LILLEY: Trudeau fails to deal with out-of-control immigration

Repeats the same mistakes that Passifume made in ignoring drops in web interest, processed applications, and drop in April and May. But fits his narrative of the government doing nothing when in fact Minister Miller has starting trimming.

But agree, of course, on the overall numbers of permanent and temporary migrants being too high and the government being too timid in bringing them back to more reasonable levels:

We’ve already admitted more foreign students into Canada than we did in the same time period last year.

In the middle of a housing crisis.

At a time when health systems across the country struggle to hire enough doctors and nurses to care for the population that is already here.

What’s worse, we aren’t just increasing the number of foreign students, we are also increasing immigration on all fronts and even the number of people claiming asylum in Canada is up over last year. If you thought you heard the Liberal minister in charge of all of this say something about capping numbers, you’d be right.

The problem is, he hasn’t done that yet even as his boss, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, has admitted the problem.

“Over the past few years, we’ve seen a massive spike in temporary immigration, whether it’s temporary foreign workers or whether it’s international students, in particular, that have grown at a rate far beyond what Canada has been able to absorb,” Trudeau said at the beginning of April.

What’s been done since then?

Nothing.

As National Post first reported, between Jan. 1 and May 31, the Canadian government approved 216,620 study permits compared to 200,205 during the same period in 2023. For those keeping track, 2023 was a record year for foreign student admissions into Canada with more than 680,000 permits granted last year.

In January of this year, Immigration Minister Marc Miller said the system was being abused.

“Enough is enough,” Miller said. “Through the decisive measures announced today, we are striking the right balance for Canada and ensuring the integrity of our immigration system while setting students up for the success they hope for.”

If that balance is coming, the numbers aren’t showing it.

Meanwhile, from January through May we took in 30,785 compared to 28,980 in the same period for 2023. Our immigration target for permanent residents in 2023 was 465,000 and we brought in 471,550.

A decade ago we were bringing in what was then considered a historic high of just over 250,000 per year and this year we will likely bring in double that.

Now, when you add all the different ways we bring people in, it’s a staggering figure. According to the Statistics Canada’s population clock which tracks growth in real time, our current population as of writing is 41,481,200.

On Dec. 19, 2023 when I wrote about our growing population, the clock stood at 40,720,342 meaning we’ve added 760,858 people in seven months or an average of 109,000 per month.

Again, all in a housing crisis and a health-care crisis.

Bringing in people on scale, faster than we can absorb them to use Trudeau’s terminology, means housing costs rise and health care wait times grow longer. Then there is the economic impact of such massive and uncoordinated growth.

A recent report from The Royal Bank found that Canada’s per-capita household spending is down, and that per capita GDP growth has declined in six of the last seven quarters.

“Canada’s economy might not be in recession but it feels like one,” the report stated.

Our population growth is masking the weaknesses in the Canadian economy.

“Surging population growth has prevented outright declines in Canadian gross domestic product, but per-person output is falling, and the unemployment rate is rising like it usually only would be during a recession,” RBC said.

So, we have a housing crisis, that is being made worse by a lack of supply and increased demand due to immigration, but that immigration is also masking a recession that would be taking place if it weren’t for all the consumer spending of newcomers.

Meanwhile, unemployment is rising in large part because we add more people to the workforce each month. StatsCan has been warning for the last year that population growth is outstripping job growth.

It’s a fine mess we find ourselves in, one created entirely by the policies of the Trudeau government.

Source: LILLEY: Trudeau fails to deal with out-of-control immigration

Krugman: Trump’s Cynical Attempt to Pit Recent Immigrants Against Black Americans

Indeed. But continue to see from time-to-time articles from Black Americans arguing the same.

Obviously, the big political news of the past couple of days has come from the Democratic side. But before last week’s Republican National Convention fades from view, let me focus instead on a development on the G.O.P. side that may, given everything else that has been happening, have flown under the radar: MAGA rhetoric on immigration, which was already ugly, has become even uglier.

Until now, most of the anti-immigration sloganeering coming from Donald Trump and his campaign has involved false claims that we’re experiencing a migrant crime wave.

Increasingly, however, Trump and his associates have started making the case that immigrants are stealing American jobs — specifically, the accusation that immigrants are inflicting terrible damage on the livelihoods of Black workers.

Of course, the idea that immigrants are taking jobs away from native-born Americans, including native-born Black Americans, isn’t new. It has, in particular, been an obsession for JD Vance, complete with misleading statistical analysis, so Trump’s choice of Vance as his running mate in itself signals a new focus on the supposed economic harm inflicted by immigrants.

So, too, did Trump’s acceptance speech on Thursday, which contained a number of assertions about the economics of immigration, among them, the notion that of jobs created under President Biden, “107 percent of those jobs are taken by illegal aliens” — a weirdly specific number considering that it’s clearly false, because native-born employment has risen by millions of jobs since Biden took office.

What seems relatively new, however, is the attempt to pit immigrants against Black Americans. True, Trump prefigured this line of attack during his June debate with Biden, when he declared that immigrants are “taking Black jobs,” leading some to mockingly question which jobs, exactly, count as “Black.”

But the volume on this claim has been turned way up.

At the Republican convention, former Trump adviser Peter Navarro, someone very likely to have a role in the next administration if Trump wins, spoke of “a whole army of illiterate illegal aliens stealing the jobs of Black, brown and blue-collar Americans.”

In an interview with Bloomberg Businessweek published last week, Trump went even bigger, declaring that “The Black people are going to be decimated by the millions of people that are coming into the country.” He continued, “Their wages have gone way down. Their jobs are being taken by the migrants coming in illegally into the country.” He went on to say, “The Black population in this country is going to die because of what’s happened, what’s going to happen to their jobs — their jobs, their housing, everything.”

Trump’s diatribe forced Bloomberg to add this, parenthetically, as a fact check: “According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the majority of employment gains since 2018 have been for naturalized U.S. citizens and legal residents — not migrants.”

There was a time when a rant like this would have signaled that a politician lacked the emotional stability and intellectual capacity to hold the highest office in the land. Alas.

Also, it’s hard to overstate the cynicism here. Trump has a history of associating with white supremacists, not to mention his longstanding obsession with crime in urban, often predominantly Black precincts. Still, he clearly perceives an opportunity to peel away some Black voters by playing them off against immigrants.

But again, even if we ignore the cynicism, this new line of attack on immigration is just wrong on the facts.

If immigrants are taking away all the “Black jobs,” you can’t see it in the data, which shows Black unemployment at historic lows. If Black wages have, as Trump claims, gone way down, someone should tell the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which says that median Black earnings, adjusted for inflation, are significantly higher than they were toward the end of Trump’s term. (You should ignore the spurious bump during the pandemic, which reflected composition effects rather than genuine wage gains.)

You might ask why, given we have indeed seen a surge in immigration, that we aren’t seeing signs of an adverse, let alone cataclysmic, impact on Black wages or employment. After all, many recent immigrants, especially undocumented immigrants, lack college degrees and maybe even high school education. So aren’t they competing with native-born Americans who also lack college or high school degrees?

The answer, which we’ve known since the 1990s, is that immigrant workers bring a different set of skills to the table than native-born workers, even when those workers have similar levels of formal education. And yes, I mean skills: If you think of workers without a college degree as “unskilled,” try fixing your own plumbing or doing your own carpentry. It shouldn’t need to be said, but a lot of blue-collar work is highly skilled and highly specialized. As a result, immigrants tend to take a very different mix of jobs than native-born workers do — which means that there’s much less head-to-head competition between immigrant and native-born workers than you might think, or what Trump and Vance want you to think.

The bottom line is that the attempt to portray immigration as an apocalyptic threat to Black Americans is refuted by the facts. Will it nonetheless work politically? I have no idea.

Source: Trump’s Cynical Attempt to Pit Recent Immigrants Against Black Americans

The rich world revolts against sky-high immigration

The Economist’s take but ignores likely impact of AI and automation in many sectors:

Immigrants are increasingly unwelcome. Over half of Americans favour “deporting all immigrants living in the us illegally back to their home country”, up from a third in 2016. Just 10% of Australians favour more immigration, a sharp fall from a few years ago. Sir Keir Starmer, Britain’s new centre-left prime minister, wants Britain to be “less reliant on migration by training more uk workers”. Anthony Albanese, Australia’s slightly longer-serving centre-left prime minister, recently said his country’s migration system “wasn’t working properly” and wants to cut net migration in half. And that is before you get to Donald Trump, who pledges mass deportations if he wins America’s presidential election—an example populist parties across Europe hope to follow.

It is not just words either. Australia, Britain and Canada are cracking down on “degree mill” universities offering courses that allow in people whose true intention is to work. This year Canada hopes to reduce the number of study permits by a third. Other countries are making it harder for migrants to bring family with them. Last month President Joe Biden announced measures to bar those who unlawfully cross America’s southern border from receiving asylum. In France President Emmanuel Macron wants to expedite deportations; Germany is enacting similar plans. More extreme restrictions could be on their way. After all, Mr Trump’s plans imply the removal of perhaps 7.5m people. What will this crackdown mean for economies across the rich world?

chart: the economist

The change of approach follows a period of sky-high immigration. In the past three years 15m people have moved to rich countries, the biggest surge in modern history (see chart 1). Last year more than 3m people migrated to America on net, 1.3m went to Canada and about 700,000 turned up in Britain. The arrivals are from all over, including hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians fleeing war and also millions from India and sub-Saharan Africa.

Now there are signs the boom may be coming to an end. Net migration to Canada has nearly halved from its recent peak, while in New Zealand it is falling sharply. The rich world has fewer job vacancies than before, giving potential migrants less incentive to move, and the flood of refugees from Ukraine has slowed to a trickle. New anti-migrant measures are also starting to play a part. In the eu the number of third-country nationals who were returned to their home country, following an order to leave, has risen by 50% over the past two years. In the first quarter of 2024 “enforced returns” from Britain rose by 50% year on year. Illegal crossings at America’s southern border recently fell to a three-year low.

Some anti-immigration measures, especially large-scale deportations, could prove immensely damaging to economies. When Canada ramped up deportations during the Depression, it came at a large fiscal cost and clogged the ports. In 1972 the Ugandan government expelled thousands of people of Asian descent, whom it accused of profiteering. “There are virtually no African entrepreneurs left to take over the commerce,” a confidential cia memo reported in 1972, which also noted that it had become impossible to get a haircut in Kampala as all the barbers had shut.

Those close to Mr Trump argue that “Operation Wetback”—Dwight Eisenhower’s derogatorily named policy in the 1950s which expelled thousands of undocumented Mexicans—shows mass deportations can work without ill effect. True, the period was one of strong economic growth, and inflation remained low. Yet the comparison is misleading. During the 1950s legal Mexican immigration to America sharply rose, rather than fell. There is little doubt that Mr Trump’s proposal would cause economic chaos, as entire industries would be forced to find new staff. Warwick McKibbin of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a think-tank, reckons that in the unlikely event that Mr Trump successfully deported 7.5m people, American gdp would fall by 12% cumulatively over three years.

There is greater uncertainty about the effects of more moderate anti-immigration policies, even if they are still likely to be damaging. In the short term, efforts to bring down sky-high migration would probably reduce inflation in the housing market. Research by Goldman Sachs, a bank, suggests that in Australia each 100,000 decline in annual net migration reduces rents by about 1%. As migration to Britain has slowed in recent months, so has the pace of rent rises (other factors are playing a role, too). In time, though, falling migration would probably push up other inflation. As labour supply declined, wages might grow faster than otherwise, raising the price of services such as hospitality.

A clampdown would also benefit gdp per person—the yardstick by which economists usually assess living standards. As immigration surged in 2022 and 2023, gdp per person in Britain fell. It has tumbled in Germany. In Canada it remains nearly 4% off its high in 2022. This has happened in part because the latest arrivals are on average less skilled than the resident population, meaning that they cannot command high salaries. Although this is a mechanical effect, rather than an actual hit to natives’ living standards, reducing immigration could stop the slide in the short term.

But it would do so with long-term costs. The new arrivals are finding jobs. Although for decades immigrants to Britain were less likely than natives to work, for the first time ever this is no longer true (see chart 2). The employment rate of migrants in Europe is the same as that for natives. Immigrants in America have long been likelier to work than people born in the country, and in recent months the gap has widened. Cracking down on migration risks provoking the re-emergence of labour shortages that plagued rich economies in 2021 and 2022, and which drag on gdp per person by creating inefficiencies. In the long term, immigration also allows for more specialisation in the labour force.

chart: the economist

Crucially, the new arrivals often work in unglamorous, poorly paid but nonetheless vital industries, including construction and health care. From 2019 to 2023 the number of foreign-born people in America’s construction workforce rose sharply, even as the number of native builders fell. In Norway the number of foreign workers employed in health care has jumped by 20% since the covid-19 pandemic. The number of doctors working in Ireland but who trained elsewhere is up by 28%. During the same period the number of Chinese staff in Britain’s struggling National Health Service has doubled, while the number of Kenyans tripled.

Over time rich countries, which have ageing populations, will need more workers who are young and keen to work. This is because few politicians are talking about measures such as drastically raising the retirement age or how to make health care much more efficient. Although cracking down on new arrivals may buy politicians support for now, economic logic means the stance will be a nightmare to maintain. 

Source: The rich world revolts against sky-high immigration

Canadian provinces in open competition for economic immigrants

Summary of interesting research:

At a time of widespread labor shortages, the competition to attract and retain skilled immigrants isn’t just between countries; Canada’s provinces are also competing against each other. Catherine Xhardez, a professor in the Department of Political Science at Université de Montréal who studies immigration policy, discussed the trend in a talk on June 6 at the Forum sur l’intégration 2024 in Montreal.

Based on her recent study titled “‘Stand by me’: competitive subnational regimes and the politics of retaining immigrants,” Xhardez examined the strategies used by the provinces to attract, select and above all retain economic immigrants.

The work is published in the Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies.

More immigration powers

While Quebec was the first province to gain increased powers over immigration, the other provinces quickly followed suit. Under bilateral agreements with the federal government, they now have significant powers, particularly over economic immigration.

“Of all the federated entities in the world, Canada’s provinces have the greatest say in immigration matters,” Xhardez said. “They have used their autonomy to develop policies for attracting, recruiting, selecting and receiving immigrants, as well as distribution strategies to spread newcomers across their territory.”

The instrument most frequently used by provinces to attract economic immigrants is the Provincial Nominee Program (PNP), which lets them directly select a significant portion of their skilled immigrants. In some cases, up to 90% of a province’s economic immigrants have been selected through the PNP.

After these targeted selection efforts, however, provinces face a major challenge in retaining the immigrants they have selected.

“Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, immigrants enjoy the same freedom of movement as Canadian citizens, with some qualifications, and can therefore change province at will,” Xhardez noted.

Varying retention rates

The data Xhardez gathered by reviewing provincial documents published between 2005 and 2022 and 63 economic immigration programs show significant interprovincial differences in retention five years after arrival.

British Columbia, Quebec and Alberta lead the way with retention rates of 86%, 85% and 83% respectively (5-year rates), all immigrant categories). At the other end of the scale, some Atlantic provinces struggle to hold onto immigrants: New Brunswick retains 50%, Newfoundland and Labrador 46%, and Prince Edward Island 31%.

Taking local ties into account

To maximize their chances of retaining economic immigrants, the provinces apply specific selection criteria, using PNPs not only as tools for attraction and selection but also as levers for retention.

Xhardez divides the provinces’ actions on this front into four categories:

  • Adaptability factors: Applicants are favored if they already have family, professional or educational ties to the province.
  • Demonstrated intent and ability to settle permanently: Some provinces, such as Manitoba, require proof of ties to the local community.
  • Detailed settlement plan: Applicants may be required to provide a concrete integration plan, including points such as place of residence and education for their children.
  • Exclusion criteria: Candidates may be rejected if, for example, they reside in another province or own property in another province.

These practices give rise to a new selection criterion: According to Xhardez, the “ideal migrant” is no longer just someone who has the required professional skills but also someone who shows a strong commitment to the host province.

“It remains to be seen whether these policies work in the long term and we need a better understanding of immigrants’ trajectories,” she said. There are, she noted, other factors that can influence the decision to stay in a province or leave.

Major financial and societal challenges

The importance that Canadian provinces attach to retaining economic immigrants “is due to the provinces’ investments and efforts in both attracting and integrating newcomers,” Xhardez observed. “The departure of an immigrant to another province is therefore a net loss for the original host province.”

Beyond the financial considerations, these retention strategies raise questions about the balance between the provinces’ economic needs and immigrants’ right to mobility. They also highlight the challenges of long-term integration of newcomers and building a sense of belonging.

“As the competition for talent intensifies, Canadian provinces continue to refine their approaches,” said Xhardez. “The effectiveness of these policies and their impact on the country’s demographic and economic distribution will remain subjects of study and debate in the years to come.”

Source: Canadian provinces in open competition for economic immigrants

Fact check: Was this Conservative MP censored by a government department? [Citizenship ceremony]

Needed fact check:

What was said: On July 20, Conservative MP GARNETT GENUIS shared a video of a speech he gave at a citizenship ceremony in his Sherwood Park-Fort Saskatchewan, Alta., riding. “SHOCKING,” the MP wrote. “Officials in this NDP-Liberal Government wanted to be able to vet and censor my remarks at a Citizenship Ceremony for my own riding.” 

In a later post, he said he was asked to submit his remarks to IRCC officials before the ceremony, claiming that was the first time that had occurred in his nine years in office. He accused the department of asking for the remarks “very clearly with the intention of reserving the right to approve them or not approve them. This is an attempt to change protocol and control what MPs say,” he posted in his replies. 

In the video itself, Genuis said he was “disappointed” at being asked to submit his speech in advance.  

The facts: Immigration Minister MARC MILLER’s press secretary AISSA DIOP told Politics This Morning that IRCC officials request all MPs—no matter the political affiliation, and including the minister himself—to share their remarks before the event for review. She said this is not to censor anyone, but to ensure that the remarks at a citizenship ceremony remain non-partisan. Diop’s comments were backed by a departmental spokesperson, who said the practice is “long-standing.” 

“Let us be clear: these ceremonies go far beyond ridings, far beyond our political affiliations, and far beyond our personal views. They are about the people in the audience with their family members, and the joy they feel at the end of their immigration journey,” Diop said in a statement.

Verdict: Lotsa spin. We can’t say for sure why Genuis may have never encountered this practice before, but it is not a new practice. One could argue it is intended to “censor” politicians, insofar as the intent behind the practice does manage the nature of their remarks. But MPs have many other avenues to embrace partisan speech, so the effect of the review is unlikely to amount to actual “censorship.” Think of it instead as a procedural requirement. MPs don’t consider keeping their remarks within the confines of “parliamentary language in the House of Commons to be censorship, do they? 

Source: Fact check: Was this Conservative MP censored by a government department? [Citizenship ceremony]

Polgreen: If Kamala Harris Is a D.E.I. Candidate, So Is JD Vance

Good reminder of the importance of class in DEI, so often forgotten:

…Personally, I think powerful institutions should value this kind of diversity. Over the course of my career I have hired and promoted many people, and diversity in the broadest sense has always been important to me. I have found that the best leaders I have worked with are eager to build teams from as wide a range of geographic, religious, class, ideological and, yes, racial and ethnic backgrounds as possible.

Kamala Harris and JD Vance, despite their political differences, have a few things in common. They were raised by tough, charismatic matriarchs. They both pursued legal careers. They both sought and won high elected office. They both come from backgrounds that are underrepresented in the halls of power. And now they are both engaged in the core work of politics — translating their stories into power. We would do well to ask why only one of these two remarkable Americans stands accused of getting where she is based on D.E.I. The answer, I fear, is written on their faces.

Source: If Kamala Harris Is a D.E.I. Candidate, So Is JD Vance


Canadian Christian Colleges Hit Hard by New Immigration Restrictions

Notable impact:

It seemed like a door had opened.

Providence University College and Theological Seminary in Manitoba started an associate’s degree program that could be marketed to international students. To president Kenton Anderson’s delight, the two-year degree attracted a significant number of applicants eager to study in Canada. Several hundred students enrolled.

For the private evangelical school, that generated significant revenue and helped further fulfill the mission of spreading the gospel around the world.

Providence made plans to grow the program—could they attract 500 international students? 600? 700?—and bought an apartment building in nearby Winnipeg to provide increased student housing.

Then, a single government decision closed that door.

Canada’s federal government announced new restrictions on undergraduate international students in January 2024. When the rules take effect this fall, the total number will be reduced by about 35 percent.

Providence was anticipating several hundred new international students. Now, when the semester starts the first week of September, the school will only greet about 20.

“It’s many millions of dollars of revenue just gone,” Anderson told CT. “And, of course, as a private tuition-funded Christian school, it’s not like we have a lot of that money lying around.”

According to the Canadian government, there are several reasons to reduce the number of international students at Canadian colleges and universities. Officials said they were concerned that lax admissions were diminishing the quality of the country’s education.

“We want to ensure that international students are successful and to tackle the issues that make students vulnerable and hurt the integrity of the International Student Program,” Julie Lafortune, a spokeswoman for the department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, told CT in an email.

The government was also concerned about the strain that the influx of internationals puts on the already stressed housing market. Many cities across Canada have seen housing costs skyrocket in recent years. Experts estimate 5.8 million new homes would have to be built by 2030 to bring prices back down to affordable levels.

“While international students are not responsible for the challenges that communities are facing in housing, health care, and other services, the growth in the number of international students is unsustainable and has added significant demand for services that all Canadians must be able to access,” Lafortune said.

The new rule sets limits on international students for each province. The provinces will then determine the allocation of that limited number of students—how many will go to one school, how many to another.

In Manitoba, the government decided to prioritize permits for international students attending public universities. Providence was allowed just a small amount.

Anderson said the combined decisions of the federal and provincial governments were enough to threaten the existence of the evangelical university. But Providence isn’t alone, he said. Many institutions of higher education are going to suffer.

“That was a very popular move politically for them to make, but it was a bit of a blunt instrument,” he said. “It just kind of like hit everybody.”

Kingswood University in New Brunswick will notice the hit.

In its 80-year history, the Methodist-affiliated school has come to rely on the flow of enrollments from abroad. Sometimes as much as 40 percent of the student body has been international. The majority have come from the United States, but many have come from further away as well, reflecting Kingswood’s Methodist ties and its missions-minded identity.

“It’s impossible for us to do what we were chosen and funded to do because of this new rule,” president Stephen Lennox told CT.

In the rural community of Sussex, where the university is located, housing is not a major problem, according to Lennox. He understands the government concerns about education quality and housing stock, but neither issue actually applies to Kingswood. So the rule doesn’t solve anything but does seriously hurt the school.

Christian Higher Education Canada sent a letter to Marc Miller, minister of immigration, refugees, and citizenship, asking him to reconsider. Lennox, who is on the board, is one of the leaders at 22 Christian schools in Canada who signed the appeal.

“Our schools provide theological education, preparing individuals to fill positions as pastors and other religious professionals,” it said. “Limiting the number of international students restricts us in our mission to help alleviate the pastoral leadership deficit in churches around the world.”

One major issue that will impact Kingswood is the change to the process of admitting US students. Americans who want to study at evangelical schools in Canada will find it’s a bit more difficult than it was before.

“They’ve always been allowed to enter by a door that’s a little easier to pass through than a typical international student. Now they all have to come through the same door,” Lennox said. “A student two hours away in Calais, Maine, has to go through the same process that someone coming from Swaziland has to go through. And to me, that just doesn’t seem to make any sense.”

Some evangelical schools in Canada have seen problems with housing. The government concern about people having places to live is relevant to their context. But they were already figuring out solutions.

“Finding housing in Moncton can be a challenge,” said Darrell Nevers, marketing and communications manager at Crandall University, a school associated with the Canadian Baptists of Atlantic Canada. “However, our student network is strong; most students can find suitable housing before arrival or soon afterwards. We also work with community partners to help students find safe and affordable housing.”

Crandall, which is also in New Brunswick, typically recruits between 400 and 450 international students each year to the Moncton campus—just under 50 percent of overall enrollment. The largest numbers of students come from India, Nigeria, Columbia, Ghana, and Bangladesh. The majority are enrolled in graduate programs, however, which are exempt from the new restrictions for now.

That reduces the impact but doesn’t entirely eliminate it. Crandall is welcoming only 8–12 international undergraduate students this fall but 140 additional students are enrolled in graduate programs.

“While we are certainly concerned that these changes will impact our undergraduate student enrollment, we believe that our provincial government has been incredibly fair in how they have allocated numbers to New Brunswick schools,” Nevers said.

Faced with the new restrictions, some universities have chosen to pivot.

“We feel like the Lord has definitely closed a door for this season. We hope that it opens again, either with a change of government or just because they see there is a better way. But we also feel like, ‘Hey, the Lord wants us to exist. What other options are out there for us?’” said Lennox at Kingswood.

Currently, the school has plans to offer a one-year master’s in leadership starting in January 2025. Those students will be exempt from the new restriction, and Kingswood hopes to recruit enough of them to offset the losses in undergraduate enrollment. Since it’s a one-year program instead of a four-year program, however, they will have to recruit at a faster rate.

Providence has also taken steps to expand its graduate offerings. Anderson said it was incredibly difficult for faculty and staff to get a new program in place as quickly as they needed to, but it was essential to the future of the institution.

“It was just one of those things where you do or die, so to speak,” the president said. “We’re doing a lot of things to strengthen our work and our sustainability as an institution and what we offer to the kingdom of God, to the church, to our communities.”

New graduate programs will bring about 300 international students to Providence this fall. That alleviates immediate financial concerns, but school officials have a new awareness of how easily that could change. Recruiting more international students no longer seems like a key piece of a solid plan for sustainability.

“The international work was good in that it was helping buy time, essentially,” Anderson said. “Now, we’re going to have to dig a little deeper.”

Source: Canadian Christian Colleges Hit Hard by New Immigration Restrictions

Foreign student permits are already outpacing 2023’s record numbers

Analysis fails to address time lags between expressing web interest in getting a study permit and more significantly, the number of applications processed. Both are down about 25 percent, January-May, 2024 compared to same period in 2023.

While the number of study permit holders increased January to May, the numbers have started to decline in April and May by just over 12 percent:

Even as federal Liberal government is pledging to cap the number of international study permits, its own data show Canada is approving permits at a pace faster than last year, which saw a record number of approvals.

According to numbers curated online by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), Canada handed out 216,620 international study permits in the first five months of 2024.

Just 200,205 study permits were handed out during the same time period in 2023.

By the end of 2023, 682,420 study permits had been granted to foreign students.

Canada has been granting the vast majority of permits to India, with 278,335 going to students from that country in 2023, a number nearly five times more than to students from China, the second-highest country of origin, who were granted 58,230 permits in 2023.

Canada’s third-most popular source of international students in 2023 was Nigeria, with 37,575 permits handed out in 2023, followed by the Philippines with 33,830, and Nepal at 15,920…

Source: Foreign student permits are already outpacing 2023’s record numbers

Semotiuk: Deporting 11 Million U.S. Undocumented Immigrants: Mission Impossible

Indeed:

Recently, America’s Voice, a pro-immigration NGO, spoke up about the ramifications of former President Donald Trump’s plan to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants. “It means detention camps full of immigrants waiting to be removedThis would affect all undocumented people living in the US, even those who have lived here for decades.” It added, The moral cost to the country would be unimaginable. It would also lead to economic disaster. The cost to deport 11 million people would come to more than $265 billion. The deportation of every 1 million immigrants would cause an estimated 88,000 American job losses. We would lose trillions in immigrant taxes, economic contributions, and payments into Social Security and Medicare.”

Legally Speaking

Legally speaking, the complications of such an endeavour have been summarized as follows: “Even undocumented immigrants in America have certain constitutional rights, particularly those who have been here for longer periods of time. For example, longer-term noncitizens are entitled to the right to counsel, albeit at their own expense. They are also protected by at least the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process. These immigrants also have other legal protections.

These constitutional rights mean that removing illegal immigrants from America would require legal hearings in courtrooms. In addition to considering the rights of the defendants, this would create a logistical nightmare, tying up the courts from dealing with other substantive issues. Judges, prosecutors, defence counsel as well as the persons concerned would all have to coordinate their calendars to schedule mutually agreeable dates for hearings before illegal immigrants could be deported. If you multiply this by some millions of cases, you have a better idea of why legally removing these immigrants from America is going to take a long time and will be very expensive.” What is more, trying to do it without respecting these legal rights essentially involves converting America into a dictatorship and is, therefore, unacceptable.

Other Consequences

But one other consequence of all this has not been considered: its impossibility and the likely destabilization of other states if it were done.

At least 15 countries that will not accept the return of their nationals due to deportation. These include China, India, and Russia, for example. Indeed, it can be anticipated that as many as 150 countries will refuse the return of large numbers of their nationals from the U.S. Trump’s threats to cut American aid to them may work on some, but few, and certainly not on most. Thus, the proposal becomes impossible to implement.

Case In Point: Mexico

Special problems arise in the case of Mexico. Over four millionundocumented Mexicans live in the United States. When added to the problem of the flow of hundreds of thousands of migrants seeking to enter the U.S. through Mexico, the addition of four million returning Mexicans would be overwhelming for the country. There is no guarantee of cooperation in this venture.

What About Canada?

In the case of Canada, the commencement of deportation measures in the U.S. against 11 million people would likely drive many undocumented immigrants northward, legally or illegally. Each year, Canada’s current immigration levels come in at about 500,000. In past years, irregular crossings from the U.S. to Canada of about 100,000 migrants at Roxham Road were a major burden for Canadian authorities. It is not hard to imagine the dislocations in Canada that could be caused if, say, even one million noncitizens of the U.S. decided to make their way northward to avoid U.S. deportations back to their homelands.

Conclusion

In short, deporting 11 million noncitizen migrants from the United States is a mission impossible. But instead of deportations, there is another more reasonable way of dealing with this problem. It would be to allow those undocumented immigrants who have been here for many years to stay by moving the registry date forward but to require them to do some community service to atone for their undocumented entry. Let reasonable minds prevail and avoid the disaster former President Trump has in mind for America.

Source: Deporting 11 Million U.S. Undocumented Immigrants: Mission Impossible

Snyder: Both sides

Good critical commentary on both sides-ism:

Our media people do not see it this way, of course.  The restoration of the mystical equilibrium of Both Sides brings our priests a pious satisfaction, visible on the red faces of correspondents in Milwaukee this last week.

If pressed, the shamans of Both Sides insists that their dualistic dances are nothing other than correct method to describe the universe.  The cult and its performance is protected from critique by the totemic terms “objectivity” and “balance.” 

All shamans do this: they insist that their dogma must be our reality.   But when we allow the cult of Both Sides to shape our own minds, ethical judgement and factual investigation disappear, and with them any chance for constitutional order and democracy.

Ethical judgement would involve a notion of right and wrong, which the activity of the priests erodes.  The worse the evil of one side, the more artfully it must be forgiven, and the more viciously the other side must be berated.  Believers in the cult of Both Sides experience this as moral action, whereas in fact the performative relativism erodes all morality.

Factual investigation would involve identifying other perspectives which the cult of Both Sides disregards.  It would necessitate separating the two aspects Both Sides from each other and confronting their words with the facts of the world.  To believers in the cult of Both Sides, it is a relief clothed in righteousness never to have to perform such labor.

Earlier dualistic faiths were no more outlandish than our own cult of Both Sides.  Indeed, they had something to say about foundational issues.  The Indo-European, Near Eastern and East Asian beliefs, to which I briefly referred above, generated stories about the world that inspired philosophy and science.  The cult of Both Sides is the dogmatic distraction from the bloody sacrifice of a republic.

Source: Both sides