immigrants out of the U.S. labor market. The White House included the plan in the proclamation announcing a $100,000 fee on many H-1B visa holders. The new Department of Labor rule will likely be similar to the two attempts in Donald Trump’s first term to raise the salaries of high-skilled foreign nationals beyond what most employers can afford to pay. A significant body of research indicates that H-1B visa holders are paid the same or higher salaries than U.S. workers with comparable levels of education and experience.

H-1B temporary visas are often the only way for high-skilled foreign nationals to work in the United States long term. When companies recruit at U.S. universities, they find that international students account for 73% of full-time graduate students in electrical and computer engineering. The H-1B annual limit is 65,000, with an exemption of 20,000 for individuals with master’s degrees or higher from a U.S. university, or about 0.05% of the U.S. labor force. In addition to government fees that can exceed $6,000, employers must pay the higher of the actual or prevailing wage paid to U.S. professionals with similar experience and qualifications. 

An Immigration Directive To Make H-1B Visa Holders Too Expensive To Employ

Trump administration officials understood that the $100,000 fee to hire new H-1B visa holders contained in the Sept. 19 presidential proclamation would be prohibitive for employers, effectively blocking many high-skilled foreign nationals from ever working in the United States. They also knew it could not stop all H-1B professionals because the relevant section of U.S. law only allowed the proclamation to prevent the “entry” of H-1B professionals…

Source: Trump Immigration Rule Could Make H-1B Visa Holders Too Costly To Hire

A New Era of Immigration Enforcement Unfolds in the U.S. Interior and at the Border under Trump 2.0

Another good analysis by MPI:

Unauthorized migration at the U.S.-Mexico border plunged dramatically during the just-ended fiscal year, as the Trump administration leveraged new border controls, further asylum restrictions, and the promise of mass deportations, reaching about 444,000 migrant encounters recorded in fiscal year (FY) 2025. This sharp drop from 2.1 million encounters the prior year was also marked by reversion to a pattern last experienced more than a decade ago: Flows primarily composed of Mexican single adults and Central American unaccompanied children.

The steep decrease in unauthorized arrivals at the border and return to nationalities that are easier to turn back because of existing repatriation agreements has permitted the administration to direct its focus to immigration enforcement in the U.S. interior—in fact deploying significant U.S. Border Patrol assets to cities such as Los Angeles and Chicago. To achieve its goal of mass deportations, the administration has increased coordination among federal agencies, elevated cooperation with state and local law enforcement agencies, rapidly accelerated the build-up of detention capacity, expanded the use of fast-track removal powers, tapped the U.S. military, and established new agreements to repatriate returnees to third countries. As a result, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) recorded more deportations from within U.S. communities during FY 2025 than the Border Patrol apprehended people crossing the Southwest border illegally—the first time since at least FY 2014, according to available data.

While detailed FY 2025 data about ICE arrests and removals have not been released since January, there is no doubt that interior enforcement has risen. But it has become increasingly complicated to track results because only selective statistics have been made public. Returning to regular reporting of detailed data on immigration enforcement across the various Department of Homeland Security (DHS) immigration agencies could not only improve the public’s understanding of current immigration enforcement activities but also inform state and local stakeholders who want to collaborate or who are affected by enforcement.

Ramped-Up Interior Enforcement and Mass Deportations

While U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) continues to post border encounter statistics every month, DHS has inconsistently released immigration enforcement data  and its last detailed tables of ICE and CBP actions ended with November 2024 activity. Based on the latest publicly available figures, however, the Migration Policy Institute (MPI) estimates that ICE conducted about 340,000 deportations in FY 2025, including noncitizens with a formal order of removal and immigration detainees who chose to end their detention with a voluntary departure. This would mark a level of activity 25 percent higher than the 271,000 deportations recorded by ICE in FY 2024. These fiscal year figures do not include deportations conducted by CBP, which DHS has yet to release.

The  administration says it conducted more than 400,000 deportations overall between ICE and CBP in its first 250 days, and was on pace to reach nearly 600,000 by the end of its first year. This projection falls short of the 685,000 deportations recorded by the Biden administration in FY 2024—and is well off the Trump administration’s pledge of carrying out 1 million deportations per year.

Location Matters

Where the deportations are happening is significantly different under the Trump administration, with more occurring within the U.S. interior rather than at the border. This has significant operational impacts, given deportations in the interior are likely to be far more resource intensive and carry higher individual and societal costs with enforcement happening in U.S. cities and against people who, unlike many recent border crossers, often have significant years of U.S. residence and deep community ties.

Of the 400,000 deportations conducted by the Trump administration through its first 250 days, MPI estimates approximately 234,000 were conducted by ICE from the U.S. interior, with another 166,000 by CBP.

ICE daily deportations, in fact, doubled from 600 in January to 1,200 since June. ICE deportations have increased as the number of immigrants being placed in detention centers has surged. Since the start of the Trump administration, the average number of noncitizens in ICE detention centers has grown gradually, reaching about 60,000 by the end of FY 2025 (see Figure 1). And by March, most detainees had been arrested by ICE in the interior, not by CBP at the border or through CBP transfer to ICE, as was usually the case under the Biden administration….

Source: A New Era of Immigration Enforcement Unfolds in the U.S. Interior and at the Border under Trump 2.0

Under Trump, Becoming a U.S. Citizen Gets Harder

Details of note:

A harder civics test. Stricter social media vetting. Neighborhood investigations into people’s “moral character.”

The Trump administration is erecting new hurdles for lawful permanent residents applying for U.S. citizenship, part of a broader effort to tighten an immigration system that federal officials say has become too lax. Officials are reviving old vetting standards and adding new requirements that emphasize cultural assimilation and more aggressively screen applicants for “anti-American” views.

Joseph Edlow, the director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, recently said he was “declaring war” on anyone who wants to naturalize but “doesn’t want the responsibility of what it means to actually be a U.S. citizen.”

Some immigrant advocacy groups contend the moves are meant to discourage people from applying for citizenship and to raise the bar in a way that would reduce the number of naturalized citizens, or immigrants who were approved for citizenship as opposed to people who gained it via birthright. They worry that the anti-American label could be applied to those who disagree with the administration on matters such as the war in Gaza. The changes are stoking fear among immigrants who want to apply but are hesitant to reopen their cases and invite greater scrutiny from immigration authorities, according to legal advocates and groups that teach citizenship classes.

They say the process to obtain citizenship was already fair. To become a citizen, people generally have to have a green card for several years, submit an application, pay a fee, complete an interview with a Citizenship and Immigration Services officer, pass a background check as well as English and civics tests, and take an oath. Those who marry U.S. citizens can apply sooner after obtaining a green card.

Nicole Melaku, the executive director at National Partnership for New Americans, a coalition of immigrant rights groups, said she was concerned that the changes would have a chilling effect on applications. Although green card holders already have the right to live and work in the United States permanently, naturalized citizens have greater protections against deportation, the right to vote and the ability to sponsor more family members, among other things.

“This is an intimidation and fear-producing tactic from this administration to possibly dissuade individuals from accessing the process,” Ms. Melaku said.

In mid-August, Citizenship and Immigration Services issued a memo that increased the standard to show “good moral character.” This is a longstanding requirement that previously involved checking for criminal convictions and other acts of wrongdoing, such as failure to pay child support. Now, officers must also check for “positive attributes,” such as family caregiving, educational attainment, stable employment and community involvement.

The agency also said in a policy memo that it would begin considering “any involvement in anti-American or terrorist organizations” in requests for immigration benefits, including citizenship applications. Officials said they would screen people for support of “antisemitic terrorist organizations” and expand social media vetting to include checks for anti-American activity.

The agency also said it would resume neighborhood investigationsof immigrants who apply for citizenship, meaning that officers could interview neighbors and co-workers of applicants as part of the vetting process. Immigration authorities had essentially stopped doing this by 1991.

People who apply on or after Oct. 20 will also have to take a harder civics test, which will require them to answer 12 out of 20 questions correctly, up from six of 10. The list of potential questions has been expanded to 128 from 100. It also eliminates several simple geography questions and adds some that are more nuanced.

Matthew Tragesser, a spokesman for the immigration agency, said that citizenship was the “most meaningful status the U.S. government can bestow” and that people seeking to defraud the system would not receive the benefit. He added that it “should not be a cakewalk to obtain, and we are certainly not going to give it away.”…

Source: Under Trump, Becoming a U.S. Citizen Gets Harder

The Trump administration is turning back the clock on refugee protections 

Stating the obvious:

…In the decades since, both Canada and the United States have emerged as leaders in refugee protection, most significantly through resettlement programs with global reach. Canada’s refugee determination system is often hailed as the “gold standard.” Yet we are in a time of lessening access to claims protection, reductions in Canada’s private refugee-sponsorship program, and a hardening of the border as a barrier via the expansion of the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement. These moves, alongside the swift changes in the United States, will have widespread and devastating impacts on people who desperately need protection.

The Trump administration’s suggestions for a privileged form of asylum for white and politically aligned refugees is not new – it is a throwback, and one that undermines decades of progress. Governments need to call the Trump administration to task for the gross politicization and racialization of international refugee protection. And they need to do so by addressing their own hypocrisy as well. 

Laura Madokoro is an associate professor of history at Carleton University. Shauna Labman is the executive director of the Global College at the University of Winnipeg.

Source: The Trump administration is turning back the clock on refugee protections