Le plafonnement annoncé en immigration n’est qu’illusion

2023/11/07 Leave a comment

Certainement:

En se targuant d’enfin tenir compte de la capacité d’accueil du Canada et des provinces, déjà mise à rude épreuve, le gouvernement de Justin Trudeau prévoit maintenant de « stabiliser » ses cibles d’immigration… dans trois ans. Mais, d’ici là, la crise du logement, facteur principal de ce semblant d’ajustement libéral, ne se résorbera pas miraculeusement. La flexibilité exhibée traduit plutôt un entêtement persistant.

Les avertissements brandis par le Québec, voulant que l’éducation, la santé ainsi que l’offre de logement peinent à répondre à l’immigration pléthorique fédérale, sont maintenant partagés par d’autres provinces canadiennes. La population aussi s’en inquiète désormais. Un récent sondage révélait qu’un nombre record de citoyens croient que le Canada accueille trop d’immigrants (44 % des Canadiens, 37 % des Québécois).

Nonobstant, le fédéral maintient la hausse prévue encore deux ans : la cible passera à 485 000 immigrants en 2024 et à 500 000 en 2025. C’est l’année suivante que ce chiffre restera figé. Or, d’ici ce gel annoncé, ce sont 55 000 personnes arrivantes de plus que si le gouvernement avait stabilisé son accueil dès aujourd’hui aux 465 000 immigrants attendus cette année. Un ralentissement plus rapide aurait cependant renié les valeurs libérales, s’inquiétait-on dans ses rangs.

Les signaux étaient pourtant encourageants. Le plan stratégique pour l’immigration dévoilé cette semaine s’engageait à « chercher à intégrer la planification du logement et de la santé, et d’autres services importants, à la planification des niveaux d’immigration du Canada ». Le tout, « en collaboration étroite avec les provinces ». Le gouvernement Trudeau a même appuyé une motion bloquiste, non contraignante, l’appelant à revoir ses cibles d’accueil après consultation du Québec et des provinces « en fonction de leur capacité d’accueil ».

Mais ce nouvel arrimage, promis par Ottawa, ne se fera qu’a posteriori. Le fédéral persiste à ignorer les volontés d’accueil du Québec. La « consultation » fédérale ne servira qu’à répartir ce nombre de nouveaux arrivants fixé unilatéralement.

Qu’importe que des experts, comme ceux de la Banque TD, aient averti qu’un « choc de la demande » guette le filet social du Canada. Qu’importe aussi que la vérificatrice générale ait dénoncé l’embourbement du traitement des demandes d’immigration, qui s’éternise à 22 mois pour les immigrants économiques et à quatre ans pour les réfugiés. L’arrivée d’un demi-million de nouveaux arrivants par année n’aidera pas ce goulet d’étranglement.

Le gouvernement du Québec, de son côté, maintient ses cibles à 50 000 nouveaux arrivants pour les deux prochaines années. En comptabilisant les diplômés accueillis par le Programme de l’expérience québécoise (PEQ), le chiffre annuel avoisinera les 60 000 immigrants.

S’y ajoutent cependant les centaines de milliers d’immigrants temporaires que Québec et Ottawa persistent à exclure de cette équation d’accueil. Ils sont, depuis deux ans, trois fois plus nombreux que les immigrants permanents.

Faute de gérer leur arrivée, Québec s’en remet à exiger pour certains la maîtrise du français, après avoir fait de même pour les immigrants économiques et ceux du PEQ. Quelque 35 000 travailleurs étrangers temporaires autres qu’agricoles devront dorénavant en faire la démonstration eux aussi pour renouveler leur permis au-delà de trois ans — comme tant de ces travailleurs venus pour pallier le manque de main-d’oeuvre le font.

François Legault voit dans la protection du français, et, de ce fait, de l’identité québécoise, sa « responsabilité historique ». L’immigration n’y est plus une menace, à ses yeux, mais elle est devenue un outil.

L’exigence de ce test de français semble toutefois embryonnaire. Ces travailleurs temporaires, déjà surmenés, auront-ils le temps et l’énergie de s’y consacrer ? Leurs employeurs seront-ils forcés de le leur permettre, ou simplement encouragés ? Les ressources de francisation seront-elles au rendez-vous ?

Les prochaines années diront si ces plafonnements de l’immigration suffiront à stabiliser aussi la pression sur le filet social appréhendée par les gouvernements. Avant d’en redébattre en campagnes électorales, puisqu’ils ont préféré présenter des plans pluriannuels écourtés.

Source: Le plafonnement annoncé en immigration n’est qu’illusion

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

He may be Canada’s oldest international student. What his studies say about our immigration system

2023/11/07 Leave a comment

Nice human interest story. As always, when one door is closed, the more entrepreneurial will find a way…:

Luis Diaz may be the most popular student in school.

Every morning, he packs his lunch bag and water bottle in his backpack before his son drops him off at the Nova Scotia Community College in Halifax, where he’s studying tourism and hospitality as an international student.

But this isn’t his first time in college, decades ago he studied at the Instituto Politecnico Nacional in Mexico, where he got his engineering degree in 1978 and went on to a stellar career as a metallurgical engineer, before retiring four years ago.

“I’m surrounded by classmates much younger than me. The energy they have is contagious,” said Diaz, who followed his son’s lead in becoming an international student in Canada. “It makes me feel much younger.”

At 69, Diaz is notably one of the oldest among the nearly 900,000 international students in Canada, the world’s most popular destination for international education, offering a pathway to work opportunities and potential permanent residence.

According to Statistics Canada, less than 5 per cent of international students are 35 or older.

While Diaz is an eager lifelong learner, his return to school also speaks in part to the failures of the immigration sponsorship program for parents/grandparents and the so-called super visa program meant to grant overseas parents like him extended stay as temporary residents.

The sponsorship program allows Canadian citizens and permanent residents to bring their parents and grandparents to the country as permanent residents if the sponsors meet certain income thresholds and commit to providing the required financial support.

The problem is it’s a lottery system and only those who get picked in an annual draw are invited to submit an application. In 2023, there were only 28,500 spots.

And since the pandemic in 2020, the Immigration Department has stopped accepting new people into the pool, meaning that the draws have been restricted to those who had previously entered into the pool.

While the 10-year super visa offers temporary relief for those taking their chances on permanent sponsorship, visa holders must pay for costly health insurance and can’t work or study here.

“It is extremely difficult to apply for parental sponsorship and assist families to be reunited in Canada,” said Toronto immigration consultant Rene Berrospi.

“The super visa and visitor visa are not allowing these people to contribute to the Canadian society. They only allow them to stay legally in the country. But immigrants can still be productive at any age.”

Diaz and his wife, Candelaria Ramirez, 71, have another son, who works as a software engineer in the United States. The couple has been travelling between Denver and Halifax to be with their two adult children, but spent most of their time here during the pandemic.

After consulting with Berrospi, Diaz weighed his options and decided to return to school to “do something meaningful” and for a shot at permanent residence when he learned that Halifax and Campeche, Mexico, are actually sister cities, and there’s an opportunity to start a business to promote tourism between the two places.

In 2021, he enrolled himself in a language school to brush up on his English before he applied to the Nova Scotia Community College last year. He began the two-year, $36,000 tourism and hospitality program in September.

“I am an active man. I can’t spend my life on a couch,” said Diaz, who is taking six full-time courses this term. “This is exciting.”

Diaz is popular among his much younger peers in the classroom, who appreciate his rich life experience and perspectives.

“He’s always very attentive. He asks questions. He’s always helping with examples. He’ll tell us stories with his wife and try to connect things in his life and his culture to things we’re doing in school,” said Zoe Fitzsimmons, 21, who is from Halifax.

“It’s really inspiring he’s going back to school at his age. He’s so nice and so sweet to everyone. He’s like a class dad or the class grandpa to us.”

Diaz says he’s enjoying school a lot but it’s hard returning to the classroom, catching up on new technology and studying in a different language.

His son, Pavel, a former brand manager in Mexico City, has proven to be an important mentor and tutor, given his own share of experience as a former international student in Canada.

“I’m helping him with his assignments and taking him to different networking events in the industry. It’s been an interesting ride for us,” said Pavel, who came in 2013 to study event management at Humber College and now works as an event planner in Halifax.

“Our roles have kind of reversed. My dad is a big NFL fan and I have to check on him to see if he finishes his homework or he can’t watch football on TV.”

Diaz says he would like to complete his studies, get his postgraduate work permit and one day make Canada his permanent home.

Source: He may be Canada’s oldest international student. What his studies say about our immigration system

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

Canada’s post-pandemic economic recovery was the 5th weakest in the OECD

2023/11/07 Leave a comment

Sobering reminder of the failure of current economic and immigration policy. The Business Council of British Columbia consistently has the most realistic perspective of the impact of high immigration levels among all the business organizations:

Canada’s economy has generated little prosperity for the average Canadian over the past 8 years. Government forecasts indicate the economy is also expected to generate little or no prosperity over the next 8 years (see Williams 2023a).

The first step to managing any problem is to acknowledge that you have one. In contrast, the 2023 Federal Budget (page 5) claimed:

Canada’s economy is now 103 per cent the size it was before the pandemic, marking the fastest recovery of the last four recessions, and the second strongest recovery in the G7. Throughout 2022, our economy demonstrated sustained strength, with Canada posting the fastest growth in the G7 over the past year. [emphasis added]

Similarly, in the 2022 Fall Fiscal Update, the government claimed (page 27):

“There is no country better placed than Canada to weather the coming global economic slowdown and thrive in the years ahead.” [emphasis added]

The federal government’s decision to focus on GDP in its statements (i.e., “the size of the economic pie”), rather than GDP per capita (“everyone’s share of the economic pie”), is unfortunate. Over the past year, Canada’s real GDP grew by around 1%, but the population grew by 3% (1.2 million persons), so in per capita terms the economy became about 2% smaller. GDP growth is being juiced by the government’s pursuit of the fastest population growth since 1957-58. The 1957-58 episode followed two major global events, the Hungarian Revolution and Suez Crisis, whereas the current period entirely reflects domestic policy choices.

It’s true that when the population increases, GDP increases. But does the economy get any better in terms of people’s living standards? What happens to everyone’s share of the economic pie? To answer those questions, we need to focus on GDP per capita.

How did Canada’s economy perform prior to the pandemic?

In the five years to 2019, Canada’s real GDP per capita grew by 3% (0.5% per annum). It was the 4th weakest performance out of 38 advanced countries (Figure 1). Canada lagged well behind the United States (9%), Euro area average (9%), OECD average (8%), and G7 average (7%).

Figure 1

How has Canada’s economy performed since the pandemic?

Canada is one of only eight advanced countries where real GDP per capita is lower than before the pandemic. For the change in real GDP per capita over 2019-22, Figure 2 shows percentage growth rates and Figure 3 shows growth in US dollars (adjusted for purchasing power parity, PPP, across countries).

Canada’s real GDP per capita was USD 200 (0.4%) lower in 2022 than in 2019. In contrast, it was USD 3,300 (7%) higher in Australia, USD 2,500 (4%) higher in the United States, USD 1,300 (3%) higher for the OECD average and USD 1,100 (2%) higher for the G7 average.

Canada’s post-pandemic recovery in real GDP per capita over 2019-22 was the fifth weakest out of 38 OECD countries. Only the economies of the United Kingdom, Iceland, Spain and Mexico have had weaker recoveries.

Figure 2

Figure 3

Immigration is not an economic panacea

Immigration, not productivity, is the centrepiece of the federal government’s economic growth plan. However, the academic literature overwhelmingly finds that immigration levels have a neutral or negligible overall impact on a country’s living standards as measured by labour productivity, real wages, the employment rate, the age structure of the population or, crucially, GDP per capita.

There is a strong consensus on these points among Canada’s top labour market economists:

The fact that immigration has an overall neutral effect on GDP per capita (i.e., on “everyone’s share of the economic pie”) in the long run means we need to look through the veneer of population growth to see what is happening to living standards. GDP per capita is a good metric for this.

Reality check

Unfortunately, the federal government’s economic statements tend to focus on GDP growth. In the current context, with turbocharged population growth and labour productivity falling, this is an unhelpful metric.

It is out of touch with the weak economy most families are facing:

  • Canada’s growth in GDP per person was the fourth-weakest in the OECD in the five years before the pandemic to 2019.
  • Canada is one of only eight advanced countries where average real incomes are lower than before the pandemic, as inflation outpaces growth in nominal incomes. 
  • Canada’s recovery in real GDP per capita was the fifth-weakest in the OECD over 2019-22.
  • The OECD projects Canada will be the worst performing economy among the 38 advanced economies over both 2020-30 and 2030-60, with the lowest growth in real GDP per capita (see Williams, 2021).

Young and aspirational Canadians face 40 years of stagnation in average real incomes (Williams 2021). The principal reason is that Canada is expected to rank dead last among OECD countries for growth in labour productivity over most of 2020-60. Our workforce is less productive than workforces in peer countries (in terms of output per hour worked) because of relatively lower levels of non-residential capital investment per worker, lower levels of innovation and R&D, and because the average firm is less likely to export and produce output at scale.

Ignoring a problem does not make it go away

The federal government was so alarmed by Chart 28 of the 2022 Federal Budget (pages 25-26) – showing Canada dead last among 38 advanced countries for projected growth in real GDP per capita over 2020-60 – that it took bold and decisive action: by erasing any mention of this issue from its 2023 Federal Budget. The omission was not lost on columnist Andrew Coyne at the Globe and Mail.

Ignoring a problem does not make it go away. Canada’s structural problems need to be acknowledged (Williams (2023b)) and our economic policy mix needs rethinking (Williams and Finlayson (2023)).

Canada needs a prosperity-focused policy agenda focused on improving conditions for non-residential business investment, innovation, technology adoption and exports. With the Fall Economic Statement due in November, we encourage the federal government to take this opportunity to address these issues.

Source: Canada’s post-pandemic economic recovery was the 5th weakest in the OECD

Filed under Immigration Tagged with ,

Adams and Neuman: The conversation around immigration in Canada is shifting

2023/11/06 Leave a comment

Of note:

Canada has long been an immigrant nation, starting more than four centuries ago when the first European settlers arrived on what many Indigenous peoples call Turtle Island. Today, Canada stands out as having one of the most ethnically diverse populations on the planet. The 2021 census identifies more than four in 10 of us as either first- or second-generation Canadians; roughly half of the people living in Toronto and Vancouver started their lives in another country. This remarkable evolution has not been without blemish, as we know from a history of prejudice and racism directed toward new waves of newcomers over our history, whether Irish, Chinese, East Indian, or Muslim; unfortunately, elements of xenophobia still persist in our society.

But the prevailing sentiment among Canadians is one of acceptance, viewing immigration and immigrants as good for, if not essential to, our country’s growth and diversity. Our research at the Environics Institute reveals that our multicultural character is among the strongest sources of national pride and identity. Globally, the Gallup World poll consistently ranks Canada as the top country for migrant acceptance among its citizens, and we are the second-most desired destination worldwide (just behind the United States) among people considering migration.

Our continuing Focus Canada public opinion research surveys have found solid public support for immigration over the past decade, with notable consistency despite disruptions from the global COVID-19 pandemic, contentious federal and provincial elections, and occasional economic downturns. Our trend lines have looked remarkably stable for a long time.

In 2023, however, something significant has changed. In our latest national survey conducted in September in partnership with the Century Initiative, more than four in 10 Canadians now agree with the statement “there is too much immigration to Canada.” This remains the minority view, but it has grown by 17 percentage points from 12 months ago – a dramatic shift in public opinion that is the most significant one-year change in this indicator in four decades of research.

The primary reason for this change appears to be the growing concern about the potential role that a large number of newcomers may be having on housing, now widely considered to be a crisis in terms of both availability and affordability. Immigration may well be just one of numerous factors affecting the housing market, but recent images of asylum seekers camped out on city streets and homeless encampments in parks are potent signs that infrastructure has not kept up with our ambitious immigration targets.

And it’s not just about housing. Our research found that Canadians are feeling negative about the direction the country is heading, growing concerns about inflation and the cost of living, and diminished confidence in the ability of governments to address the country’s challenges ahead.

At the same time, our research shows no comparable change in how Canadians feel about immigrants and refugees, and what they contribute to the country. A strong majority continues to say that immigration has a positive impact on the country’s economy. Locally, Canadians across the country say immigrants make their own community a better place rather than a worse one, by a wide margin.

What are we to make of this latest change in public sentiment? Canadians are now, for the first time in decades and perhaps the country’s history, increasingly questioning immigration levels from the perspective of what they believe the country can manage in terms of resources, at a time when housing, our health care system and other infrastructure such as transit are under stress. The public’s focus now appears to be shifting beyond concerns about what type of immigrant is accepted, to how many are arriving in their communities.

Up until now, we would have considered anyone who says there is too much immigration to Canada to be expressing a xenophobic sentiment, reflecting fear or rejection of those seen as too different because of race, religion, or culture. This still applies for some, but we must now recognize that the public discourse has changed – that it is increasingly about the country’s capacity to receive the number of newcomers arriving, as well as who it is we are admitting. Some economists and policy experts insist that high immigration levels are essential to maintaining population growth and supporting key labour markets, but our social consensus on immigration and diversity depends on creating a well-functioning society for both Canadians who are already here as well as those still to come.

Source: The conversation around immigration in Canada is shifting

Filed under Immigration Tagged with ,

Goldberg: When It Comes to Israel, Who Decides What You Can and Can’t Say?

2023/11/06 Leave a comment

Good discussion of the players and the issues:

Last week, the Anti-Defamation League and the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law sent a letter to nearly 200 college presidents urging them to investigate campus chapters of Students for Justice in Palestine for potential violations of federal and state laws against providing material support to terrorism. As evidence for these very serious accusations, the ADL and the Brandeis center offered only the student group’s own strident rhetoric, including a sentence in its online tool kit, which praised Hamas’s attacks on Israel and said: “We must act as part of this movement. All of our efforts continue the work and resistance of the Palestinians on the ground.”

Under the direction of Gov. Ron DeSantis, Florida has also ordered state universities to shut chapters of Students for Justice in Palestine. Citing the same tool kit, DeSantis said, “That is material support to terrorism, and that is not going to be tolerated in the state of Florida, and it should not be tolerated in these United States of America.” Virginia’s Republican attorney general has opened an investigation into American Muslims for Palestine, a national group that, according to the ADL, helps coordinate the activities of Students for Justice in Palestine, “for potentially violating Virginia’s charitable solicitation laws, including benefiting or providing support to terrorist organizations.” Several Republicans, including Donald Trump, have called for revoking the visas of pro-Palestinian student activists.

Ever since Hamas’s slaughter and mass kidnapping of Israelis on Oct. 7, there has been mounting fear and fury over the mistreatment of Jews at American colleges and universities. The Homeland Security, Justice and Education Departments are all taking steps to combat campus antisemitism. Congressional resolutions have condemned it. But while plenty of pro-Palestinian students have behaved in appalling ways, many also feel besieged, and for good reason.

For Palestinian and Muslim students, the invocation of terrorism law is especially frightening. Attempts to curtail anti-Zionist activism are not new; about 35 states have laws targeting the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement against Israel. But now advocates for Palestinian rights describe a new level of repression. “The ADL is calling for the mass violation of students’ rights in a manner that’s reminiscent of the post 9/11 environment, but with a more intensely Palestinian twist,” said Radhika Sainath, a senior staff attorney at the civil rights organization Palestine Legal. She predicts that if federal and state governments follow through on the ADL’s demands, Palestinian activists will be subjected to an increase in surveillance, infiltration and investigation, even though their groups “pose zero threat and have done nothing but engage in speech 100 percent protected by the First Amendment.”

Columbia University’s Rashid Khalidi, a pre-eminent historian of Palestinian history, readily acknowledged a rash of recent antisemitic incidents on college campuses. But he drew a distinction between interpersonal harassment and an institutional crackdown. “Both sides have feelings of being victimized,” he told me, but the forces arrayed against them are not the same. “The Patriot Act may be mobilized to shut down speech” deemed supportive of Palestinian terrorism. “That’s the difference.”

No one should underestimate how awful the campus climate is for many Jewish students, who’ve experienced a surge in violence and abuse. At Cornell, an engineering student was arrested after threatening to shoot up a kosher dining hall and calling for Jews to be raped and murdered. Demonstrators at a rally in support of Palestinians assaulted Jewish counterprotesters at Tulane; one student had his nose broken. In October, Erwin Chemerinsky, the law school dean of at the University of California, Berkeley, wrote an opinion essay headlined, “Nothing Has Prepared Me for the Antisemitism I See on College Campuses Now.” In it, he told of a student who insisted that she would feel safe on campus only if the school got “rid of the Zionists.”

This hostile environment stems, at least in part, from the nearly vaunted role played by the Palestinian cause in the left’s understanding of global dispossession. Because America helps underwrite Israel’s military occupation, Palestinians are often viewed as singular symbols of imperialist oppression. For decades, radical Black activists in America have seen, in Israel’s occupation of Palestine, a mirror of their own subjugation, and that identification was supercharged during America’s 2020 racial justice protests, when a mural of George Floyd appeared in Gaza City. In some social justice circles, then, support for Israel is viewed as something akin to support for the K.K.K.

This contempt for Zionism has only accelerated with the pulverizing bombing of Gaza and its thousands of civilian casualties. And too often, on hothouse campuses full of young people with half-formed ideas and poor impulse control, anti-Zionism segues into hatred directed at Jews.

For some Jews on campus, the vituperation against Zionism has been particularly disorienting because, for years now, they’ve been trained in exquisite sensitivity to identity-based slights.

Not all Jews identify with the state of Israel, of course, and activists from Jewish groups like Jewish Voice for Peace and IfNotNow have led protests against Israel’s war on Gaza. But many Jews see their relationship with Israel as an essential part of their Jewishness, and even some fierce critics of Israel’s government were shaken by the widespread demonization of the country so soon after Hamas’s atrocities. When they say that the campus climate makes them feel unsafe — a rhetorical trump card in other contexts — they expect official action.

On Wednesday, the presidents of several Israeli universities wrote a letter to their international colleagues calling on them to accord Jewish and Israeli students and faculty members “the same respect and protections as any other minority.” Citing principles of safety and inclusivity, the letter said, “Just as it would be unthinkable for an academic institution to extend free speech protections to groups targeting other protected classes, so too should demonstrations that call for our destruction and glorify violence against Jews be explicitly prohibited and condemned.”

But this demand for protection can collide with the First Amendment rights of Zionism’s critics, and with academic freedom more broadly. “I wouldn’t compare this with the internment of the Japanese Americans in World War II, but the point I’m making is that there are times when people get really upset about what’s happening in the world and do things that are unwise at best and really harmful to people and democracy at worst,” said Kenneth Stern, director of Bard College’s Center for the Study of Hate and author of “The Conflict Over the Conflict: The Israel/Palestine Campus Debate.”

Stern occupies a unique position in this profoundly polarizing debate. He’s a liberal Zionist and an expert on antisemitism, as well as a committed civil libertarian who critiques the way mainstream Jewish groups wield institutional power to try to silence pro-Palestinian voices.

As he describes in his book, in 1982, he resigned from the left-wing National Lawyers Guild rather than face what felt like a purge for refusing to sign onto a strictly pro-Palestinian line. Years later, he became the in-house antisemitism expert at the American Jewish Committee, but eventually left in part over concern that, in its ardent defense of Israel on college campuses, the group was forsaking a commitment to academic freedom. He helped draft an internationally adopted definition of antisemitism that includes some forms of anti-Zionism. He’s also inveighed, in opinion essays, congressional testimony and in his 2020 book, against the use of that definition, put out by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance in 2016, to traduce the free speech of Israel’s critics.

“The complexity of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict should make it an ideal subject to teach critical thinking and how to have difficult discussions,” writes Stern. “Instead, it is being used as a toxin that threatens the entire academic enterprise.”

As with the conflict between Israel and Palestine more broadly, there’s plenty of blame to go around. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a libertarian-leaning free speech organization, shared data with me showing that, since 2002, there have been more attempts made to de-platform pro-Palestinian campus speakers than pro-Israel ones. But attempts to shut down pro-Israel speakers, by disinviting or disrupting them, are more likely to be successful.

Both sides, then, have credible stories to tell about being censored and intimidated. The difference is where that intimidation is coming from. For supporters of Israel, it largely comes from peers and, in some cases, professors. For supporters of Palestine, it comes from powerful outside institutions, including the state.

There is little reason to think that the pressure brought to bear by these outside institutions is making Jewish students any safer. One result of the denunciatory mood that overtook many progressive spaces toward the tail end of the Trump years was to give reactionary ideas a rebellious frisson. You could see this in the little subculture of New York scenesters who adopted the trappings of conservative Catholicism as a rebuke to liberalism, but also in more significant cultural phenomena, like the popularity of the “Joe Rogan Experience” podcast and the right-wing radicalization of Elon Musk. Among young people, the appeal of right-wing heterodoxy was limited by the fact that relatively few want to give up either a commitment to human equality or premarital sex. Anti-Zionist activism, by contrast, offers something that’s been missing from left-wing politics for years: the chance to stand up for the downtrodden and scandalize elites.

“By trying to censor anti-Israel remarks, it becomes more, not less, difficult to tackle both antisemitism and anti-Israel dogma,” Stern writes in his book. “The campus debate is changed from one of exposing bigotry to one of protecting free speech, and the last thing pro-Israel advocates need is a reputation for censoring, rather than refuting, their opponents.”

Of course, Israel’s partisans already have that reputation. “What can you say about what settlers are doing in the West Bank?” asked Khalidi. “What can you say about ethnic cleansing in 1948,” the year of Israel’s founding? “How can you defend any of those things? They don’t have an argument. They have to shut down debate.” Those who disagree with him might try to prove him wrong.

Source: When It Comes to Israel, Who Decides What You Can and Can’t Say?

Filed under Antisemitism, Islamophobia, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , , , , , , , ,

Yakabuski: Ottawa’s latest immigration plans fail to move the needle, on housing and in Quebec

2023/11/06 Leave a comment

Another good analysis, bringing in the Quebec dimension:

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government this week took a baby step toward recognizing its immigration policy needs some fixing by halting future increases in the number of permanent newcomers the country intends to accept.

…

Source: Ottawa’s latest immigration plans fail to move the needle, on housing and in Quebec

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , ,

Trump-era antisemitism policy expected to fuel flood of student lawsuits against universities

2023/11/06 Leave a comment

As so often happens, lawsuits emerge, more broadly than just antisemitism:

As campuses across the country continue to erupt in protests over the Israel-Hamas war, a little-known 2019 presidential executive order is expected to fuel a flood of student legal claims against universities.

Attorneys — from a mix of white-shoe corporate firms to Jewish advocacy groups — are meeting with students who say their schools are failing to protect them from antisemitic or anti-Israel conduct.

In 2019, then-President Donald Trump signed an order instructing federal officials to expand the interpretation of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include “discrimination rooted in anti-Semitism” as a form of discrimination based on race, color and national origin — prohibited behavior for programs that get federal funding. Trump signed the order amid a series of violent incidents against Jews, including the 2018 killing of 11 congregants in a Pittsburgh synagogue and a 2019 attack that killed three inside a Kosher supermarket in New Jersey.

Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act does not include the word “religion” as a subject of discrimination. Because the law does not list religious characteristics, legal experts say, federal officials have gradually expanded interpretations to include ethnoreligious groups.

Trump told federal agencies “to consider” using the Sweden-based International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism, which includes “holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel” and “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”

The alliance promotes Holocaust education and research, and has come under criticism by both Jewish and non-Jewish groups for suggesting that broad criticism of Israel can be construed as antisemitic.

In January 19, 2021, the day before Trump left office, the U.S. Department of Education, released a five-page questions and answers memo defining what constitutes antisemitism at schools.

An NBC News review of the department’s current investigations showed 15 pending cases related to race or national origin. The most recent filing listed was against Oberlin College in Ohio, dated a week before the Hamas attacks on Israel. Melissa Landa, an alumna of the college, told NBC News that she filed the letter because the school didn’t intervene after a professor taught students that “Israel is an illegitimate settler colonial apartheid regime,” according to Landa.

“I think that students need to file Title VI complaints so that universities can have federal money withheld from them, and maybe that will make them act,” Landa said. “I hope that my Title VI complaint will serve as an example for them.”

A spokesperson for the Department of Education said that since Hamas’ Oct. 7 terrorist attack on Israel, which killed more than 1,400 Israelis, “we have seen an uptick in complaints and the department is assessing them all.”

Lawyers said they have received an overwhelming number of calls from across the country from Jewish college students and their parents requesting representation in Title VI claims. Kenneth Marcus, who ran the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights during the Trump and George W. Bush administrations, said he is getting many calls.

“Oh, my God, I can’t tell you how many campuses we’re dealing with every single day. We have never been so inundated with cases,” said Marcus, who now runs the Brandeis Center for Human Rights, a nonprofit focused on protecting the civil rights of Jews.

In recent years, the Brandeis Center has filed Title VI complaints against the University of Vermont and the State University of New York at New Paltz on behalf of Jewish students who said their universities have allowed antisemitism to fester on campus.

In April, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights said it found that the University of Vermont failed to investigate student claims of antisemitism and did not examine whether the complaints had created a hostile environment for Jewish students.

The University of Vermont signed a resolution agreement with federal officials later that month vowing to enact reforms such as expanding the school’s discrimination policy to include protections for students based on shared ancestry, including antisemitism. In June, the Office for Civil Rights opened a formal investigation into SUNY-New Paltz.

For years, Marcus has also been fighting to broaden Title VI protections to members of other ethnoreligious groups. He said prior to the Trump administration, he wrote guidance memos that said Title VI could be interpreted to include protecting members of other ethnoreligious groups such as Sikhs and Arab Muslims. But in 2019, Trump kept his executive order focused on protecting Jews.

In September, President Joe Biden issued a statement noting that Title VI also prohibits Islamophobic activities in federally funded programs. But the U.S. Department of Education has not released a detailed memo that defines Islamophobia as it has done for antisemitism.

Gadeir Abbas, a senior litigation attorney with the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said his team is preparing discrimination complaints on behalf of Muslim and pro-Palestinian students, who he says are being unfairly labeled as Hamas sympathizers or unfairly accused of providing support to terrorists.

“I think that pro-Israel groups, groups that are seeking to marginalize Palestinian voices on campus, see the Title VI claim as a way of attacking not the administration, but the other student groups,” Abbas said. “The idea is that [they’re] going to censor or penalize or punish any advocacy for equal rights of Palestinians.”

As a result, he said, Palestinian students — or students who say they support Palestinian civilians in Gaza — feel vulnerable on campus and in their communities, and some are considering filing their own Title VI claims.

NBC News has reported that bias incidents against Muslims are on the rise. CAIR said that it received 774 reports of bias incidents and requests for help from Muslims across the country from Oct. 7 through Oct. 24, nearly triple the number compared to a similar time period last year.

Abbas said that students, like all Americans, have a right to protest in the United States. “In a conflict between the First Amendment and Title VI, the First Amendment wins,” Abbas said. “Those student groups are participating in lawful activity. They’re recognized willingly by their colleges and universities.”

Three weeks before the Hamas attacks and the subsequent protests on American campuses, Palestine Legal, an advocacy organization for Palestinian rights, filed a Title VI complaint with the U.S. Department of Education. Attorneys demanded a federal investigation after the University of Illinois Chicago barred students “with Arab sounding names” from attending a January 2023 informational session on a university-sponsored Israel study-abroad program.

Legal experts said they expect the largest number of future Title VI cases to be filed against universities by Jewish students. The Anti-Defamation League recently reported that nationwide, “incidents of harassment, vandalism and assault increased by 388 percent over the same period last year.”

One of the most outspoken advocates for Jewish students’ use of Title VI since Oct. 7 has been the Lawfare Project, a nonprofit that represents Jewish clients. Lawfare staffers have met with Jewish students on campuses, posted solicitations for cases in Jewish WhatsApp groups, and used the organization’s social media accounts “End Jew Hatred” to recruit young clients.

“While we always had students reaching out to us, after Oct. 7, that became a flood,” said Lawfare senior counsel Gerard Filitti, while standing on the sidelines of a recent pro-Israel rally at Columbia University. “The phone was ringing nonstop.”

Georgetown Law student Julia Wax, 25, was also at the Columbia rally. Wax said she is in talks with Lawfare to file a Title VI lawsuit against her law school, claiming that pro-Palestinian student organizations on her campus have been publicly supporting Hamas.

“I think in a perfect world, Georgetown would create some sort of an open forum for this conflict to be discussed,” said Wax, adding that she wants Georgetown to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism.

In February 2020, Lawfare represented one of the first Jewish college students to file a Title VI complaint against a university after Trump’s executive order. Jonathan Karten, then 24, was a Columbia University student who said he was harassed by members of the campus group Students for Justice in Palestine. (The group did not immediately respond to a request for comment.)

Karten’s complaint said students called him “racist” and a “Zionist pig.” Tensions further escalated as professor Joseph Massad, who teaches modern Arab politics and has a history of criticizing Israel, referred to the military wing of Hamas as “armed resistance,” according to the complaint. Karten’s uncle was killed by Hamas militants in 1996 while hitchhiking in Israel.

“My professor endorsed the very same monsters,” Karten, who recently rejoined the Israeli army, said in a WhatsApp message.

The Department of Education declined to comment on the status of the case.

Karten’s younger brother, Isidore, also a Columbia alumnus, is pressuring the department to do more. Since the Hamas terrorist attacks, he has also helped organize pro-Israel events around the city and says he is frustrated by what he sees as Columbia’s muted response to antisemitism.

On Wednesday, Columbia University announced it was starting an antisemitism task force to come up with changes to academic and extracurricular programs. Columbia spokesperson Samantha Slater said in a statement that the university is beefing up security.

“Over the past few weeks, we have increased our public safety presence across all our campuses,” Slater wrote. “We are also working closely with outside security firms and are in regular contact with the New York City Police Department.”

Isidore Karten said he and other young Jewish activists continue to feel that Columbia can do more. “I don’t think they are doing enough,” he said

Source: Trump-era antisemitism policy expected to fuel flood of student … – NBC News

Filed under Antisemitism, Islamophobia, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Israel Must Not Revoke Their Citizenship – Haaretz Editorial

2023/11/06 Leave a comment

Of note. Hopefully one outcome of the war will be the replacement of the Netanyahu government and these extreme ministers:

On October 7, the Israeli Arab actress Maisa Abd Elhadi published two posts. In one, she captioned an image of Yaffa Adar, 85, being abducted by Hamas from her home in Kibbutz Nir Oz, with the text, “The lady is going on the adventure of her life.” The other showed a tractor breaking through the fence, captioned “Let’s go Berlin style.”

A few days later she was arrested, and last week she was charged with incitement to terrorism and expressing solidarity with a terror organization.

Interior Minister Moshe Arbel was not content with that, and called for the revocation of her citizenship. On Thursday, he approved the publication of a draft law he wrote with Justice Minister Yariv Levin, the architect of the government’s judicial coup, that would enable the revocation of citizenship or residency of a citizen or resident who incited to terrorism or expressed support for terror during wartime.

Levin and Arbel want to expand the list of acts for which citizenship can be revoked. According to their proposal, citizenship could be revoked from anyone who supported terrorism, incited to terrorism or sympathized with a terror organization “while a special situation had been declared in the home front, due to the aggravated severity attended to the commission of such acts at wartime.”

The list of acts included under this definition includes the publication of statements of praise, support or sympathy, waving a flag, displaying or publishing a symbol or displaying, playing or publishing of a slogan or anthem in order to express solidarity.

Arbel and Levin are arming Israel with a weapon that allows it to embark on a literal witch hunt, particularly after Arab citizens. A situation of war does not justify such hysterics. Revocation of citizenship is a draconian step (the practical upshot of which is deportation, or leaving a person stateless) that should not be used, let alone for offenses such as incitement or the expression of identification. We also must not lose the critical distinction between someone publishing a post and those committing or aiding a terror attack.

In addition, according to the bill the person authorized to revoke the citizenship of a person convicted of such offenses will be the interior minister, acting on the recommendation of an advisory committee and the concurrence of the justice minister. Judicial review, according to the draft law, will take place after the decision is made.

In other words, Arbel and Levin will be able to revoke citizenship without court involvement. This is unlimited power, worse than that envisioned by the coup. The government is not a punitive agency; that is the role of the courts. The government coup was stopped, but under the cover of war Levin has continued his fight to eliminate the separation of powers.

This bill could contribute to the silencing of entire groups within Israeli society at best and to political persecution, revocation of citizenship and mass expulsion at worst. Such power cannot be placed in the hands of the government, not even in wartime.

Source: Israel Must Not Revoke Their Citizenship – Haaretz Editorial – Haaretz

Filed under Citizenship, Revocation Tagged with , ,

Keller: The Liberals are lowering carbon taxes and raising immigration. They should do the opposite

2023/11/04 Leave a comment

Another good column by Keller. Money quote:

If the decision matrix had been good economic policy, the government would have U-turned on immigration, while holding firm on carbon pricing.

Source: The Liberals are lowering carbon taxes and raising immigration. They should do the opposite

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , ,

Sean Speer: Canadian universities have lost their social licence. They shouldn’t be surprised if they lose their funding too

2023/11/04 Leave a comment

Interesting how concepts originating from the left can be turned against them. And yes, the risk is real:

The Canadian Left introduced the notion of “social licence” into our policy and political lexicon during the Harper era to describe the expectation that oil and gas companies act, consult, and operate in ways that secured public buy-in for individual projects and the sector as a whole. 

Conservatives were mostly critical of the concept at the time. It seemed elusive, woolly, and conceived of to block projects rather than ultimately enable them. I’ve wondered in recent weeks, however, if in hindsight it has utility for thinking and talking about the place of institutions in a democratic society. 

In particular, Canadian universities should ask themselves hard questions about their own social licence. The growing gap between the culture and ideas on campus and the rest of the population ought to be a major cause for concern. Universities’ alienation from the society in which they inhabit represents a threat to their social licence. 

The shocking reaction of many university faculty members and students to Hamas’s terrorist attacks against Israel has exposed this gap for the rest of us to see. One gets the sense (as others such as Tyler Harper have noted) that the consequences will be lasting. The incentives for politicians to seriously take on universities have changed. 

Academic freedom isn’t a get-out-of-jail-free card from democratic accountability—particularly in Canada where we still heavily rely on public dollars (even if the relative share has fallen) to finance universities. Scholars don’t have a positive right to publicly-subsidized employment or research funding. Universities don’t have a positive right to their current funding levels. 

There’s nothing stopping provincial governments, for instance, from cutting core institutional funding (especially in a zero-sum world in which health care is consuming roughly half of program spending) or even reducing public subsidies for particular fields or disciplines (which might come in the form of policy reforms that require universities to charge the full cost of certain programs). 

The upshot: if you’re a university president, you need to stop spending so much time and attention on managing your internal politics and start dedicating more to your external politics. Placating the most radical voices on your campus isn’t worth it if the cost is the public’s support for your institution’s basic mission. In fact, the opposite is true: a firm stand against radicalism is arguably the best means to protect your institution’s long-run interests.

Source: Sean Speer: Canadian universities have lost their social licence. They shouldn’t be surprised if they lose their funding too

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →