McWhorter: We’re Asking the Wrong Question About Harris and Race

2024/07/30 Leave a comment

From mixed to biracial, as more and more people have blended or composite ethnic and racial origins:

In the wake of Joe Biden’s endorsement of Kamala Harris, a great deal of attention has focused on whether America is ready for a Black female president. Unmentioned is a question of equal complexity: Why is Harris Black? Hear me out.

As she has proudly recounted, the vice president is the product of an interracial, intercultural marriage between a mother who emigrated from India and a father who emigrated from Jamaica. So in terms of her ancestry, she is as much South Asian as she is Black. By widespread convention, however, people refer to her not primarily as a South Asian presidential candidate, nor even a mixed-race candidate, but rather a Black candidate.

It’s not just Harris. Barack Obama, with one Black and one white parent, is called Black. Imagine how strange it would be if someone called him white. Imagine how strange it would be if he called himself white. Harris often mentions the South Asian half of her heritage, but in traditional American discourse, it feels off to categorize her as simply South Asian — like Aziz Ansari or Mindy Kaling — and leave it there. Yet calling her just Black, as a kind of shorthand, feels right. Blackness is treated as blacking out, so to speak, whatever other race is involved. Most people default to this perspective — myself included.

This approach contradicts not just logic, but also itself. In contrast to the centuries-old “one-drop rule” that segregationists have invoked to describe the indelible ancestral stain of so-called Black blood, enlightened people are supposed to believe that race is purely a social construct, with no biological basis. If so, then why does having some Black forebears make you Black, regardless of the rest of the family tree?

People from other countries can find this perplexing. I’ve fielded questions from people from France to Japan about why Obama is considered Black, rather than both Black and white. The question always feels naïve to me at first, but if you imagine stepping outside our particular national framework, it’s the foreigner who is making sense and the American version that is weird.

A teacher from Russia I once had even genially but firmly insisted that I am not Black. Dark-skinned people she knew of, including a few rappers — they were really Black. Not me. My skin tone is brown but not chocolate.

My maternal grandfather was light enough that he could easily have passed for white. My mother was quite light-skinned, too. Yet I have never considered myself anything but Black, nor did my grandfather or my mother. To look at photos of the three of us and see three “Black” people makes perfect sense to me because I have never known anything else.

The conversation with my teacher took place in Russian, a language I spoke with the facility of a 2-year-old. Without access to the nuanced verbal machinery — the buzzwords and dutiful observations — we usually use, I had no way to explain the American way of seeing Blackness as the dominant heritage for any mixed-race people, because it makes no logical sense.

The novel and later musical “Show Boat” dramatized the tragic absurdity of the one-drop idea. The story begins in the Deep South in the 1800s, when laws banned miscegenation and classified people with one-eighth Black ancestry as “octoroons.” At one point a white man married to a woman of mixed race pricks her finger and drinks what comes out, announcing that the drop of Black blood he has inside of him legitimizes their marriage.

Today, those who express different ideas about racial identity often encounter serious resistance. When Tiger Woods, the child of two mixed-race people, announced himself to be “Cablinasian” — as a combination of Caucasian, Black, American Indian and Asian — he was mocked as not knowing who he is. The writer Thomas Chatterton Williams encountered skepticism when he said he couldn’t see his blond, blue-eyed child as Black.

One objection I hear is that resisting calling yourself Black, or feeling the need to modify your Blackness with some other racial attributes, can give the impression that you are ashamed of who you are.

I do think people make this assumption too quickly, but given how Black people have been denigrated throughout American history, the assumption hardly comes out of nowhere — and I have seen for myself, among people I know, that it is sadly sometimes correct.

Another objection I hear is that however dark-skinned people see themselves, the world will process them as Black. Their complex genealogy will not protect them from the effects of prejudice, discrimination and even possibly police violence. And if so, better that they learn to be realists about it — starting with the racial category they use to identify themselves.

I find this concern genuine but unconvincing. For one thing, should we let other people’s inability to see us plain be the basis of our identity? That would let them win. You can be quite aware of the risk of police violence and yet resist a belief system that says Black blood determines who you are.

And besides, as is so often the case, it’s a matter of degree. My children’s mother is white. One child is about my shade; the other is what used to be called high yellow. In their New York City lives, white kids are the minority. So many of the kids they know are, like them, shades of brown, hybrids of various kinds, that my children have a bit of trouble understanding why I sometimes ask “what” one of their friends “is.” Despite their differences, they all watch “Stranger Things”; the girls, whatever they look like, are all into Sabrina Carpenter.

I know that not all kids live in contexts in which racial distinctions can be so easily shrugged off. But all signs indicate that my children are growing up in a world that’s very different from the one I grew up in. I experienced plenty of passing instances of racism, even as a student at fancy private schools. But it’s been a half century now. Experiences of the kind Harris has recounted, of suburban white kids whose parents told them not to play with her because she was Black, have been alien to my girls so far.

If someday they decide not to define themselves as Black, it will not be because they are ashamed or in some kind of denial. It will be because the world has changed, and we should be thankful for that.

American discourse is, happily, becoming more amenable to the idea that a person who is half Black can be two things rather than just one. It’s been a while now since people started speaking of themselves as biracial, a term that is used with much more pride than its predecessor, “mixed,” used to be. But Kamala Harris will still be commonly described as Black. The talk will be of her having a chance of being the second Black president, when that first one was actually half Black like her.

What is most important is that Harris, Obama and other people of mixed racial heritage can now get as far as they have. As for our habit of processing Blackness as foundational — much as Strom Thurmond did — it will be ever more absurd as the races mix further over the coming generations. On this custom, history will look upon us in puzzlement.

Source: We’re Asking the Wrong Question About Harris and Race

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

International review of the Canadian Human Rights Commission can provide limited gains for anti-racism advocacy

2024/07/30 Leave a comment

Realism. More for political profile than substantive:

The Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions(GANHRI) has decided to conduct a special review of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC). A coalition of civil society organizations, including the Black Class Action Secretariat, Canadian Association of Public Employees, and others, requested the review.

As the international body that accredits national human rights institutions, GANHRI will evaluate the CHRC’s level of compliance with the United Nations’ Paris Principles that set minimum standards for national human rights institutions to uphold.

The review may draw attention to issues of racial discrimination at the CHRC and the coalition’s proposed reforms, but GANHRI’s record indicates that it will most likely decide that the CHRC is still complying with the Paris Principles at the highest level.A June 10 press conference by the coalition of organizations publicizing GANHRI’s decision to review the CHRC’s status.

Complaints of racism at the CHRC

Since 2020, the coalition has been raising concerns about racial discrimination in the CHRC’s workplace and how it fulfills its mandate of resolving complaints of discrimination against federally regulated entities. 

Initially, the coalition pursued domestic avenues for change. There were union-based grievance processes for several Black and racialized CHRC employees and a comprehensive Senate Committee on Human Rights study. In 2023, both the Treasury Board Secretariat and Senate Committee found racial discrimination was an issue within the CHRC. 

In response, the CHRC has been introducing a range of initiatives to address anti-Black racism, sexism and systemic discrimination. The coalition, however, wants the CHRC and Canadian government to pursue more sweeping reforms to the CHRC and its associated legislation. Key reforms would amend equity and non-discrimination legislation, and change the complaint procedure so individuals could directly access a tribunal, rather than go through the commission itself.

To generate international pressure for reforms, the coalition wants GANHRI to review the CHRC’s compliance with the Paris Principles, particularly the requirements for pluralism to reflect society and for promoting and protecting human rights without discrimination. It is hoping GANHRI will reassess the CHRC’s top-level accreditation status. 

How reviews of national human rights institutions work

Ironically, and seemingly reflecting its high status, the CHRC prepared GANHRI’s guide to how its accreditation committee works.

GANHRI’s committee gives national human rights institutions grades based on their compliance with the Paris Principles: A for full compliance, and B for partial compliance. The committee also may give them recommendations on how to better adhere to the Paris Principles.

Having A-status allows a national human rights institution to participate in the work of the UN Human Rights Council and other UN mechanisms. A downgrade to B-status indicates compliance issues and revokes those privileges. 

The committee normally reviews national human rights institutions every five years and just gave the CHRC A-status after its routine review in 2023.

Beyond this regular review cycle, civil society organizations can submit information to GANHRI if they feel an institution is not complying with the Paris Principles. GANHRI’s committee then decides whether to conduct a special review.

GANHRI’s committee decided to conduct the special review of the CHRC, planned for its next session in Fall 2024, after the coalition highlighted the Treasury Board Secretariat’s and Senate Committee’s recent findings of discrimination within the CHRC. 

The impact of reviewing the CHRC

To increase public pressure for action from the CHRC and Canadian government, the coalition has widely publicized its request for, and GANHRI’s decision to conduct, the special review.

In its press conference, the coalition’s spokesperson saidGANHRI’s “landmark” decision puts Canada “among the ranks of nations like Russia, Iraq and Venezuela, who have faced a special review.” The coalition focused on states with weak human rights records to shame the CHRC, but national human rights institutions in states with stronger human rights records, like the United Kingdom, have also undergone special reviews.

The coalition also strongly emphasized how GANHRI could downgrade the CHRC’s status from A to B and, by extension, revoke key privileges. However, those familiar with GANHRI’s past practice will expect that it will maintain the CHRC’s top-level status. 

The vast majority of GANHRI’s members (90 out of 118) have A-status. Also, with the example of the UK’s national human rights institution, two special reviews did not produce any downgrade in status.

The CHRC’s response to GANHRI’s committee could detail how it has undertaken various initiatives on the issues of concern. While those initiatives might be inadequate for the coalition, they will probably be adequate for the GANHRI committee to maintain the CHRC’s A-status. 

Therefore, the coalition’s threats of a downgrade in status for the CHRC are unlikely to materialize. Still, the committee’s review may produce recommendations for improvements, which could more subtly assist the coalition’s advocacy.

Overall, the coalition’s turn to the international level has served its domestic agenda by drawing attention to issues of racial discrimination within the CHRC and the coalition’s desired reforms. However, GANHRI’s review will generate minimal international pressure for reforms if it maintains the CHRC’s top-level status as a national human rights institution, so the coalition will need to once again alter its advocacy strategy.

Source: International review of the Canadian Human Rights Commission can provide limited gains for anti-racism advocacy

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Islamic paintings of the Prophet Muhammad are an important piece of history – here’s why art historians teach them

2024/07/29 Leave a comment

Follow-up to the earlier articles:

Hamline University in St. Paul, Minnesota, recently reached a settlement in a religious discrimination case with former adjunct faculty member Erika López Prater. She was dismissed in 2022 for showing two historical Islamic paintings of the Prophet Muhammad in her global survey of art history class, which some students described as disrespectful and Islamophobic.

While many Muslims today believe it is inappropriate to depict Muhammad, it was not always so in the past. Moreover, debates about this subject within the Muslim community are ongoing. Within the academic world, this material is taught in a neutral and analytical way to help students – including those who embrace the Islamic faith – assess and understand historical evidence.

As an expert on Islamic representations of the Prophet Muhammad, I consider the recent labeling of such paintings as “hate speech” and “blasphemy” not only inaccurate but inflammatory. Such condemnations can pose a threat to individuals and works of art.

The Prophet Muhammad has been represented in Islamic paintings since the 13th century. Islamic art historians such as my colleagues and me, both Muslim and non-Muslim, study and teach these images regularly. They form part of the standard survey of Islamic art, which includes calligraphy, ornament and architecture.

Comparing prophetic images

The 14th- and 16th-century images López Prater selected depict Muhammad receiving the beginning of Quranic revelations from God through the angel Gabriel. In Islamic thought, it is at that moment that Muhammad became a divinely appointed prophet.

The 14th-century painting is part of a royal manuscript, the “Compendium of Chronicles,” written by Rashid al-Din. It is one of the earliest illustrated histories of the world. The manuscript includes numerous paintings, including a cycle of images depicting several key moments in the Prophet Muhammad’s life.

The one that was discussed in López Prater’s class appears in a section on the beginnings of Quranic revelation and Muhammad’s apostleship. The painting depicts the prophet with his facial features visible as the angel Gabriel approaches him to convey God’s divine word. The event is shown taking place outdoors in a rocky setting that matches the accompanying text’s description.

The second image, made in Ottoman lands in 1595-96, is part of a six-volume biography of the prophet. Over 800 paintings in this manuscript depict major moments in Muhammad’s life, from his birth to his death.

In that painting, Muhammad is seen raising his hands in prayer while standing on the Mountain of Light, known as Jabal al-Nur, near Mecca. His facial features are no longer visible; instead, they are hidden behind a facial veil.

The Ottoman artist chose to depict the prophet’s purity through the use of white fabrics, and his entire being as touched by the light of God via the large flaming nimbus that encircles his body. Jabal al-Nur is shown, as its name suggests, as a radiant elevation. Above it and beyond the clouds, rows of angels hover in praise.

Key study questions

These two paintings show that Islamic representations of Muhammad are neither static nor uniform. Rather, they evolved over the centuries. During the 14th century, artists depicted the prophet’s facial features, while later artists covered his face with a veil.

Islamic art historians ask their students to compare these two paintings while encouraging them to slow down, look carefully, train their eyes to detect pictorial elements, and infer meaning. They also ask students to consider the textual content and historical context accompanying the paintings.

The key question students are prompted to think about through the juxtaposition of these two Islamic paintings is this: Why did the facial veil and flaming nimbus develop as two key prophetic motifs in Islamic depictions of Muhammad between A.D. 1400 and 1600?

The images help a teacher guide a collective conversation that explores how the prophet was conceptualized in more metaphorical ways – as a veiled beauty and as radiant light – over the course of those two centuries in particular.

This prompts a larger exploration of the diversity of Islamic religious expressions, including those that are more Sufi, or spiritualized, in nature. These paintings therefore capture the richly textured mosaic of Muslim worlds over time.

This historically sensitive, pictorial side-by-side is known as a comparative analysis or “comparandum.” It is a key analytical method in art history, and it was used by López Prater in her classroom. Now more than ever, a rigorous study of such Islamic paintings proves necessary – and indeed vital – at a time of sharp debates over what is, or is not, Islamic.

Source: Islamic paintings of the Prophet Muhammad are an important piece of history – here’s why art historians teach them

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Vancouver’s Langara College among those bracing for drastic plunge in foreign students

2024/07/29 Leave a comment

The impacts of the international student cap being felt:

…At Langara College, president Burns said in her message to faculty that while foreign student applications are down 79 per cent for the January term, they are also down nine per cent for the fall term, which begins in just six weeks.

Burns attributed the declines to several factors.

They include Immigration Minister Marc Miller’s promise in January to decrease the number of study visas it hands out by 35 per cent this year compared to last.

The B.C. government has also been making reforms — including instituting a new requirement that no more than 30 per cent of students at public post-secondary schools can be foreign students. There are 217,000 foreign students in the province’s post-secondary institutions.

This year both the federal and B.C. governments are expressing the need to temper the record volume of foreign students because of the impact on runaway housing costs, particularly rents, as well as on infrastructure and social services, such as health care.

On a national level, there are mixed signals about the pace at which foreign students are entering Canada.

Last year the country had about 1.1 million foreign students, a jump of three times from when Justin Trudeau was elected in 2015.

Despite Miller pledging to cap study visa approvals at 360,000 for this year, immigration department data shows it issued more study visas in the first five months of this year than it did in the first five months of last year, which broke records.

According to numbers from the immigration department, Canada has handed out 217,000 international study permits in the first five months of 2024. In the same period in 2023, 200,000 were handed out.

In B.C., however, study visa numbers are slightly reduced. In the first five months of 2024 the immigration department has issued 40,000 visas to those who say they will study in B.C. That’s down from about 45,000 in the same period last year.

In response to Postmedia’s questions, the immigration department said via email: “It is premature to claim the cap isn’t working.”

The ministry noted the cap doesn’t apply to students who apply to extend their studies from within the country, nor to those attending kindergarten-to-Grade 12 programs. It also said it expected visa approvals will go down in the months of August and September.

Andrew Griffith, a former immigration department director who now writes independently about migration, says he believes overall foreign student numbers will begin broadly declining soon.

A crucial government data table, he says, reveals that the volume of people around the world inquiring on the immigration department’s website about getting a Canadian study visa is down 26 per cent this year compared to last.

For instance, there were far fewer inquiries about obtaining a Canadian study visa in June of this year: 68,000  compared to 110,000 in June of 2023….

Source: Vancouver’s Langara College among those bracing for drastic plunge in foreign students

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

USA: The Right-Wing Dream of ‘Self-Deportation’

2024/07/29 Leave a comment

Of interest:

In his presidential campaign, Donald Trump has doubled down on bashing migrants crossing the southern border. They are criminals who are “poisoning the blood of our country,” he says. The Republican National Convention was full of talk of surging “migrant crime,” even though such a rise does not exist. 

The number of Americans who think the immigration level is too high has sharply risen since the last presidential contest in 2020, and as Americans move to the right on the issue, Trump plans to go much further than President Biden’s executive order in June, which closes the border when crossings surge. Trump has said he would build “vast holding facilities” — detention camps — to lock people up as their cases progress; end birthright citizenship, even though the Constitution protects it; and bring back a version of the travel ban from his first term, which barred visitors from several mostly Muslim countries. Another Trump promise, mass deportations, hasn’t been tried since the 1950s; now, polls show majority support for it, including among Latinos.

But there is one anti-immigration proposal on the right that Trump doesn’t talk about publicly. It’s a spin on “self-deportation.” The term — for provoking immigrants to leave of their own volition — has gone out of fashion but the idea continues to lurk. This time, instead of directly pressuring undocumented adults to flee, some immigration opponents are threatening access to school for their children. It’s a nuclear option — requiring the reversal of a Supreme Court ruling that has been a linchpin of educational rights for four decades — that some of Trump’s allies on the right are quietly building support for.

In February, the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing Washington think tank that’s become central to mapping out policy objectives for the next Republican administration, recommended requiring public schools to collect data on immigration status when students enroll. Heritage also said schools should charge tuition for children who are undocumented or who have a parent who lacks legal status.

About 600,000 undocumented children live in the country, and another 4.5 million have a parent who is here illegally. To ensure that parents can send their children to school without fear of immigration agents, the Biden administration declared in 2021 that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement could take no actions of any kind at schools and other locations where young people gather, like universities and day care centers. It’s easy to see why schools are such a sensitive site of immigration enforcement. Barring children from the classroom punishes them for their parents’ decisions and disrupts families’ daily rhythm. Most searingly, perhaps, it undermines the hope of bettering the lives of the next generation — a reason for coming to the United States in the first place.

It has always been difficult to deter people from migrating to the United States, given instability in their home countries and the lure of economic opportunity at American businesses that depend on cheap labor. But there is a grim logic to the strategy of keeping children out of school in the United States — that if you go so far as to take away a right fundamental to the American dream, people will leave.

The Long Shadow of Prop. 187

During the 2012 presidential campaign, the Republican Mitt Romney was roundly mocked for saying that the solution for illegal immigration was to encourage people to “self-deport” rather than for the government to remove them. Newt Gingrich, the former Republican House speaker, called the idea a “fantasy.” Trump, then the host of “The Apprentice,” called the notion “crazy” and claimed it cost Romney the Latino vote — and the election.

But the concept is an old one, dating back to at least the 19th century. In 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, the first law to bar the entry of workers based on their nationality. For decades afterward, people in segregated Chinatowns lived in the shadows, shuttering businesses, ducking corrupt immigration officers and hiding from mobs. “From 1890 to 1920, a period of mass migration from all over the world, the Chinese population in the United States declined by more than 40 percent,” the historian Adam Goodman wrote in his journal article “The Long History of Self-Deportation.”

A century later, states introduced policies designed to motivate immigrants to move elsewhere. Proposition 187, a proposal to bar undocumented people from using social services, including public health care and education, went on the ballot in California in 1994. A satirical group, Hispanics Against Liberal Take Over, started calling for the self-deportation of all undocumented immigrants in joke ads during the campaign.

Within days after Prop. 187 passed, a federal judge found the law unconstitutional and prevented it from going into effect. Nonetheless, researchers saw immediate, measurable impacts. One study showed that undocumented patients in California with tuberculosis were far more likely to delay seeking care. “Life as an undocumented immigrant is so delicate when it comes to interacting with public institutions,” said Tom K. Wong, a political science professor and founding director of the U.S. Immigration Policy Center at the University of California, San Diego. “The chilling effects are broad.”

The results of Prop. 187 drew the interest of Kris Kobach, then a law professor who pushed for states to play a greater role in immigration enforcement. In 2008, Kobach published an influentialarticle titled “Attrition Through Enforcement” that praised a new Arizona law requiring employers to verify the legal status of workers. He argued that while most “garden-variety illegal aliens” could easily live and work in the United States, they began “self-deporting by the thousands” from Arizona. As a result, Kobach noted, costs dropped for Arizona public schools. He acknowledged that some people were moving to neighboring states but claimed that many returned to Mexico.

In 2011, Kobach became Kansas’ secretary of state. Because of his legal expertise, he was tapped to help write an Alabama bill with the harshest set of immigration restrictions in the country at the time. The law included a mandate that schools collect data on citizenship and immigration status when students enroll, as Heritage now proposes. The Monday after the Alabama bill passed, school officials reported, thousands of students didn’t attend school. Absentee rates remained high. Families fled the state. “It was like a disease,” the owner of a grocery store in Albertville toldNBC News. “Everyone was panicking and leaving.”

Kobach celebrated. “It’s self-deportation at no cost to the taxpayer,” he said.

Though other parts of Alabama’s law were enforced for a time, after only a few weeks, a federal appeals court blocked the provision that required schools to ask about students’ immigration status. This ruling rested on a Supreme Court decision from 1982, Plyler v. Doe, a high-water mark for judicial protection of civil rights. Plyler isn’t nearly as famous as Brown v. Board of Education, the 1954 case that called for the desegregation of public schools. But in the current political landscape, Plyler is both increasingly significant and increasingly vulnerable.

The case began in 1977, when Tyler Independent School District in Texas expelled dozens of undocumented children after the state cut funding for those students. Alfredo Lopez, who was 10 at the time, was one of the students sent home. His family joined four others who sued the state. They went to their first court hearing with their car packed, ready to flee if immigration agents forced them to do so.

But the families won in the lower courts. Texas appealed to the Supreme Court. At oral arguments, the state’s lawyer argued that by blocking funds for their education, Texas “prevents a substantial number of these children from coming in,” which would in turn save the state more money. In other words, the state could refuse to pay for school to create the conditions for self-deportation.

In a 5-to-4 decision, the court rejected Texas’ appeal based on the promise of equal protection in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. “Directing the onus of a parent’s misconduct against his children does not comport with fundamental conceptions of justice,” Justice William Brennan wrote for the majority. “Education has a fundamental role in maintaining the fabric of our society.”

‘The Times Are Different’

Today, there’s a clear path for challenging the precedents of a previous, more liberal era of the Supreme Court. Heritage spelled it out in February: If a state were to require schools to collect data on students’ immigration status or to charge tuition to immigrant families, “such legislation would draw a lawsuit from the left, which would likely lead the Supreme Court to reconsider its ill-considered Plyler v. Doe decision,” the Heritage document said.

The same tactic led to the end of Roe v. Wade in 2022.

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority could follow the script in Chief Justice Warren Burger’s dissent in Plyler in 1982: “Were it our business to set the nation’s social policy, I would agree without hesitation that it is senseless for an enlightened society to deprive any children — including illegal aliens — of an elementary education,” Chief Justice Burger wrote. “However, the Constitution does not constitute us as ‘Platonic guardians,’ nor does it vest in this court the authority to strike down laws because they do not meet our standards of desirable social policy, ‘wisdom’ or ‘common sense.’”

If the Supreme Court were to overturn Plyler and allow states to revoke access to public school for undocumented children, it would fall to legislatures to enact such policies. Many states have constitutions or laws that grant a right to public education, and some would not block children from going to school simply because it is cruel. That makes it far more likely that immigrants would move to one of those states rather than leave the country altogether. But that may be sufficient for some politicians.

When he ran for re-election two years ago, Greg Abbott, the governor of Texas, talked about mounting a challenge to Plyler v. Doe. “I think we will resurrect that case and challenge this issue again, because the expenses are extraordinary and the times are different,” he said on a conservative radio program, according to The Austin American-Statesman. A bill along those lines died in the Texas Legislature in 2023. But a proposal to end paying for the enrollment of undocumented children in public schools, posed to voters on the ballot for the Republican primary in Texas in March, had more than 87 percent support.

Heritage is trying to build support for its proposals by focusing on the cost of educating immigrant children. The organization says that enrolling the minors who crossed the border without authorization in 2023 would cost $2 billion a year. (Some of those minors work, despite child labor laws, and may not attend school.) Repeating that number at a House subcommittee hearing in June, Representative Aaron Bean, Republican of Florida, said that educating undocumented children was “wreaking havoc on our school systems across America.”

If such attacks succeed in a second Trump term, it will be a measure of how the political climate has shifted. In 2017, Stephen Miller, a hard-right immigration opponent and Trump adviser, pushed for the Education Department to issue a guidance memo telling states that in spite of Plyler, they could block immigrant children from attending public school, according to Bloomberg News.

Betsy DeVos, then the secretary of education, “would never consider” issuing such a memo, a spokesperson for the department said at the time. So Miller’s plan died. But DeVos, who resigned citing Trump’s role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, has little chance of serving in a second Trump term. Miller, however, is poised to play a prominent role. Last fall, the Trump campaign referred reporters’ questions about Trump’s second-term immigration agenda to Miller. He promised a “blitz” of restrictions that he expected to be challenged in court — the route to challenging Plyler.

Will the argument for self-deportation have more success in 2024 than it did when Mitt Romney suggested it? Alabama wound up watering down its 2011 restrictions in part because of an outcry from businesses about the loss of workers. Crops rotted in the field. Investment in the state stalled. Depriving children of education would unleash real effects, on them and their families, and over time perhaps on economic prosperity. It’s the kind of policy that all but the harshest immigration opponents might come to regret.

Source: The Right-Wing Dream of ‘Self-Deportation’

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

Le Devoir Éditorial | Une foi en la laïcité

2024/07/29 Leave a comment

Of note:

Dans les années 1960, Dieu en a mangé toute une au Québec. Les hippies et leur révolution contre-culturelle basée sur une réinvention du concept de la Sainte Trinité autour des figures du sexe, de la drogue et du rock’n’roll ne furent pas les seuls responsables de ces bouleversements annoncés par la prophétie de Refus global.

Dans le tome V d’Histoire populaire du Québec, l’historien Jacques Lacoursière décrit avec acuité le contraste entre l’omniprésence de l’Église et son inexorable déclin. L’Église qui « semble partout est en fait nulle part », écrit-il en citant le professeur de l’Université de Montréal et membre du clergé Jacques Grand’Maison.

Le concile Vatican II ne ralentira pas la sécularisation du Québec. Pendant que les curés débattaient encore en 1970 afin de permettre la messe dominicale le samedi soir — ô révolution ! —, la société laïque attaquait par les voies législative et judiciaire l’édifice croulant du contrôle social par soutanes interposées.

Au diable les prescriptions sur le divorce, sur l’union libre, sur la contraception ou sur l’avortement ! Elles voleront toutes en éclats au cours des deux décennies suivantes. Le recul nous permet de constater que les premières lueurs de la laïcité furent indissociables des combats féministes pour se libérer d’un carcan social qui régentait la vie des femmes, de l’habillement jusqu’à la procréation.

Bien sûr, des intellectuels catholiques participèrent aux premières initiatives visant à rattacher Dieu à la modernité, sans parvenir à freiner un mouvement qui fera passer le religieux de la sphère publique à la vie privée. La transformation fut plus longue et moins radicale qu’il ne le semble à première vue. En effet, il faudra quand même attendre jusqu’en 2005 pour achever le projet de déconfessionnalisation des écoles et jusqu’en 2008 pour voir la création du cours Éthique et culture religieuse.

Dans Genèse de la société québécoise, paru en 1993, le sociologue Fernand Dumont constate, dans un bilan du siècle, l’érosion définitive de l’Église comme « organisme politique et instance de régulation des moeurs ». C’est l’un des plus merveilleux accomplissements de la marche permanente vers la laïcité. Ce n’est pas tant un legs de la Révolution tranquille qu’un long parcours d’affranchissement face aux dogmes et aux gardiens de la parole sacrée, qui ne cesseront jamais d’aspirer à la « revanche de Dieu », pour paraphraser le sublime essai de Gilles Kepel.

Pour en revenir à Dumont, celui-ci soulignait aussi dans son essai « le flottement de la culture collective » qui accompagne la laïcité. Dans une nation en constante recherche de ses repères, c’est sans doute la raison pour laquelle l’attachement nostalgique au catholicisme et à ses rituels (baptême, mariage) a persisté bien au-delà de la Révolution tranquille. Il en est de même pour l’adhésion à une « catho-laïcité », qui s’est plu à casser du sucre sur le dos des femmes voilées tout en se portant à la défense de la symbolique du crucifix à l’Assemblée nationale. Dieu merci, ce dernier a été remisé lors de la dernière offensive législative du gouvernement Legault.

Aujourd’hui, les Québécois se déclarent parmi les moins croyants et les moins pratiquants de tout le Canada, mais la ferveur religieuse suit également une tendance baissière dans les autres provinces. La ligne de fracture s’observe plutôt entre l’appui à la Loi sur la laïcité de l’État au Québec et sa diabolisation ailleurs au Canada.

Dans La laïcité du Québec au miroir de sa religiosité, les codirecteurs de l’ouvrage collectif, Jean-François Laniel et Jean-Philippe Perreault, soulignent les défis de penser le fait religieux au Québec alors qu’il semble en voie de glisser vers le statut de « corps étranger ou anachronique, en marge de la culture et de la société ». « La laïcité, dans sa volonté de neutraliser la religion, n’est pas neutre », formulent-ils.

C’est une autre façon d’envisager la Loi sur la laïcité. Celle-ci avait son utilité pour parachever l’oeuvre du rapport Bouchard-Taylor sur la crise des accommodements raisonnables, même si elle embrasse trop large en incluant le personnel enseignant. Avouons-le franchement, cette loi a autant à voir avec la marche vers la sécularisation que l’affirmation identitaire d’un groupe majoritaire entretenant une relation historique d’amour-haine avec le catholicisme. Un groupe qui projette désormais cette relation sur d’autres confessions qui n’avancent pas au même pas dans leur rapport évolutif au fait religieux.

Par l’un de ces paradoxes dont le Québec ne détient pas le monopole parmi les sociétés modernes, nous avons tué Dieu, mais nous ne sommes pas venus à bout de l’irrépressible besoin de croire, comme en atteste la montée en force de la spiritualité à base de tarots, de sorcellerie, de chakras ou de roches magiques. Nous aurions tort de penser que nous pourrons légiférer les croyances jusqu’à leur extinction, surtout pas dans une ère numérique où s’effacent les distinctions entre le public et le privé.

Source: Éditorial | Une foi en la laïcité

Filed under Religion Tagged with ,

Siavash Shekarian: Canada’s immigration system seems to be in peril

2024/07/29 Leave a comment

Another critique of current immigration policy which offers a national conversation as the solution. May be part of a solution but a conversation among stakeholders may not result in the politically hard choices and trade-offs necessary.

And of course, a business immigration lawyer favours business immigration, where most such targeted programs show mixed results at best:

It’s no secret that Canada’s immigration system is broken. From selection to integration, every aspect seems to be in peril. Yet, while headlines abound about Canada’s population trap, productivity emergency, housing crisis, and the mass exodus of talent leaving our country, discussions about the root causes and solutions remain notably scarce.

First, let’s clarify what’s “broken” about Canada’s immigration system. If the goal were to merely increase the number of people coming to Canada, then our system would be succeeding by every metric. But that’s not, and has never been, the objective. The objective of our immigration system is to grow the economy for everyone, not just increase Canada’s GDP. We want productivity — making the pie bigger for every Canadian, not just in total. Therefore, our selection policy should accordingly prioritize human capital, innovation, and entrepreneurship — the biggest contributors to boosting productivity. If that were the case, the temporary resident unemployment rate wouldn’t be nearly double the national average, the Bank of Canada wouldn’t be sounding the alarm about our productivity crisis and we wouldn’t be the only G7 country with business investment lagging behind residential real estate.

The misguided nature of our selection policy for attracting innovation and entrepreneurship is glaringly obvious. At the federal level, we have only two programs: the Federal Self-Employed program and the Start-Up Visa program. The first program was paused on April 30, while the second program was reactively curtailed on the same date.

Such clear disregard for innovation and entrepreneurship in our selection policy becomes a lot more alarming when put into context. According to the Business Development Bank of Canada: “Entrepreneurs are the backbone of Canada’s economy: They spearhead innovations. They’re responsible for virtually all net new job creation. They drive growth and transformation. Yet fewer people are venturing into business ownership each year, and nearly one-third of those who do will close their business within five years.”

On the other hand, Canada’s aging population and the ongoing retirement of baby boomers have caused a “succession tsunami” that will, in the near future, cause unprecedented damage to our economy. One therefore wonders why attracting entrepreneurs is being ignored by our policymakers.

The performance of our selection policy in choosing candidates with high human capital to enter our labour market is no better. The Express Entry system, designed to select the sharpest and brightest minds, uses a scoring grid based on potential economic output. However, flaws are prevalent both in design and use.

For instance, the system awards points for education without distinguishing between institutions. A University of Toronto engineering graduate is seen as having the same economic potential as a Conestoga college graduate. Points are awarded for work experience without considering where it was acquired. Additionally, the system completely ignores past earnings, which a highly regarded Statistics Canada report found to be the best predictor of future earnings and higher economic potential. Remarkably, despite its own policy report concluding that previous Canadian work experience is the largest unique contributing factor for predicting post-landing earnings, Canadian work experience remains among the lowest ranking in our Express Entry point system.

What does all of this tell us about the root cause of the problem? It reveals that our immigration system is driven by ambiguous and misguided party politics rather than transparent, reason-based national interest. With reactive and confused leaders shifting immigration policy on a whim and without consultation, it’s no surprise that an Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada commissioned report bluntly concludes, “the current organizational model at IRCC is broken.”

So what is the solution?

Firstly, we must recognize that immigration is an incredibly complex issue requiring a whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach. Currently, a single broken department, notorious for its lack of transparency and accountability, has overshadowed all others. Our ultimate decision-makers must revamp this department and task it with uniting all levels of government and meaningfully engage society — civil society, academia, private sector, diaspora and local communities, and media. Together, we must redefine the goals and objectives of immigration, identify shortcomings, and collaboratively create sustainable solutions.

We need a national conversation about these issues. It’s time to move beyond the rhetoric and address the fundamental flaws in our system with transparency, accountability, and a commitment to the national interest. Only through collective effort can we transform our immigration policy into one that truly benefits all Canadians — old, new, and future.

Siavash Shekarian is CEO of Shekarian Law PC, chair of the business immigration committee of the Canadian Immigration Lawyers Association, and public affairs liaison of the citizenship and immigration section of the Ontario Bar Association.

Source: Siavash Shekarian: Canada’s immigration system seems to be in peril

Filed under Immigration Tagged with

Not Everything is about Anti-Semitism: Bella Hadid and Adidas Shoes

2024/07/27 Leave a comment

Of note:

Nostalgia is lamenting over the job you never got, missing the girl you never dated, and holding memories for the trip you never took – or at least never completed. In marketing, it usually leads to inferior products that are sold for skyrocketing prices. I am probably the last candidate to purchase the retro sneakers that Adidas have recently issued for the upcoming Olympics in Parism which are an exact replica of the shoes they have issued in 1972 for the Olympic games in Munich. In am not a sprinter, but even if I were one  – I would have probably preferred modern shoes that come with airbag cushions which boost the performance and add to the comfort at a cheaper price (the nostalgic pair is sold for over 100 Euro!).

However, the story is not about me, not about running shoes consumption, and not even about nostalgia – but about the ongoing attempt to mark even the most indirect criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism. According to the very loud Israeli propaganda, the retro Adidas shoes are a disgrace not because they are outdated or too expensive, but since they brutally manifest anti-Semitism. Why? Because they are promoted by Bella Hadid. Let’s examine the proposed connection: The shoes were first introduced for the 1972 Olympic Games, where 11 Israeli athletes were murdered by a Palestinian terrorist organization, Black September. This organization no longer exists for over 40 years. Most of its commanders were killed by Israel. The remaining, like Amin al-Hindi, surprisingly or not, became collaborators during the golden age of the Oslo Accords.

What does it say about our perception of terrorists? Let’s leave it for another article and go back to the anti-Semitic shoes legend. None of the Israeli athletes who were murdered in the 1972 Olympics wore these shoes. None of them was a sprinter. Nothing connects Adidas to the massacre. As for Bella Hadid – while the famous model is the daughter of an even more famous objectionable real estate mogul and reality TV star Mohammed Hadid, who is a 1948 Palestinian refugee, has always maintained (just like her dad) a critical tone toward Israel – nothing in the family’s history relates to Black September or to any other terror organization. In fact, a cold blooded analysis would determine that the Hadids are in fact victims of Israel because they lost their house in Safed, lost their citizenship, and lost their chances to live in the country where the family has been residing for centuries. No matter how much you slice it and dice it – at the age of two weeks, baby Mohammed Hadid when expelled in 1948 was not a terrorist. It is true that he and his daughter never praise Israel, but do you really expect them to sing hymns to the country that expelled them and confiscated their property?

It is easy to find models with a better fit to Adidas retro running shoes. The world is full of athletes and former athletes who model, but anti-Semitism is the last ground to disqualify Bella Hadid.

Amir Hetsroni was a faculty member at Ariel University in the West Bank. He is emigrating from Israel in order to miss the next war, earn higher wages, enjoy cooler summers, and obtain a living package that is cost-effective. He has three passports and does not feel particularly worried about anti-Semitism.

Source: Not Everything is about Anti-Semitism: Bella Hadid and Adidas Shoes

Filed under Antisemitism, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Deborah Lyons: Courageous leadership is needed to combat antisemitism in Canada

2024/07/27 Leave a comment

Reasonable recommendations, highlighting the benefits of appointing a former public servant compared to a former activist as is the case with the representative on combatting Islamophobia:

…Lean into a proactive rather than reactive approach:

Leaders often wait for antisemitic incidents to take place before responding. To shift from a reactive to a proactive approach, leaders can establish a relationship underpinned by trust with Jewish individuals in their organizations. This could be a network, an adviser position, or a recurring meeting with a group representing the Jewish community. Combatting antisemitism works best when it is continuous, and not only when a problem arises. Nurturing relationships built in trust with Jewish individuals, actively listening to them and proactively engaging on issues is helpful in preventing antisemitism.

Encourage interfaith and inter-community dialogue:

I have seen a lot of pain in the eyes of Jewish Canadians, particularly after October 7. Much of this pain has come from the loss of friends and allies, and the silence and lack of support they’ve received from other Canadians, including from other faith communities. Community and faith leaders should understand that empathy and understanding for one group should not preclude empathy and understanding for others. Faith and community groups should extend their hands in support, as the Jewish community has so often done for others in past crises. Leaders should remember that we can be pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian at the same time. Leaders should encourage interfaith and inter-community dialogue, by creating spaces for these difficult but important conversations to happen. If done with mutual respect, compassion, and rooted in our shared values as Canadians, these spaces can help bring us back together rather than continuing the divisive dialogue and binary thinking that is destroying our civility.

Advocate for Jewish Canadians through allyship:

As a non-Jewish person, what I have learned most clearly is that antisemitism cannot be solved by the Jewish community alone. Jews did not create antisemitism and as with any other marginalized group, it is not on them to fight it alone. Being an ally means being present, an active listener, and a support system. Most importantly, it means believing Jewish Canadians when they speak. And taking action. A simple way for leaders to demonstrate their allyship is to ask Jewish neighbours, friends or individuals in their organizations: “What does support look like for you” and “How can I help?”

Discover modern day manifestations of antisemitism:

To address antisemitism, we must first define and understand it. In 2019, the Government of Canada formally adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of antisemitism as part of Canada’s Anti-Racism Strategy. The IHRA Definition is the product of a 16-year-long democratic, iterative process, and as of the date of publication, has been adopted by 42 other countries and multiple international organizations. It is a tool for recognizing antisemitic expression, behaviour, intention and impact. The IHRA working definition — particularly through its 11 examples — serves as a helpful tool for leaders to understand the many forms of antisemitism and how to meaningfully address them.

Much work remains to be done. If this vacuum from faith, political and business leaders continues it may become too difficult to find our way back. It is our role as Canadians to stand now with our Canadian Jewish family across our country. It is what our Jewish family deserves. It is what Canada needs, now.

Deborah Lyons is Canada’s Special Envoy on Preserving Holocaust Remembrance and Combatting Antisemitism. She previously served as Ambassador of Canada to Israel, Ambassador of Canada to Afghanistan, and the UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Afghanistan and Head of the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan.

Source: Deborah Lyons: Courageous leadership is needed to combat antisemitism in Canada

Filed under Antisemitism, Multiculturalism Tagged with

France’s ban on athletes in hijabs makes a mockery of the Olympic charter

2024/07/27 Leave a comment

Of note (I am generally cynical about the IOC stated values, ethics and behaviour, but not the athletes):

The International Olympic Committee touts the 2024 Olympic Games as the first to nearly achieve gender parity. While six countries have no female athletes who qualified, gone are the days when the IOC repeatedly acquiesced to Saudi Arabia’s insistence on excluding women from its Olympic team. In advance of the 2012 Olympic Games, Saudi Arabia relented to prolonged international pressure and included female athletes for the first time. Since then, the country’s female participation rate has tripled, from roughly 10 per cent in 2012, to 30 per cent this year, including its first-ever female swimmer, 17-year-old Mashael Al-Ayed.

Heading into the Paris Olympics, IOC President Thomas Bach has effusively declared the Games as “the youngest, most inclusive, most urban and most sustainable.” But he didn’t mention the situation some athletes from France are facing.

You see, Olympians from across the world are welcome in Paris. Except French athletes who are Jewish, Sikh or Muslim and choose to wear religious apparel as part of their faith. These women and men are banned from the French Olympic team, in accordance with the French interpretation of laïcité (secularism). While Olympic athletes from other countries are permitted to wear religious apparel in Paris, French athletes cannot because of the religious “neutrality” of the state, which dictates that civil servants are forbidden from all religious expression. According to the French government, Olympic athletes are technically civil servants.

Not surprisingly, this ban disproportionately affects Muslim women. This was made clear last September when France’s Sports Minister Amélie Oudéa-Castéra announced that French Olympic athletes “will not wear the head scarf,” thus ensuring “the prohibition of any type of proselytizing and the absolute neutrality of the public service.”

Compare the French position to the Olympic Charter, which states: “the practice of sport is a human right. Every individual must have access to the practice of sport, without discrimination of any kind in respect of internationally recognized human rights within the remit of the Olympic Movement.”

And here we are: France has unequivocally banned its Muslim female hijabi athletes, while hosting the Olympic Games under the auspices of the IOC, whose very charter bars such discrimination.

The IOC’s response to the French position – “freedom of religion is interpreted in many different ways by different states” – is like the waters of the Seine: murky at best. By justifying discrimination, the IOC has rendered basic human rights meaningless. No Mr. Bach, you shouldn’t be boasting about how inclusive the games are. With its “move along, there’s nothing to see here” attitude, the IOC has shamefully abandoned French Muslim hijabi athletes who aspire toward the Olympics. It has made a mockery of its own charter.

Let’s not forget the role of France’s sports organizations, whose intransigence against hijabs has expanded over the years. As Anna Błuś, Amnesty International’s Researcher on Gender Justice in Europe writes: “Even at amateur levels and in regional competitions, several sports federations have banned sports hijabs. So, after training for years, excelling in their sport, coaching young girls and considering sports as a professional career, young Muslim women athletes are told to remove their hijabs or give up on their dreams.” A Muslim cannot play organized soccer, basketball or volleyball anywhere in France – even at a recreational level – if she wears a hijab. This, even though FIFA, FIBA and FIVB have authorized sports hijabs. No other European country has such draconian bans.

The ban extends to the opening ceremony. Sprinter Sounkamba Sylla was initially barred owing to her hijab, but worked out a deal with the French Olympic Committee to wear a cap instead of a head scarf as a compromise.

Les Hijabeuses, a group of soccer players, has challenged the French ban before the European Court of Human Rights. In June, they organized an “alternate Olympics,” which was more inclusive than the IOC’s version. Co-founder Founé Diawara captured its essence: “Our fight is not political or religious but centred on our human right to participate in sports.”

As Ms. Błuś states, “the Olympics should be for all women, including Muslim women.” This should be obvious in 2024, but it’s not. In the past, such challenges have sparked women to mobilize in solidarity with their sisters. In 2012, we raised our voices demanding the IOC sanction Saudi Arabia for excluding women on its Olympic team.

Today, only two countries immediately come to mind where I cannot play amateur sports, nor swim in my burkini: France and Afghanistan. France is not Afghanistan. But it is a G7 nation that is a signatory to international human rights treaties. It purports to be a champion of women’s rights. We must raise our voices again to demand the inclusion of all women in sports.

Sheema Khan is the author of Of Hockey and Hijab: Reflections of a Canadian Muslim Woman.

Source: France’s ban on athletes in hijabs makes a mockery of the Olympic charter

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →