Vineberg: A new approach to processing refugees could clear Canada’s backlog

Good practical suggestion by my friend and former colleague Rob Vineberg:

…The solution is to turn over the responsibility for the initial determination of refugee status to officers of the immigration department. The IRCC is a huge department with more than 13,000 employees (not all, of course, being immigration officers). If the resources at the IRB used for the initial determination were transferred to IRCC as well, there would be a much larger and more flexible work force to make the initial refugee determination decisions.

All refugee claimants interviewed and approved by an IRCC officer would obtain refugee status in a far timelier manner. Furthermore, refugee claimants refused by an IRCC officer would have an automatic right of appeal to the IRB, thus meeting the requirements of the Singh decision. Let’s recognize that the current refugee determination system is broken and build a new one with the capacity to handle the volumes Canada is facing, and will face in the future.

Source: A new approach to processing refugees could clear Canada’s backlog

Michael Barutciski: The Trudeau government claims it will reduce immigration, but how serious is it really?  

Good overview and call for a strengthened annual plan that included a legislative requirement to include temporary residents and asylum seekers. Striking that he missed the false assumption that all temporary residents would leave when their visa expired:

….On a positive note, the immigration minister’s commendable decision to include temporary residents in the annual report should be standardized and turned into an obligation by legislative amendment. If such a requirement were already in effect, it could have helped avoid the unintended consequences of the recent explosion in this category.

The legislative obligation to report data should also be extended to include information on asylum seekers. Although the government cannot plan future asylum claims, the numbers in recent years have become significant. According to the latest statistics, Canada is on track for a new record of around 180,000 asylum seekers in 2024. This information should be included in the report, along with data on source countries. Such a legal requirement would make it more difficult for the government to distract attention from its own visa policy decisions by misleadingly invoking global trends. Canada has become a global outlier because it is receiving a high number of asylum seekers who also happen to come from countries that are not typical refugee-producers (e.g. India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nigeria, Ghana, and Kenya).

The government’s overly generous visa issuance and weak enforcement have not only contributed to an explosion in asylum claims, there are now possibly over half a million migrants unlawfully present in Canada according to the immigration minister. Other estimates are significantly higher. It is time for Parliament to require the annual report to include data on removals and deportations given that this is now an important challenge regarding the system’s integrity. By not addressing these issues, doubts will be raised about the government’s commitment to implementing reductions and meeting targets for other lawful categories.

Unfortunately, the excessive focus on branding lends a superficial tone to the report. Even though it is full of data relating to gender distribution, this latest version omits basic information on countries of origin for permanent residents or any other category. This follows a worldview in which a person’s cultural background is not seen as particularly relevant according to Canada’s welcoming multicultural policy, while actual integration challenges and diaspora difficulties are simply ignored.

To sum up, while Canada is experiencing unusual controversies regarding its immigration policy, the minister responsible for this file has reported to Parliament with a promotional document that signals a temporary change of course. Many of the deeper challenges concerning future immigration planning are left unaddressed. Is the government tolerating visa overstayers and choosing less-skilled migrants because it does not want to conduct mass deportations? More data presented to Parliament will allow a better discussion.

In the meantime, the new White House administration arriving in January will only complicate matters as Canada attempts to gain control of its borders in an evolving global context in which protectionism and national interests are amplified.

Source: Michael Barutciski: The Trudeau government claims it will reduce immigration, but how serious is it really?

Freiman and Sandler: Samidoun has been banned. Now, it’s time to stamp it out

Given the government’s mixed record on implementation, legitimate call for action:

…We fully support the evidence-based designation of Samidoun as a terrorist entity. We now call on the authorities to use all available tools to confront this group and those involved in its illegal activities, whether covertly or otherwise.

The listing of Samidoun under the Canadian Criminal Code marks a crucial, albeit preliminary, step in the broader fight against hate and extremism. However, without decisive follow-up, this designation risks having a limited impact. Government agencies and law enforcement must work together to dismantle Samidoun’s operations and, to the extent possible, keep the public informed of the steps being taken. Only with meaningful action can we ensure the safety and security of all Canadians.

Source: Opinion: Samidoun has been banned. Now, it’s time to stamp it out

Minister Marc Miller under fire over controversial immigration levels plan for Canada

Good account of the discussion. But don’t agree that the plan is controversial for most Canadians apart from the various immigration interest groups:

Appearing before the House of Commons immigration committee on Monday to pitch the controversial plan, Miller was under fire from the right for the lack of details on how to ensure temporary residents with expiring status will voluntarily leave Canada and from the left for scapegoating migrants for the country’s affordability and housing crisis. 

“You’re not giving me much confidence or Canadians confidence that you have a plan,” said Tom Kmiec, immigration critic for the opposition Conservatives, who repeatedly questioned Miller how his department is going to ensure people do leave when their time is up.

“You haven’t provided any information on the means. How are you going to do it? You say you have partner organizations. You’re working with people. What are you actually doing? What’s the process? How are you going to ensure people abide by the visa conditions?”

In response, Miller said there are many ways that people leave the country and the majority of people do. And if they don’t, he added, border agents will investigate and remove them from Canada.

He admitted an increasing number of study and work permit holders have sought asylum in the country to extend their stay, but people are entitled to due process and be assessed if they have a legitimate need to seek protection.

When pushed by the Bloc Québécois how the federal government was going to respond to an anticipated surge of irregular migration from the U.S. under the incoming Trump administration, Miller said a cabinet working group is developing a contingency plan but he’s not going to roll it out in public.

Last month, Ottawa unveiled a three-year immigration level plan that will reduce the annual intake of permanent residents by 21 per cent to 395,000 next year, 380,000 in 2026 and 365,000 in 2027. It will also slash the temporary population including international students and foreign workers to 445,901 in 2025 and to 445,662 in 2026 but will increase it modestly by 17,439 in 2027.

The reduced targets are meant to achieve a population decline of 0.2 per cent in each of the next two years before returning to a population growth of 0.8 per cent in 2027. However, it’s predicated on the assumption that 1,262,801 temporary residents would leave the country voluntarily next year, and another 1,104,658 in 2026.

Earlier on Monday, a coalition of advocates and migrants demanded the opposition parties reject the Liberal government’s plan to slash immigrationand expel 2.36 million temporary residents with expiring status in the next two years. Some of them also attended the committee meeting with protest signs saying “Don’t deport us! Don’t be racist!”

Sarom Rho of the Migrant Rights Network said fewer permanent resident spots mean further temporariness and exploitation for vulnerable international students and temporary workers.

“They hide the fact that the super-rich are making record-breaking profits while the majority of us go hungry, that corporate landlords are buying up housing stock to manufacture scarcity and that the public institutions we value so deeply, like health care and education, are being … sold by the pound to private profiteers,” she told a news conference.

“By reducing immigration, Prime Minister Trudeau is affirming the racist idea that migrants are responsible for the affordability of housing crises.”

Jenny Kwan, the NDP’s immigration critic, said successive Conservative and Liberal governments have brought in more and more temporary residents to reduce migrants’ rights and make them more vulnerable.

What the federal government needs to do, she said, is to rein in corporate interests that are profiteering off people’s basic needs and also invest in housing, health care and infrastructure for all Canadians. 

“You blame (migrants) as though somehow they created the housing crisis when in fact successive governments abdicated their responsibility and entirely just relied on the private sector to provide the housing,” said Kwan. “When are you actually going to take up responsibility and do what is right?” 

Miller said temporary residents are meant to be here temporarily and there’s no “automatic guarantee” for permanent residence.

“A lot of institutions have entertained explicitly or implicitly a sense of false hope that people will become immediately a Canadian citizen,” he said. “My heart does go out to those who have had that false hope entertained. But the reality is that not everyone can stay here.”

Source: Minister Marc Miller under fire over controversial immigration levels plan for Canada

Walmart Rolls Back Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Efforts After Conservative Backlash

Trend likely to accelerate under Trump beyond curbing some of the excesses:

Walmart, the world’s largest retailer, is rolling back its diversity, equity and inclusion policies, joining a growing list of major corporations that have done the same after coming under attack by conservative activists.

The changes, confirmed by Walmart on Monday, are sweeping and include everything from not renewing a five-year commitment for an equity racial center set up in 2020 after the police killing of George Floyd, to pulling out of a prominent gay rights index. And when it comes to race or gender, Walmart won’t be giving priority treatment to suppliers.

Walmart’s moves underscore the increasing pressure faced by corporate America as it continues to navigate the fallout from the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in June 2023 ending affirmative action in college admissions. Emboldened by that decision, conservative groups have filed lawsuits making similar arguments about corporations, targeting workplace initiatives such as diversity programs and hiring practices that prioritize historically marginalized groups.

Separately, conservative political commentator and activist Robby Starbuck has been going after corporate DEI policies, calling out individual companies on the social media platform X. Several of those companies have subsequently announced that they are pulling back their initiatives, including Ford, Harley-Davidson, Lowe’s and Tractor Supply.

But Walmart, which employs 1.6 million workers in the U.S., is the largest one to do so.

“This is the biggest win yet for our movement to end wokeness in corporate America,” Starbuck wrote on X, adding that he had been in conversation with Walmart.

Walmart confirmed to the Associated Press that it will better monitor its third-party marketplace items to make sure they don’t feature sexual and transgender products aimed at minors. That would include chest binders intended for youth who are going through a gender change, the company said.

The Bentonville, Arkansas-based retailer will also be reviewing grants to Pride events to make sure it is not financially supporting sexualized content that may be unsuitable for kids. For example, the company wants to makes sure a family pavilion is not next to a drag show at a Pride event, the company said.

Additionally, Walmart will no longer consider race and gender as a litmus test to improve diversity when it offers supplier contracts. The company said it didn’t have quotas and will not do so going forward. It won’t be gathering demographic data when determining financing eligibility for those grants.

Walmart also said it wouldn’t renew a racial equity center that was established through a five-year, $100 million philanthropic commitment from the company with a mandate to, according to its website, “address the root causes of gaps in outcomes experienced by Black and African American people in education, health, finance and criminal justice systems.”

And it would stop participating in the Human Rights Campaign’s annual benchmark index that measures workplace inclusion for LGBTQ+ employees.

“We’ve been on a journey and know we aren’t perfect, but every decision comes from a place of wanting to foster a sense of belonging, to open doors to opportunities for all our associates, customers and suppliers and to be a Walmart for everyone,” the company said in a statement.

Source: Walmart Rolls Back Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Efforts After Conservative Backlash

Brunner and Coustere: Migration experts scrutinize Justin Trudeau’s explanation for immigration cuts

Good critique of the video:

…Trudeau’s videos outline a quick fix to what he appears to suggest are minor policy mistakes. But simplicity can obscure as much as it illuminates. Temporary migration has been a longstanding pathway to permanent residence and citizenship. Public schools are not easy villains. Failed asylum claims are not ordinary bureaucratic decision-making. These policies are complex, as are the consequences for millions of people.

Ultimately, the new immigration plan may not last long. If elected, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre has made vague promises to link population growth to the “availability of jobs, homes, and health care” — though what this actually means is unclear. For now, Trudeau’s goal appears to be to prevent public attitudes on immigration from fracturing further and preserve his legacy.

Yet this does not excuse the federal government for shifting the blame. Trudeau’s strongest critique is reserved for “really bad actors who outright exploit people” and “target vulnerable immigrants with promises of jobs, diplomas and easy pathways to citizenship — promises that would never come true.” Is he describing his own government?

Source: Migration experts scrutinize Justin Trudeau’s explanation for immigration cuts

Allowing Ukrainians who fled war to settle in Canada not off the table, Immigration Minister says

Not unexpected:

Immigration Minister Marc Miller says he is not ruling out allowing Ukrainians who fled the war in their homeland to settle here eventually and has no plans to send them back to a war zone.

In an interview, Mr. Miller said granting permanent residence to hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians is not “off the table,” although he said it is not a priority for the government.

“It isn’t on the front burner for a variety of reasons, not that I don’t take it seriously. Because as time goes on, people have kids and families, integrate to Canada, and so there’s obviously a want and a need to stay and in many circumstances, we shouldn’t say no,” he said.

When Russia invaded Ukraine in February, 2022, the Canadian government enacted the Canada-Ukraine authorization for emergency travel, allowing an unlimited number of Ukrainians fleeing the war to work, study and stay in Canada for up to three years. In August, the government allowed Ukrainians who came here on the program to apply for new three-year permits to stay in Canada.

Of the 1.2 million Ukrainians who applied to come to Canada, 298,000 arrived here, a few thousand of whom are believed to have since returned.

More than 90 per cent of the Ukrainians with special temporary visas want to settle here, according to Pathfinders for Ukraine, an advocacy group for Ukrainians displaced by the war….

Source: Allowing Ukrainians who fled war to settle in Canada not off the table, Immigration Minister says

CILA | How the government can protect the public from bad immigration consultants

The immigration lawyer perspective:

…Miller can enact legal reform so that immigration consultants are only able to work under the supervision of an immigration lawyer. Lawyers are governed by strong regulatory bodies and face significant consequences such as disbarment for poor behaviour. Putting a lawyer’s license on the line will help to significantly strengthen the quality of advice immigration applicants receive as well as oversight of the conduct of immigration consultants.

We wish to be clear: not all immigration consultants are bad. There are some good ones who are honourable and competent.

Immigration lawyers have long argued that they are best able to represent visa applicants given these cases are often complex and raise legal issues involving Charter, family, employment, and criminal law. If consultants are going to continue to be given the right to provide legal services to the public, there must be stronger regulations. Consultants who are competent and ethical should be given the chance to continue to work but under a regime that ensures that the integrity of the immigration system is not brought into disrepute, and the public is adequately protected.

The Prime Minister, Ontario Premier, and federal immigration minister are correct to draw attention to this problem. Canadians remain supportive of immigration but are unsupportive of what they believe is an immigration system that has lost its way. Government leaders can help restore public confidence by limiting the ability of bad consultants to abuse victims and the immigration system.

Source: Opinion | How the government can protect the public from bad immigration consultants

Why Indians are risking it all to chase the American Dream

Good analysis and reminder how the Northern border is of increasing concern to the USA:

…Since October 2020, US Customs and Border Protection (CPB) officials have detained nearly 170,000 Indian migrants attempting unauthorised crossings at both the northern and southern land borders.

“Though smaller than the numbers from Latin America and the Caribbean, Indian nationals represent the largest group of migrants from outside the Western Hemisphere encountered by the CPB in the past four years,” say Gil Guerra and Sneha Puri, immigration analysts at Niskanen Center, a Washington-based think tank.

As of 2022, an estimated 725,000 undocumented Indian immigrants were in the US, making them the third-largest group after those from Mexico and El Salvador, according to new data from the Pew Research Center. Unauthorised immigrants in all make up 3% of US’s total population and 22% of the foreign-born population.

Looking at the data, Mr Guerra and Ms Puri have identified notable trends in the spike in Indians attempting illegal border crossings. 

For one, the migrants are not from the lowest economic strata. But they cannot secure tourist or student visas to the US, often due to lower education or English proficiency.

Instead, they rely on agencies charging up to $100,000 (£79,000), sometimes using long and arduous routes designed to dodge border controls. To afford this, many sell farms or take out loans. Not surprisingly, data from the US immigration courts in 2024 reveals that the majority of Indian migrants were male, aged 18-34.

Second, Canada on the northern border has become a more accessible entry point for Indians, with a visitor visa processing time of 76 days (compared to up to a year for a US visa in India).

The Swanton Sector – covering the states of Vermont and counties in New York and New Hampshire – has experienced a sudden surge in encounters with Indian nationals since early this year, peaking at 2,715 in June, the researchers found.

Earlier, most irregular Indian migrants entered the Americas through the busier southern border with Mexico via El Salvador or Nicaragua, both of which facilitated migration. Until November last year, Indian nationals enjoyed visa-free travel to El Salvador.

“The US-Canada border is also longer and less guarded than the US-Mexico border. And while it is not necessarily safer, criminal groups do not have the same presence there as they do along the route from South and Central America,” Mr Guerra and Ms Puri say.

Thirdly, much of the migration appears to originate from the Sikh-dominated Indian state of Punjab and neighbouring Haryana, which has traditionally seen people migrating overseas. The other source of origin is Gujarat, the home state of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Punjab, which accounts for a large share of irregular Indian migrants, is facing economic hardships, including high unemployment, farming distress and a looming drug crisis. 

Migration has also long been common among Punjabis, with rural youth still eager to move abroad. 

A recent study of 120 respondents in Punjab by Navjot Kaur, Gaganpreet Kaur and Lavjit Kaur found that 56% emigrated between ages 18-28, often after secondary education. Many funded their move through non-institutional loans, later sending remittances to their families. 

Then there has been a rise in tensions over the separatist Khalistan movement, which seeks to establish an independent homeland for Sikhs. “This has caused fear from some Sikhs in India about being unfairly targeted by authorities or politicians. These fears may also provide a credible basis for claims of persecution that allows them to seek asylum, whether or not true,” says Ms Puri.

But pinning down the exact triggers for migration is challenging. 

“While motivations vary, economic opportunity remains the primary driver, reinforced by social networks and a sense of pride in having family members ‘settled’ in the US,” says Ms Puri.

Fourth, researchers found a shift in the family demographics of Indian nationals at the borders.

More families are trying to cross the border. In 2021, single adults were overwhelmingly detained at both borders. Now, family units make up 16-18% of the detentions at both borders.

This has sometimes led to tragic consequences. In January 2022, an Indian family of four – part of a group of 11 people from Gujarat – froze to death just 12m (39ft) from the border in Canada while attempting to enter the US.

Pablo Bose, a migration and urban studies scholar at the University of Vermont, says Indians are trying to cross into the US in larger numbers because of more economic opportunities and “more ability to enter the informal economies in the US cities”, especially the large ones like New York or Boston.

“From everything I know and interviews I have conducted, most of the Indians are not staying in the more rural locations like Vermont or upstate New York but rather heading to the cities as soon as they can,” Mr Bose told the BBC. There, he says, they are entering mostly informal jobs like domestic labour and restaurant work.

Things are likely to become more difficult soon. Veteran immigration official Tom Homan, who will be in charge of the country’s borders following Trump’s inauguration in January, has said that the northern border with Canada is a priority because illegal migration in the area is a “huge national security issue”.

What happens next is unclear. “It remains to be seen if Canada would impose similar policies to prevent people migrating into the US from its borders. If that happens, we can expect a decline in detentions of Indians nationals at the border,” says Ms Puri. 

Whatever the case, the dreams driving thousands of desperate Indians to seek a better life in the US are unlikely to fade, even as the road ahead becomes more perilous.

Source: Why Indians are risking it all to chase the American Dream

Chris Alexander: Fixing immigration and fixing the economy are two sides of the same coin

Number of suggestions by former immigration minister Alexander. First set, government already moving in that direction. Others are more difficult and or controversial to implement. While the government is committed to a Ukrainian victory (but our role minor compared to USA), not clear what other sanctions against Iran remain to be implemented, or which ones he proposes for Pakistan (Alexander has been consistent, and rightly so, on Pakistan’s counterproductive role in Afghanistan).

While we can all agree on the need to increase unity and trust, the devil is in the details and there are no easy solutions apart from better and clearer messaging by political and other leaders:

First, set immigration levels between 300,000 and 400,000—targeting the lower end so long as our economy struggles and apportioning economic immigrants roughly equally among Skilled Worker, Canadian Experience, and Provincial Nominee programmes. In future, immigration levels should be driven by our prospects for economic growth and the availability of basic services like health care and housing. But there is no substitute for decent, clear-eyed political judgement on these issues.

Second, end access for low-skilled temporary foreign workers, a subsidy for uncompetitive businesses and, as the prime minister recently put it, “big chain corporations.” Skilled workers may still be needed in selected fields, but the system needs to be tight and well-managed, not a morass of abuse and ad-hockery.

Third, process 260,000 asylum claims fast. The law requires hearings within 60 days; currently, they take over three years. The Immigration and Refugee Board needs to staff up and burn the midnight oil to take this backlog back below 10,000, where it was in 2015. To prevent new backlogs, our visa requirements should be de-politicized: citizens of countries that do not meet our existing criteria for lifting visa requirements should be required to have them. Our current government undermined these criteria, notably in the case of Mexico, with predictable consequences.

We also need to come to grips with the number of people now in Canada without any immigration status, which has ballooned, and ensure such cases are resolved via existing programmes, including the humanitarian and compassionate stream, or through the asylum system. People should not be left in limbo or the shadows.

Fourth, lift current caps for international students so our best institutions of higher education are not punished for our current government’s missteps and implement a hard-edged strategy to end fraud and “fake colleges” and restore Canada’s merit-based reputation.

Fifth, a new government should think creatively about the world’s refugee crises. By April 2024, about 120 million persons were forcibly displaced worldwide—nearly twice the 2014 figure. About 43 million are refugees. Our generous refugee programmes failed to reverse these horrendous trends. Why? Because the dictators responsible for wars, genocides and repression in the Sahel, Middle East, South Asia, and Ukraine have gone unpunished.

Russia alone launched migration crises in Europe, Turkey, and Africa; genocide in Syria and Ukraine; coups and repression on four continents; and Europe’s largest postwar invasion. Iran armed terrorists. Pakistan put the Taliban back in power. China and North Korea help them.

These aggressors are behind this spike in displacement. To prevent the number of refugees from doubling again, Canada should commit to Ukraine’s victory, sanction Iran and Pakistan, and focus our refugee programmes on victims we failed over the past decade.

Sixth, we need to restore our sense of unity and trust. The Chrétien government had a cabinet committee on social union; we need something similar now. Canada should be free of violent extremism, hate speech and antisemitism. Our borders should be respected and our laws enforced. New citizens should be equipped to resist disinformation and polarization.

Far from being “post-national,” Canada’s strong, dynamic culture and identity attract millions who want to work hard, support families, communities, and businesses, live under the rule of law, participate in good government, and help those less fortunate than themselves.

By fixing the economy and taking six additional steps, we can turn a corner on immigration. Asylum backlogs, abuses by “big chain corporations” and “fake colleges” did not spring out of the ether. They are by-products of too many years of poor administration. With competent management, Canada’s economic promise can be restored and our immigration programmes will see better days.

Source: Chris Alexander: Fixing immigration and fixing the economy are two sides of the same coin