Galston | Trump’s Attack on Birthright Citizenship

2025/01/30 Leave a comment

Good informative commentary:

James C. Ho, the son of immigrants from Taiwan and a naturalized U.S. citizen, received a juris doctor with high honors in 1999 from the University of Chicago Law School, where he joined the Federalist Society. He went on to work in the private sector, in the Justice Department and as a legal adviser to subcommittees of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Between 2005-06, he clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas. In 2008 he became solicitor general of Texas, succeeding Ted Cruz, who became one of his strongest supporters in the U.S. Senate. 

In October 2017, President Trump nominated Mr. Ho to fill a seat on the Fifth U.S. Court of Appeals, based in New Orleans. The Senate confirmed Mr. Ho two months later. In late 2020, Mr. Trump included Judge Ho on a list of potential Supreme Court nominees, where he reportedly remains today.

Judge Ho is a staunch cultural conservative. He supports an expansive understanding of religious liberty and in 2022 publicly pledged not to hire law clerks from Yale Law School, charging that the school not only tolerates but actively practices cancel culture. He vigorously opposes illegal immigration, arguing that a country that can’t control its borders isn’t fully sovereign. 

But Judge Ho is also the author of a 2006 legal article that strongly argued in favor of birthright citizenship, including for the children of illegal immigrants. In support of his conclusion, he cited the text and history of the 14th Amendment as well as the key cases—U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) and Plyler v. Doe (1982)—in which the Supreme Court has interpreted its application. In Plyler, he noted, all nine justices endorsed the proposition that illegal immigrants are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. This matters because the 14th Amendment establishes being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. as the threshold qualification for children born in the U.S. to be citizens at birth. Mr. Ho ended his legal paper by dubbing efforts to eliminate birthright citizenship “Dred Scott II.”

In October 2017, President Trump nominated Mr. Ho to fill a seat on the Fifth U.S. Court of Appeals, based in New Orleans. The Senate confirmed Mr. Ho two months later. In late 2020, Mr. Trump included Judge Ho on a list of potential Supreme Court nominees, where he reportedly remains today.

Judge Ho is a staunch cultural conservative. He supports an expansive understanding of religious liberty and in 2022 publicly pledged not to hire law clerks from Yale Law School, charging that the school not only tolerates but actively practices cancel culture. He vigorously opposes illegal immigration, arguing that a country that can’t control its borders isn’t fully sovereign. 

But Judge Ho is also the author of a 2006 legal article that strongly argued in favor of birthright citizenship, including for the children of illegal immigrants. In support of his conclusion, he cited the text and history of the 14th Amendment as well as the key cases—U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) and Plyler v. Doe (1982)—in which the Supreme Court has interpreted its application. In Plyler, he noted, all nine justices endorsed the proposition that illegal immigrants are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. This matters because the 14th Amendment establishes being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. as the threshold qualification for children born in the U.S. to be citizens at birth. Mr. Ho ended his legal paper by dubbing efforts to eliminate birthright citizenship “Dred Scott II.”

Until recently, Judge Ho’s article was of academic interest only. No longer. On day one of his second term, Mr. Trump issued an executive order aimed at eliminating birthright citizenship for children born to mothers who are present in the U.S. illegally or temporarily—unless the father is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident at the time of the birth. In response to suits filed by multiple states, a federal judge issued a temporary injunction against the executive order, calling it “blatantly unconstitutional.” 

If a higher court disagrees, this dispute will almost certainly end up at the Supreme Court. What then? If the justices follow Judge Ho’s argument—or their own prior rulings—Mr. Trump will lose. But in an interview last November after Mr. Trump’s election victory, Judge Ho offered the court an escape hatch. “Birthright citizenship obviously doesn’t apply in case of war or invasion,” he said. “No one to my knowledge has ever argued that the children of invading aliens are entitled to birthright citizenship.” If Mr. Trump’s characterization of mass illegal immigration as an invasion is legally correct, Judge Ho implies, the executive order could be upheld.

But is it an invasion? Enter the Texas Public Policy Foundation, not exactly a band of never-Trumpers. This staunchly conservative organization was headed by Kevin Roberts before he left to become president of the Heritage Foundation. Brooke Rollins, who founded the America First Policy Institute and is Mr. Trump’s nominee to head the Agriculture Department, is a senior adviser to the Texas foundation’s board. 

In November 2022, the foundation issued a report: “The Meaning of Invasion Under the Compact Clause of the U.S. Constitution.” After a careful textual, legal and historical inquiry, the report rightly concluded that the term invasion involves two core concepts—entry plus enmity. “Entry alone, which is trespass, is not sufficient to constitute an invasion,” the report concluded. While some nonstate actors, such as cartel-affiliated gangs, may fall under the category of invaders, most illegal entrants don’t. By itself, “the unlawful entry of people into the United States cannot be construed as an invasion.” Thus, Mr. Trump’s use of the term to characterize the situation at the southern border is a metaphor without legal validity or force. The report slams shut Mr. Ho’s proposed escape hatch. 

If the Supreme Court agrees to accept the cases challenging the executive order, the justices will face a choice: They can follow the text and history of the 14th Amendment as well as the court’s past decisions, or they can disregard logic and common sense to give the president what he wants, as they did in their decision on the scope of presidential immunity.

Many Americans have come to view the court as dominated by politics rather than nonpartisan jurisprudence. The court’s decision on birthright citizenship will either accelerate this decline in public trust or begin the long process of reversing it.

Source: Opinion | Trump’s Attack on Birthright Citizenship

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with , ,

Birth Tourism Update: Spillover from Trump?

2025/01/30 Leave a comment

My latest update. Curious to see if this prompts or not discussion in Canada and whether or not a likely Conservative government decides to revisit the issue:

Birth tourism has risen to pre-pandemic levels after it dropped in half during the shutdowns of COVID-19. In the U.S., Donald Trump has set about trying to end birthright citizenship. What impact his plan might here have remains to be seen. But birth tourism is an issue the next federal government may need to re-examine….

Source: Le tourisme de naissance a doublé depuis la fin de la pandémie, Birth tourism has doubled since the pandemic lull

Filed under Birth Tourism, Citizenship Tagged with ,

Trump bump: U.S. citizenship renunciation inquiries surge in Canada, lawyers say

2025/01/29 Leave a comment

Of note:

…Alexander Marino, director of U.S. tax law at Moodys Tax Law in Calgary, said that most people renounce U.S. citizenship for tax reasons — the U.S. is one of the few countries that imposes tax based on citizenship, not residency.

This often involves expensive reporting and filing obligations that include estate and gift taxes, even after death.

Marino is also expecting a Trump bump in business.

“I can’t deny that most U.S. expats, in my experience, tend to be more left-leaning than right-leaning. For a lot of people, the election results are a bit of the straw that broke the camel’s back,” Marino said.

“We’re seeing a bump due to the election results.”

Marino said he has seen year-over-year demand increase since specializing in renunciation 12 years ago.

He said the spike in interest now is greater than in 2017 after Trump’s first presidential win, and he expected 2025 to see a record number of people try to give up U.S. citizenship.

Moodys typically offers five to seven renunciation information webinars each year for U.S. citizens living in Canada; this year, they may schedule up to 12, Marino said.

Anyone giving up U.S. citizenship shouldn’t expect the matter to be secret — the U.S. Federal Register publishes quarterly lists of everyone who has surrendered their citizenship. In May 2014, the list named singer Tina Turner, and in February 2017, future British prime minister Boris Johnson.

There were only a few hundred names on the lists in 2005, but numbers have risen sharply since 2014, when the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act went into full effect. It requires that foreign financial institutions report on the foreign assets held by U.S. account holders.

In 2016, about 4,100 names were listed, but the next year, in Trump’s first year in the White House, numbers jumped by more than 50 per cent to about 6,900 names….

Source: Trump bump: U.S. citizenship renunciation inquiries surge in Canada, lawyers say

Filed under Immigration Tagged with ,

Canada’s international student boom changed Brampton forever. As the program scales back dramatically, a strained community tries to adapt

2025/01/29 Leave a comment

Interesting deep dive regarding international students living in Brampton:

…Santos said the city first noticed the number of international students “growing significantly” in 2021 during the pandemic, mostly through reports of an increased number of illegal basement apartments and exponential use of food banks in the community.

At the time, the city helped organize an international student roundtable, summit and charter to discuss the challenges facing international solutions and bring together community leaders — and commit to finding solutions.

Local colleges have been supportive of the efforts, but she said the bigger issue has been all the students who live in Brampton but study elsewhere.

“One of the things we have advocated for is that student visas should be tied to their place of residence, not just their place of study,” said Santos, as it’s the local municipality that has to bear the cost of providing services for the residents, not the place where they might attend school.

The councillor has also asked the province increase the “heads and beds” levy, which sees the province pay municipalities $75 per person annually for those attending colleges and universities in lieu of property taxes to compensate for the cost of services like transit, roads, sewers, parks and recreation. Santos, in line with other municipal groups, has pushed for a doubling of that rate, and also asked that that the money be paid to the municipality where students live as opposed to where they are registered to study.

In Kaur’s case, for example, Toronto would receive the levy — even though she lives in Brampton. 

The city has also launched a residential rental licensing pilot program, aimed at targeting landlords who rent out rooms that are unsafe to students. The program allows bylaw officers to issue fines, but some landlords and critics say the licensing has made it more difficult for students to find any housing at all.

More recently, Santos said she has heard of dozens of cases of sex trafficking among students who have been forced to work as prostitutes in exchange for a place to live. But she said the data on the issue is scarce as most students are too scared to speak up, out of shame and the fear of having their student visas cancelled.

Fears of an ‘underclass’

In November, Brampton council passed a motion asking the federal and provincial governments for more support for students.

The motion asks to expand funding eligibility to allow international students to access existing regional supports, to increase the number of hours they can work in a week to 40 (from the federally mandated 24 hours a week), so students can access legal work from employers. It also asks for money to support a three-year pilot project that offers culturally responsive support around settlement, housing, employment and mental health.

Gurpreet Malhotra, the CEO of Indus Community Service, a settlement agency that supports Indo-Canadians, said the organization is working on the pilot project, and sent a proposal to federal immigration minister Marc Miller at a meeting in November. The two parties met this week.

“Our goal is to advocate with higher levels of government to ensure a better experience for these international students so they can settle and become unscarred and productive members of our community,” said Malhotra.

He said he fears it will lead to the “creation of an underclass,” if things continue as is.  

“When you are working under the table, and living under the table and don’t have access to social services, you have a built-in vulnerability to criminal and other negative activities,” he said.

Brown said while the federal and provincial governments have started to change policy in reaction to a growing backlash across the country, few are talking about how to support those who are already here.

“The question is, are those international students going to try to become permanent residents or are those students going to try to return home, and I don’t think we have clarity on that yet,” he said.

That’s why some local officials say the impact of the federal policies — particularly student caps — will be felt less in Brampton.

“Brampton will be the last place where the number of international students will go down,” said Toor, adding that many students have ties to the community and will opt to stay here.

But he’s unsure of how the city will manage in the long run. “This is not something we can absorb, as a city,” said Toor. “Just the scale of the population increase is immense for the city to handle it all — without planning for it.”

Source: Canada’s international student boom changed Brampton forever. As the program scales back dramatically, a strained community tries to adapt

Filed under Immigration Tagged with ,

CIBC Tal on NPRs: Short-term pain, long-term gain

2025/01/29 Leave a comment

Interesting take and does have provide a logic for regularization. But the devil will be in the details: “If as a society we manage to create the conditions for better integration of NPRs in the labour market over time, we should be able to reverse the negative trajectory in productivity growth of the past few years.”

àWhat conditions, how to establish, how to enforce:

…Due to the recent government response, the pace of NPR arrivals is expected to slow down notably in the coming years, although not by as much as predicted by official numbers. For reasons we have spelled out elsewhere, policymakers and analysts cannot assume that the over one million current temporary residents in Canada with expired visas will simply leave the country over the next two years.

In other words, the demographic change of the past few years is not about to reverse. Economic theory and common sense suggest that that is a good thing. After all, an aging population is viewed as a major drag on productivity in most OECD countries. The youth dividend enjoyed by Canada is unique. Yes, clearly it has been too much of a good thing in a very short period of time.

But from a longer-term perspective, retaining and integrating current immigrants and NPRs would result in stronger potential growth and improved productivity, as more new arrivals find employment closer to their skill level or add to their skillset. If as a society we manage to create the conditions for better integration of NPRs in the labour market over time, we should be able to reverse the negative trajectory in productivity growth of the past few years.

Source: NPRs: Short-term pain, long-term gain

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

HESA: Taking Donald Trump Seriously and What it Means for Canadian Higher Education

2025/01/29 Leave a comment

The article on Indian H1-B workers and family concerns regarding their children born in the USA could provide an example of a Canadian advantage along with a more accessible immigration system but uncertain:

…It would of course be nice if we could run the clock back to 2017. Back then, we talked bravely about how Canada might benefit from Trump, what with all the people clamoring to get out because of racism, interference in science, etc. There was, in short, an upside to chaos south of the border. But none of that is going to happen this time. The combination of an underpowered economy, overheated housing markets, and a general disinterest in funding science and education mean that there is little public license to seek a rise in immigration even for the most highly skilled. This is the price we pay for our generalized political complacency: when lemons strike, we can’t make lemonade.

That said, there should be opportunities, mainly research-based, in the maelstrom of change to come. The question is: which universities will be nimble enough to take advantage of them?

Source: Taking Donald Trump Seriously and What it Means for Canadian Higher Education

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

Trump’s birthright citizenship order rattles H-1B workers expecting a baby

2025/01/29 Leave a comment

Seems like the hardliners won this debate within the Trump administration but court decisions will likely make this moot:

Ajay’s dilemma shows the wide ranging fallout from the early days of Trump’s immigration crackdown. While the emphasis during the campaign was border security and deportations of people in the country without permission, some of Trump’s first executive orders have targeted legal immigrants. 

That includes refugees whose resettlement plans were canceled, asylum seekers whose appointments to plead their case were scrapped and holders of H-1B and other work and student visas who are now trying to navigate what the new policy on birthright citizenship means for their families.

The situation also highlights tension within the Trump universe about immigration. Elon Musk has called for an expansion of the H-1B visa program to help ensure a robust pipeline of workers for tech companies like his own, while others like Deputy White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller have espoused more restrictive polices.

About 85,000 foreigners are allowed to move to the US annually under the coveted H-1B visa program, and there are now hundreds of thousands of people living in the US under those rules. Indians are the biggest recipients, accounting for 75% of all such visa petitions in 2020, with Chinese No. 2 with about 12% and Canadians No. 3. with 1%, according to US Citizenship and Immigration Services.

Under Trump’s order, citizenship would be denied to any child who doesn’t have at least one parent who is a US citizen or legal permanent resident. While it would apply to those in the country illegally — long a goal of Miller and others — it would also extend to those in the US as tourists, students or on temporary work visas.

The US is fairly unique in offering unconditional birthright citizenship, creating a special enticement for foreign workers deciding on which country to move to. Mexico and Canada have similar rules, but places including Australia, Germany, India and the UK don’t. If US nationals have a baby in Australia, for example, the child will automatically get the same visa status as the parents.

There is no official US data available about how many children are born to non-citizens annually. But in lawsuits challenging the order, lawyers said at least 150,000 children a year could be affected.

On Jan. 23, a federal judge in Seattle, John Coughenour, put the order on hold for 14 days and could extend that going forward. Other hearings set for challenges filed elsewhere are expected in the coming weeks.

Rajat Suri, a tech entrepreneur and co-founder of the ride hailing company Lyft Inc., said curtailing birthright citizenship has the potential to make it dramatically harder for US companies to recruit foreign workers.

“Every company that hires talented immigrants to come work for them, they are attracting them to build their lives, including families,” said Suri, whose latest venture is Lima, a company that helps foreign workers interested in moving to the US navigate the system. “If a baby is not going to be a US citizen, that is going to be a huge deterrent.”

He said attracting foreigners to the US is already complicated, given the extensive documentation and vetting needed to win a work visa. He met coworkers on temporary visas who opted to return home because of immigration complications, and adding a layer of uncertainty about the fate of any children born on US soil would only make things more complex, he said.

“We already put immigrants through so much unnecessary trauma,” said Suri, the child of Indian immigrants to Canada who is now a naturalized US citizen. “They will just go to some place that treats immigrants better, where they have options.”…

Source: Trump’s birthright citizenship order rattles H-1B workers expecting a baby

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with ,

Five years on, Chinese Canadians recall ridicule and racism over pandemic precautions

2025/01/28 Leave a comment

Another reminder. One of my memories was flying back from LA late January 2020 and we and Chinese were the only ones wearing a mask:

…Once the pandemic was officially underway, data would eventually emerge suggesting caution in Chinese communities had yielded results, notably in the Metro Vancouver community of Richmond, B.C.

The city’s population is 54 per cent ethnically Chinese, according to the 2021 census, making it the most Chinese city in North America.

More than two years into the pandemic, British Columbia’s COVID-19 case distribution report in July 2022 showed the city had an infection rate by far the lowest in the Lower Mainland, and less than half of that in nearby Surrey. In a colour-coded infection heat map from that time, Richmond stands out as a pale island, surrounded by more heavily infected neighbouring municipalities.

Zhang says he has no doubt why Richmond’s COVID-19 numbers were so low before the virus mutated and new variants resulted in much higher rate of spread worldwide.

“I believe the COVID-19 cases in the Chinese community were the lowest since we paid so much attention to the pandemic and we set up systems to protect ourselves from COVID-19,” he said.

Poutanen said the process of making health recommendations against a new, evolving virus was similar to shooting at a moving target.

Health officials in Canada initially recommended against mask use by healthy, asymptomatic individuals. That ran counter to what health officials were saying in China and Hong Kong.

“Initially the thought was (for) symptomatic masking, but general masking was not needed,” Poutanen said of the Canadian response.

“That was partly because the thought was symptomatic spread is predominantly how this was being transmitted, but that changed. I certainly think that no question, masking — the mask mandates and knowledge of what masking can do now — is one of the ongoing infection control measures that we continue to use that is effective.”

Wu and other Chinese community members pointed to memories of the SARS outbreak from 2002 to 2004 in Hong Kong and mainland China, where hundreds of people died, as the dominant factor in their response to COVID-19. SARS also killed more than 40 people in Canada.

Wu still winces at the thought of how she was treated in the earliest days of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“It was just like it happened from yesterday,” Wu said, recalling being “the centre of attention” when she went masked and gloved into a grocery store, other shoppers “rolling their eyes.”…

Source: Five years on, Chinese Canadians recall ridicule and racism over pandemic precautions

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Lipstadt: Antisemitism Is a Bipartisan Problem

2025/01/28 Leave a comment

Another reminder and warning:

At the conclusion of my confirmation hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2022, I was approached by a member of the committee who asked which posed a greater threat, antisemitism emanating from the political left or the political right? The question did not surprise me. I had heard it often, long before President Joe Biden had nominated me to serve as the State Department’s special envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism, the position I held for the past three years.

I replied that it made little difference to me whence the antisemitism came, I was against it. I described myself as an “equal opportunity” hater of antisemitism. The senator who asked seemed satisfied with my answer.

As the new administration begins and I leave this position, I have come to see, more clearly, that this oft-debated left/right question — that is, which side is worse — often serves as a political smoke screen.

The problem is that many on both the left and the right fail to call out antisemitism when it appears on their side of the political spectrum: Too many on the left are silent when it rears its head on university campuses. Too many on the right fail to condemn the overt antisemitism expressed by white nationalists. When I encounter this, it is clear to me that the intent is not to fight antisemitism but to use antisemitism as a cudgel against political opponents.

This is far too narrow a prism through which to acknowledge, assess and call out this hateful phenomenon. In the past few years, having witnessed the continued harm of antisemitism worldwide, I have become convinced that these double standards, which reduce the fight against antisemitism to partisan bickering, obscure the far greater threat that is Jew hatred.

I now see the threat in a multitiered fashion. Antisemitism is, first and foremost, a peril to Jews, their institutions and their communities. Whether the attack is on a synagogue in Australia, soccer fans in Amsterdam or women in Kibbutz Re’im and at the Nova music festival near the Israel-Gaza border, Jews are the target. And this alone would make it a legitimate matter for governments to address seriously. But antisemitism poses a threat beyond the threat to Jews.

It also threatens democracy and the rule of law. The cornerstone of antisemitism is a conspiracy myth which holds that “the Jews” control the most powerful levers of society, in government, media, finance and more. This lethal belief posits that Jews seek to empower and enrich themselves at the expense of all others. One might be inclined to dismiss this outlandish myth as merely a wild fantasy. But it has served as the rationale for genocide. Millions have been murdered because of it.

Those who adhere to this conspiracy theory — who see power ceded, not to a legitimate government, but to a Jewish cabal — have lost faith in the rule of law and are looking for someone or some group of people to blame. They’re willing to believe that their votes do not help them, their leaders do not represent them and their institutions do not protect them. Their distorted worldview renders accountable, rules-based government an illusion.

We have repeatedly seen malign groups and governments using it as a means of deepening public division within societies and among countries. Russia has propagated antisemitic conspiracy myths to help justify its war against democratic Ukraine. Iran supports the terrorist groups Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis by helping them cultivate antisemitic ideologies to justify depraved violence throughout the region. Their primary goal may not be only to spread Jew hatred, but to use Jew hatred to sow societal divisions and make all of us doubt the political health and strength of the democratic world.

Anything that erodes the rule of law and undermines our national security must be confronted collectively. But when antisemitism is viewed through a left/right lens, we risk making it the subject of a partisan debate. In doing so, we obscure the global threat it poses.

My tenure at the State Department was dedicated to ensuring that world leaders commit to taking the politics out of this issue. In 2024, the United States led 38 countries and four international bodies in outlining the Global Guidelines for Countering Antisemitism. These guidelines represent a landmark global framework intended to tackle Jew hatred and outline 12 best practices for governments and civil society to identify and act against this scourge. The guidelines make clear: “avoid politicization.” By endorsing these guidelines, members of the international community vow to combat antisemitism not as a political issue, but as a moral and policy imperative.

And in 2023, the United States released our first National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism. The National Strategy calls on members of Congress from both parties to work together and condemn antisemitism in all its forms. As I reflect on my tenure, I am proud of the important partnerships that I have forged on both sides of the aisle. Together, we must recognize that antisemitism assaults the very principles that define our open, free and democratic society. Tackling the current surge of global antisemitism must remain a bedrock of bipartisanship.

When antisemitism leads to violence, as it all too often does, the question we must ask ourselves is: How will we — Jew and non-Jew, left and right, people of all persuasions and beliefs — unite and respond?

Source: Antisemitism Is a Bipartisan Problem

Filed under Antisemitism Tagged with

Trudeau to fill Senate vacancies before retiring: source

2025/01/28 Leave a comment

Diversity stats of appointments by PM (last minute senate appointments can be a poisoned chalice for governments):

…Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is planning a final wave of appointments to fill the 10 vacancies in the Senate before he retires in March, Radio-Canada has learned.

The move would allow him to leave a mark on Parliament for years to come, as these unelected legislators will be able to sit until the age of 75.

A source familiar with the matter says that the selection process for the future senators is already underway and should be completed before his departure. After proroguing Parliament earlier this month, Trudeau announced that he will leave power after the Liberal Party chooses a new leader on March 9.

In a written response, the Prime Minister’s Office confirmed that the advisory board for Senate appointments is at work to propose candidates for all vacancies.

“Prorogation did not affect the ability of the Governor General to make appointments to the Senate based on the advice of the prime minister,” said PMO spokesman Simon Lafortune. “The prime minister takes his responsibility to appoint senators seriously and will do so as long as he remains in office.”

The prime minister likes to praise the independence of the senators he has appointed since 2016, but he has nonetheless picked several high-profile Liberals to sit in the Senate in recent years.

The Conservative Party of Pierre Poilievre, which is leading in national polls, has long been critical of Trudeau’s choices of senators. The Conservatives now fear that Trudeau-appointed senators will try to block their agenda if the party wins the next election, which is expected in the spring.

There are currently 12 senators affiliated with the Conservative Party in the 105-seat chamber.

“For someone who advocated an independent Senate, [Trudeau] will have ended up filing the Senate with a large majority of Liberals or people who support his policies,” said Conservative Senator Claude Carignan….

Source: Trudeau to fill Senate vacancies before retiring: source

Filed under Multiculturalism, Politics Tagged with , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →