Aftab Ahmed: I speak English. Stop asking.

…There is also an obvious inconsistency in how language proficiency is treated for permanent residency versus citizenship. Those seeking citizenship are not required to retake the language test if they have passed it once, even if their test results have expired. Permanent residency applicants, however, must retake the test if their results are no longer valid, despite having lived and worked in Canada. This variation further weakens the logic of the current system.

There are simple solutions to this issue: First, remove the two-year validity rule. Second, remove the language proficiency requirement for those who have studied or worked in Canada for a reasonable period. Define that period. Third, for those arriving on a work permit without a certified letter from a recognized international post-secondary institution that provides education in English or French, language testing would be necessary.

Some argue that a steady flow of international students is vital for economic growth, given the billions they contribute to the higher education sector and the labour force. Others claim the influx worsens the housing crisis. Whatever the federal government’s target for permanent residents from this pool may be in the coming years, it is absurd to think someone could study in Canada without knowing one of the official languages. The same principle should apply if they have studied and then worked here. The current system is poor policy….

Source: Aftab Ahmed: I speak English. Stop asking.

Industrial Policy Needs an Immigration Policy

The case for higher skilled immigration as part of industrial strategies:

As the face-off between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris draws nearer, the United States is awash in partisan rancor, with the candidates and their supporters fighting bitterly over abortion, the southern border, taxes, health care, and more. Yet even though Democrats and Republicans are miles apart on most policy matters, they have nevertheless demonstrated a common renewed faith in one particular tool of economic statecraft: industrial policy….

If the United States wants to succeed in the global competition for talent, there is little time to waste. Other countries are already rushing to poach workers that are unable (or unwilling) to settle in the United States. Last June, Canada unveiled a new Tech Talent Strategy, which grants a three-year work permit to up to 10,000 people who hold H1-B visas in the United States to come to Canada, with work or study permits for accompanying family members. The program reached 10,000 applications in less than 48 hours. Germany, for its part, has rolled out a job seeker visa that grants temporary entry for foreign workers so that they can find employment.

In the past year, the Biden administration has taken modest steps to streamline processing for highly skilled workers. In October 2023, the Department of Homeland Security announced several changes to the H1-B program, including extending the grace period for graduates seeking to stay in the United States as they transition from student to work visas. The administration also issued an expansive executive order providing guidance to simplify visa applications and processing times for noncitizens with experience in critical and emerging technologies.

For years, Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill have been unwilling to consider high-skilled immigration reform outside of a comprehensive immigration solution. Biden deserves credit for waking up to the United States’ talent crunch. But his administration’s tepid position is no longer tenable. Any viable solution will require both executive and legislative action.

If congressional leaders can break this impasse, there is plenty of low-hanging fruit to grab. For starters, Congress could increase the annual cap for H1-B visas. There is precedent for this. In the 1990s, Congress temporarily increased the annual cap from 65,000 to 115,000 visas and later to 195,000, as the United States scrambled to find computer programmers to address the dreaded “Millennium Bug,” a computer flaw that experts worried could wreak havoc because the original code used by most machines could not deal with dates beyond December 31, 1999.

Even if the number of temporary visas were increased, the H1-B lottery has other shortcomings: it creates significant uncertainty for job seekers and lacks any sense of prioritization. No private-sector firm would randomly select their future employees, nor does it make sense for the U.S. government to do so when admitting its workers. The U.S. government should set up a system that prioritizes individuals working in sectors or possessing skills that are uniquely in high demand in any given year, a system made possible by the growing sophistication of AI-driven predictive analytics.

Even without congressional action, the executive branch could provide automatic work authorization for the spouses of H1-B workers, who currently must apply separately for permission to work in the United States. One study has shown that 90 percent of H1-B spouses have at least a bachelor’s degree, and half of those degrees are in STEM fields. The Department of Homeland Security has the authority to immediately extend work authorization to H1-B spouses, an action it could take if it wanted to.

When it comes to permanent residency, it is unlikely that there will be much political appetite to increase the overall number of green cards. It is easier, however, to envisage a change that would reduce the number of family reunification–related green cards and increase the number of work-related green cards—a rebalancing that would enhance the larger national interest.

Another relatively simple fix would be to reform or remove the country-specific caps built into the green card process. The statistics, compiled by the economist William Kerr, are undeniable: Chinese and Indian inventors are responsible for 20 percent of all U.S. patents; around half of all international students come from China and India and are disproportionately concentrated in STEM fields; and immigrants from these two countries account for eight in ten H1-B visas issued each year. In the face of these numbers, and with China and India accounting for one-third of the world’s population, limiting each country to seven percent of the United States’ total annual pool of green cards makes little sense.

Another idea that has been proposed is the “recapturing” of unused green cards, another move within the executive’s purview. For bureaucratic, financial, or other reasons, including pandemic-era delays, there have been years when green card caps have not been met. Some experts have called for the administration to recapture those unused green cards (more than 200,000 in number), which would make an immediate dent in the backlog. There is precedent for this maneuver, and, best of all, it would not require legislative action, although explicit congressional approval could expand the total number of unused green cards put back into circulation.

WITHIN REACH

For the past several decades, the political class in Washington has been obsessed with managing and controlling illegal immigration. It is high time policymakers devoted the same degree of attention to legal—and especially high-skilled—immigration.

Just as there is a bipartisan consensus behind industrial policy among politicians, there is also a bipartisan consensus among voters that the United States should do more to encourage high-skilled immigration; three of four respondents in a December 2022 Bipartisan Policy Center survey embraced expanding high-skilled immigration, including 68 percent of Republicans, 74 percent of independents, and 85 percent of Democrats. And in the past, Democratic and Republican lawmakers have joined forces to adjust immigration rules that would strengthen the United States’ standing at a time of geopolitical stress and technological upheaval.

Today is another such time. In a globalized world, top talent goes to the highest bidder. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the United States’ unique ability to attract immigrant labor facilitated the country’s rise as a manufacturing powerhouse. In the twenty-first century, maintaining a position of technological dominance will require the United States to retain its status as the destination of choice for the most skilled workers. The bipartisan “Made in America” vision can become reality, but only if it is built by harnessing the talent of immigrants.

Source: Industrial Policy Needs an Immigration Policy

Trump H-1B Visa Wage Rule Gives Clue To Second-Term Immigration Policy

Of note:

A Trump administration rule in 2020 designed to price H-1B visa holders and employment-based immigrants out of the U.S. labor market offers clues to U.S. immigration policy if Donald Trump wins in November. Although blocked on procedural grounds, the rule alarmed companies by boosting the required minimum salary for foreign-born professionals far beyond the pay of similar U.S. employees. The rule may give pause to those who expect a second Trump administration to be different from the first one on business immigration.

How The Trump Rule Aimed To Price Immigrants Out Of The U.S. Labor Market

On October 8, 2020, the U.S. Department of Labor published a rule that significantly raised the minimum wage required for employers to pay H-1B visa holders and employment-based immigrants. Currently, the law requires employers to pay H-1B professionals the prevailing wage or actual wage paid to similar U.S. workers, whichever is higher. Employment-based immigrants need a prevailing wage determination for employers to sponsor them for permanent residence. Despite no change in the law, the Trump administration wrote a regulation that caused the salaries required to be paid to foreign-born scientists and engineers to skyrocket.

After the rule was published, immigration attorneys discovered Trump officials had directed DOL to “hijack” the mathematical formula used to determine prevailing wages. After changing the formula, the rule required employers to pay high-skilled foreign nationals far higher than the market wage. That became clear when private sector salary surveys were compared to federal government wage determinations under the Trump rule.

The prevailing wage is “the average wage paid to similarly employed workers in a specific occupation in the area of intended employment,” according to the DOL website. “That means statistics, not politics, should control the prevailing wage,” said Kevin Miner of Fragomen when the rule was published. “The new DOL regulation artificially pushes the prevailing wage well above what the data shows it to be.”

Close examination found many cases under the rule when hiring an H-1B visa holder or sponsoring a foreign national for permanent residence would likely become impossible….

Source: Trump H-1B Visa Wage Rule Gives Clue To Second-Term Immigration Policy

John Robson: The progressive backlash against Capital Pride is something to behold

Of note:

When even Prime Minister Justin Trudeau thinks your Pride event is too aggressively weird and disruptive, it’s probably time to reconsider. Instead, Ottawa’s Capital Pride doubled down on its berserk anti-Israeli views, because ideas have consequences and bad ideas have terrible ones.

The Liberal Party of Canada is just the latest outfit to pull out of the sort of event it normally can’t get enough of. Ottawa Mayor Mark Sutcliffe is gone, plus the U.S. Embassy, Ottawa-Carleton District School Board (OCDSB), Public Service Pride Network, University of Ottawa, Ottawa Hospital, Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO) and more. Which isn’t exactly like having the Southern Baptists or Sons of Thor give it a pass.

Indeed, when the Toronto Sun reported that “CHEO CEO Alex Munter said they wouldn’t take part” because some hospital staff and citizens “no longer feel safe or welcome,” I had to check whether “they” was just Munter. (No, it’s CHEO generally.) And Trudeau is such a Pride enthusiast, the Liberals are organizing a counter-event “to celebrate Ottawa’s 2SLGBTQI+ communities.”

Yes, plural. All have won and all must have communities. And the OCDSB puts up so many Pride flags, there’s barely room for a times table. So what’s going on?

It’s a seismic tremor along an ominous fault line in modern progressivism. The trigger was an Aug. 6 Capital Pride statement saying:

“Part of the growing Islamophobic sentiment we are witnessing is fuelled by the pink-washing of the war in Gaza and racist notions that all Palestinians are homophobic and transphobic. By portraying itself as a protector of the rights of queer and trans people in the Middle East, Israel seeks to draw attention away from its abhorrent human rights abuses against Palestinians. We refuse to be complicit in this violence.”

It’s provocatively, transgressively false. Israel is “portraying” itself as a haven through the devious scheme, typical of the Elders of Zion, of being one. And this “growing Islamophobic sentiment” has nothing to do with Israel respecting human rights and much to do with Hamas and its supporters here and abroad backing genocidal brutality.

The “pink-washing” indictment is hysterically and mendaciously anti-Israel. Capital Pride offers a perfunctory condemnation of Hamas atrocities before going full Henry Ford about Israel’s slaughter, dehumanization, “flagrant violation of international law” and “plausible risk of genocide.” But such demented one-sidedness is driven by a deeper, odious hostility to the people whose historic homeland includes Jerusalem.

The Jewish Federation of Ottawa, after kowtowing to “safe and inclusive,” frankly denounced Capital Pride’s “recent antisemitic statement.” And there’s the nub.

The urge to subvert, to transvalue values, cannot stop with odd hairstyles and lifestyles. It must reach into the depths of morality, and I mean the depths. Thus Capital Pride ranted, “We wish to reaffirm our commitment to solidarity as the core principle guiding our work.” But solidarity with whom? Evidently the whole dang decolonizing family, even the Muslim Brotherhood. How can you not?

Following such dangerous logic part way, the boycotters also babble about inclusion. The Ottawa Hospital said that, “Inclusivity and supporting all communities we serve is very important to us,” while Munter objected that some people “no longer feel safe or welcome.” But surely some shouldn’t feel welcome. The Klan, say. Or Hamas. Such touchy-feely inclusionism promotes unilateral mental disarmament.

Or worse. After the Sun asked Capital Pride about a sermon at the Al-Aqsa Mosque, which was pointedly constructed where Islamists deny the Temple of Solomon ever stood, calling homosexuality an “abomination,” demanding a Schwulenrein Palestine including Jerusalem and objecting to men and women attending college together, it issued a new statement, “We reject any attempts to marginalize religious and cultural minority groups from the broader Pride movement.” Even death-to-Jews ones, consistently if ominously.

Wokeness may start as a trendy virtue-signalling wrapping you expect to don and doff like the rebellious calf’s leather jacket in that “Far Side” cartoon. But as Queen’s history Professor Don Akenson said, people have small ideas but “big ideas have people.” And if you’re committed to “subversion,” transvaluing all values and making others uncomfortable, you start with blue hair and a rainbow and end with a burqa and inverted red triangle.

The chickens-for-KFC paradox of queer militants supporting Hamas militants is part of the thrill. And this slippery slope is especially vertiginous if officialdom is sliding, too. If every government email lists pronouns, art galleries duct-tape bananas, the Olympics turn the Last Supper into the “Rocky Horror Picture Show” and politicians trample free speech to fight “hate,” how do you shock the bourgeoisie sufficiently that politicians recoil instead of leaning in for a selfie?

Well, respectable progressives still draw the line at blatant antisemitism. But sufficiently radical immigration policy and generalized postmodernism may erase even that boundary.

So I applaud those boycotting this transgressively transgressive event. But please check your assumptions because they’re not safe or inclusive.

Source: John Robson: The progressive backlash against Capital Pride is something to behold

Meeting between Trudeau and Muslim leaders in Quebec called off after many refuse to attend

Of note (counterproductive IMO):

A meeting between Muslim leaders in Quebec and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau planned for this afternoon north of Montreal — weeks ahead of a critical byelection in the city — was cancelled after many of those invited refused to attend, CBC News has learned.

“Many members of our community continue to feel angry and frustrated with a government that in their view simply hasn’t operated with integrity in relation to what is happening in Gaza, or in addressing the steep rise of Islamophobia in Canada,” the National Council of Canadian Muslims told CBC News in a media statement.

“While our community is not a monolith, this sentiment is widespread.”

It’s not clear how many people were invited to the event but the NCCM said “many members” who were invited, including “leaders and imams, declined to meet.”

Invitations were issued verbally by the office of Fayçal El-Khoury, the MP for Laval-les-Iles, according to two members of the Quebec Muslim community who spoke to CBC News….

Source: Meeting between Trudeau and Muslim leaders in Quebec called off after many refuse to attend

Jesse Kline: The Canadian terrorist supporter who Iran loves

Indeed. And shameful:

There are some awards that should give recipients pause and make them reconsider their life choices. Like receiving a Razzie Award for worst actor, a Grand Cross of the German Eagle from the Nazis or a human rights award from the Islamic Republic of Iran. But for Canadian terror apologist Charlotte Kates, the Iranian regime’s recognition of her anti-Israel campaign is considered a badge of honour.

Kates is the international co-ordinator of the Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network, a registered Canadian non-profit that was founded by members of, and is closely associated with, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), which Canada recognizes as a terrorist entity.

Samidoun is also responsible for organizing and funding many of the vile anti-Israel protests that have taken place on Canadian streets since October 7.

Readers may remember Kates as the woman who stood in front of the Vancouver Art Gallery in April, shouting “Long live October 7!” and praising the massacre in which 1,200 Israelis, mostly civilians, were brutally raped and murdered, and over 250 were taken into captivity, where many remain to this day.

Kates was arrested as part of a hate-crime investigation and released on the condition that she not attend any rallies, pending a court date in the fall. But that did not stop her from boarding a plane to Tehran, where she — along with five other individuals, including slain Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh — received an Islamic Human Rights Award for her “anti-Zionist activities” earlier this month.

A couple days later, Kates appeared as a guest on Iranian TV, clad in a hijab and appropriately spaced from her male host, where she blamed “Zionist organizations and political officials” for her arrest and opined about the “lie of so-called western democracy and concern for human rights.”

Iran, of course, has one of the world’s most dismal human rights records. This is the country where, in 2022, 22-year-old Mahsa Amini was arrested and subsequently murdered for improperly wearing a headscarf in public. The government crackdown on the ensuing protests resulted in hundreds of deaths, tens of thousands of arrests and numerous executions….

Source: Jesse Kline: The Canadian terrorist supporter who Iran loves

Stephens: What I Want a University President to Say About Campus Protests

Essential reading for some of our more “woke” institutions, academics and students. Money quote:

“It was listening to students and faculty whom we had admitted or hired for their intellectual sophistication, their capacity to understand complexity and nuance, reduce their own thinking to a handful of slogans and mantras written for them by others. It was the absence of intellectual humility and its replacement with moral certitudes.:”

…Some of you may have heard the term “institutional neutrality.” It is the belief that universities like ours should avoid taking political positions of any kind, either through investment decisions or political declarations by administrators or by academic boycotts of foreign scholars, except when the interests of the university are directly affected — like when the Supreme Court weighs in on our admissions process.

You may also have heard about the Chicago principles, which make the case for universities to embrace an almost unfettered principle of free expression as “an essential part of the university’s educational mission,” even when the speech is seen by most members of the community as “offensive, unwise, immoral or wrongheaded.”

Our university embraces both institutional neutrality and the Chicago principles. We do so not because they are ends in themselves but because they are necessary ways to cultivate the spirit of inquiry. That spirit cannot be fettered by formal or informal speech codes that might stop us from asking uncomfortable but important questions, or by university policies that preclude fruitful exchanges with scholars from other countries. At our university you will find scholars from Israel, China, Turkey, Russia and other countries whose policies you may not like; we do not hold them responsible for their governments, nor do we ask them to make political declarations as the price of belonging to our community.

But necessary isn’t sufficient. If all we accomplish by adopting the Chicago principles is that everyone gets to speak and nobody bothers to listen, those principles will have fallen short. If we embrace institutional neutrality at the topmost level while remaining indifferent to the one-sided politicization of classrooms, departments and administrative offices, we will have done little to advance the pedagogical benefits of neutrality, which is intended to broaden your exposure to the widest variety of views and ideas.

And if we permit protests that inhibit the speech of others, or set up no-go zones for Jewish students, or make it difficult to study in the library or pay attention in class, we may have upheld the right to speak in the abstract while stripping it of its underlying purpose. The point of free speech is to open discussion, not to shut it down. It’s to engage with our opponents, not to shut them out. It’s to introduce fresh perspectives, not to declare every perspective but our own to be beyond the moral pale.

I’d like to add a personal note as a Jew. Many people objected to last year’s protests, with their chants of “from the river to the sea,” as antisemitic. I find that calling for the elimination of Israel — indeed, of any state — is inherently repugnant, since it would almost inevitably entail an almost unimaginable level of violence, dispossession and destruction.

But antisemitism is not what I found chiefly offensive about the protests. I accept that most of the protesters are not antisemitic, or at least don’t think of themselves that way.

What bothered me, rather, was watching members of our community turn off their critical faculties. It was listening to students and faculty whom we had admitted or hired for their intellectual sophistication, their capacity to understand complexity and nuance, reduce their own thinking to a handful of slogans and mantras written for them by others. It was the absence of intellectual humility and its replacement with moral certitudes. It was the substitution of serious political thought with propaganda. It was the refusal to engage with difference and criticism in any way except denunciation and moral bullying.

In short, the way in which these protests unfolded was an insult to the spirit of inquiry that this university has an institutional responsibility to protect and champion. So does this mean we will brook no form of protest? Of course not. But we do expect that protests, so long as they happen on our campus, on our property, conform with the aims of education as we see them.

That means, at a minimum, that we will enforce clearly established “time, place and manner” restrictions, so that the rights of those who protest are never allowed to impinge on the rights of those who don’t. It also means we will invest in serious programming about the Mideast conflict, including by inviting Israeli and Palestinian scholars to campus and hosting moderated debates where you can cheer your own political side but must at least listen to the other. Our goal is never to make you think one way or the other. It’s to make you think, period.

The spirit of protest will always have a place here, as it must in every free society. Our job is to harness it to the task of inquiry so that knowledge may continue to grow, and human life may be enriched.

Source: What I Want a University President to Say About Campus Protests


Ottawa agrees to pause low-wage stream of Montreal temporary foreign worker program – with several exceptions 

Exceptions are reasonable. The degree to which these restrictions are enforceable, or are enforced, remains to be seen. But, as some Quebec commentators have noted, major step in giving Quebec a larger say with respect to Temporary Foreign Workers:

Ottawa has approved a Quebec request to impose a six-month pause on new applications to the low-wage stream of the temporary foreign worker program in Montreal, with exemptions for several sectors.

Employment Minister Randy Boissonnault announced the decision on Tuesday, saying the pause will not apply to the construction, agriculture, food-processing, education and social-services sectors.

Quebec Premier François Legault said the six-month pause would only apply to about 3,500 workers filling low-wage jobs on the Island of Montreal. During a Tuesday news conference, Mr. Legault presented this as a first step and acknowledged that it represents only a small fraction of Quebec’s temporary residents….

Source: Ottawa agrees to pause low-wage stream of Montreal temporary foreign worker program – with several exceptions

Sabrina Maddeaux: Canada can’t cynically rebrand temporary foreign workers and call it a day 

More commentary from the right (Maddeaux briefly tried to be a Conservative candidate for the upcoming election). But addressing the impact of previous Liberal government loosening of visa and work restrictions will involve politically difficult trade-offs, many which a future Conservative government would also find challenging:

…More details on the change are due in the fall, but the government’s announcement provides clues on how they intend to sell the program to Canadians. It says, “The initiative would support the modernization of the economic immigration system by expanding the selection of permanent residents to candidates with a more diverse range of skills and experience.”

The gist: they plan to fold their TFW scheme into the permanent resident stream, pat themselves on the back for increasing “diversity,” and hope voters don’t pick up on the rebrand.

This move kills several birds with one stone. First, converting a large number of TFWs into permanent residents will help them achieve one of their marquee goals: 500,000 new immigrants per year by 2025. Despite the obvious stresses placed on housing, health care, and other infrastructure by this sky-high target unburdened by any signs of strategic planning, there’s been no indication Liberals intend to rethink it.

Second, low-wage employers will get continued access to these workers, preventing any serious pressure to raise wages.

Third, it will allow Liberals to earnestly claim they’ve cut back the TFW program, which is what’s getting all the bad press, without actually having to do any cutting.

Finally, it allows them to avoid the growing mess of expired work permits, which this government clearly doesn’t have the appetite to enforce. In their worldview, enforcing immigration rules isn’t progressive. Yet, moving a mess to a different room still means it’ll eventually have to be cleaned up—and, if it gets bad enough, someone’s eventually bound to argue the best course of action is to simply throw the entire thing out.

This is why it’s so difficult to take the Liberals’ pro-diversity claims seriously. Their actions, as already evidenced by rapidly shifting public opinion on immigration, continuously undermine long-term shared economic and cultural gains in favour of key stakeholders’ short-term financial interests.

Canada is lucky to still be a country where nuanced and level-headed conversation about immigration is not just possible but desired by voters. The public wants thoughtful solutions from policymakers, not marketers trying to sell them the same failed product in new packaging. That begins with recommitting to immigration in service of shared prosperity, not low-wage employers’ bottom lines.

Source: Sabrina Maddeaux: Canada can’t cynically rebrand temporary foreign workers and call it a day

McQueen: Liberals go hog wild on immigration, hoping to secure victory in 2029 and beyond

Once a partisan, always a partisan, in terms of how one looks at the issues, it would appear.

While certainly political considerations played a role, the increase in the number of permanent residents reflected the misguided belief that Canada needed a larger population to address an aging population and labour shortages. The increase in temporary workers responded, excessively, to business interests, and students to provincial governments and their education institutions.

And surprising, given that voting applies only to citizens, that McQueen doesn’t mention citizenship numbers. And assuming that all new Canadians favour the government of the day, reflects an earlier period and neglects the diversity among new Canadian voters.

…Consider that in 2021, Trudeau’s 5.6 million votes weren’t sufficient to secure another majority. His administration has brought in about 3.2 million new immigrants, and consciously allowed the number of temporary residents to swell to 2.8 million — a large chunk of whom have come post the 2021 election. More than any equivalent period in our history

One has to wonder if Trudeau has weaponized our Immigration system in an effort to build a new base of more than six million grateful future Liberal voters. What might look like “incompetence” may actually be the Liberal 2029 election strategy at work.

Source: Liberals go hog wild on immigration, hoping to secure victory in 2029 and beyond