Demand for low-wage foreign labour is surging, change to program for Hong Kong and new program for Ukraine effects

2023/07/17 Leave a comment

Starting with the overall picture and good commentary on the negative impact on productivity by Rupa Banergee:

Canadian companies are ramping up their recruitment of foreign workers to fill a variety of low-wage roles in the service sector, including cooks, cleaners and retail clerks.

In the first quarter, employers were approved to fill about 22,000 positions through the low-wage stream of the Temporary Foreign Worker (TFW) program, an increase of roughly 275 per cent from four years earlier, according to figures recently published by Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC).

From January through March, employers were approved to hire more than 2,800 cooks, making it the most sought-after role in the low-wage stream. Companies were seeking thousands of other workers for the food-service sector, such as cashiers. Construction labourers and nurse aides were also in high demand.

To hire a TFW, companies must submit a Labour Market Impact Assessment to the government, showing they can’t find local workers to fill vacant positions. If those roles are approved, foreign workers must obtain the appropriate permits to begin their employment. The ESDC numbers reflect the first part of this hiring process.

The figures are even higher than presented: ESDC excludes some employers – such as business names that include personal names – from its data set of approvals by company.

Regardless, the figures show a dramatic rise in demand for TFWs.

Not only have employers faced historically tight labour markets in recent years, but the federal government has made it easier to hire through the program. Ottawa overhauled the TFW program last year, with some moves allowing employers to hire a greater proportion of their staff through the low-wage stream.

While these changes were cheered by business lobby groups, they were also criticized by migration experts.

The TFW program “disincentivizes employers from making the effort to reach out to underutilized segments of the labour market, and also to improve wages and working conditions,” said Rupa Banerjee, a Canada Research Chair in immigration and economics at Toronto Metropolitan University.

Instead, the TFW program provides employers with a “cheap, flexible and frankly vulnerable source of labour to fill gaps in the labour market,” she said.

Source: Demand for low-wage foreign labour is surging

Recent program announcements highlight the difficulties for the government in having coherent immigration policies. The recent removal of education requirements for Hong Kongers undermines skill levels and productivity, along with demographics given that the change will result in a shift towards older immigrants.

This is not to discount the very real humanitarian objectives behind these two programs, or the political pressure behind most, but to note the overall incoherence:

Vancouver resident Calvin Wong says he can finally start picturing a future in Canada after the federal government announced it was dropping educational requirements for Hong Kongers seeking permanent residency in the wake of the Chinese city’s crackdown on dissent.

Wong, 28, had graduated from the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology with a computer science degree in 2017 before moving to Canada on a work permit in 2021, looking for a life where he could enjoy “political freedom.”

But immigration pathways for Hong Kong residents that have allowed thousands to settle permanently in Canada excluded Wong because it has been more than five years since he graduated.

That will change from August 15, after Ottawa announced on Tuesday it would remove all educational requirements for people with at least a year of work experience in Canada.

Immigration consultants say the move effectively opens pathways for Hong Kongers of all ages, instead of the current focus on students and recent graduates. They said they had been flooded with inquiries since the announcement.

“It’s a very great move by the Canadian government and I can eventually get permanent residence here, contribute and live in Canada safely,” said Wong, his voice breaking with emotion.

The store clerk said the chance to secure permanent residency came as a “huge relief,” and his decision to move to Canada was something he would “never regret.”

In 2021, the federal government created two immigration pathways for Hong Kong residents who had either worked or studied in Canada.

The pathways were in response to a crackdown on political dissent after protests drew millions onto Hong Kong’s streets in 2019, followed by the introduction of a harsh new national security law in 2020.

Stream A applies to former Hong Kong residents who graduated from a post-secondary institution in Canada within three years. People with at least one year of work experience in Canada who graduated from a foreign or Canadian institution within five years could apply for Stream B.

The changes open up Stream B to anyone with a year of work experience in Canada, regardless of education.

Sean Fraser, minister of immigration, refugees and citizenship, said the change was a “win-win situation.”

“(It) means that we can welcome more Hong Kongers to Canada who need our support, while simultaneously helping Canadian businesses fill labour gaps with workers who already have work experience here,” he said in a statement.

The announcement by Fraser’s ministry said Canada “continues to stand by Hong Kong residents, and supports their freedom and democracy.”

Canada has welcomed 3,122 permanent residents under the two pathways as of April 30, 2023.

Wong said that being excluded under the current rules had left him depressed.

“I felt it was really difficult to plan my future at that time. I was thinking: where should I go? Should I try my best to stay in Canada or go to the United Kingdom?” said Wong.

Wong said he can now make plans for the future and would submit his immigration application as soon as he completes his one year of work experience in Canada.

Vancouver-based Immigration consultant Peter Pang said the move is a “huge change,” opening up more opportunities to Hong Kongers to contribute to Canada.

Richmond, B.C., immigration consultant Ken Tin Lok Wong said that while the current rules do not ban older people, the time limits since graduation had effectively set a bar.

To have graduated in the past five years generally meant applicants to Stream B were not particularly old, and were “of working age,” he said.

Wong said he had some clients who were ready to pack their bags and leave Canada. But they now felt like they had “hit the jackpot.”“The announcement feels like Canada is helping to retain Hong Kongers regardless of their education,” he said.

“So, if you happen to be a legal worker in Canada, if you happen to obtain one year of work experience, then you are through.”

Source: Canadian government drops education requirement for Hong Kong immigrants

Similarly, hard to see how the new pathway for Ukrainians will contribute to productivity or demographics:

The federal government has launched a new immigration program for Ukrainians fleeing their embattled country, allowing those in Canada with family to receive permanent resident status.

“We continue to extend unwavering support and a lifeline to families separated by this conflict, including through this family reunification pathway that will help Ukrainian families stay together as they rebuild their lives in their new communities in Canada,” said Immigration Minister Sean Fraser in a statement released Saturday.

Eligibility will be extended to Ukrainians living in Canada with temporary status and with one or more family members in Canada.

The government said more details will be released closer to when the program launches on Oct. 23, 2023. The program will have no cost attached to it and will be in place for one year.

The announcement Saturday comes on the day the government’s initial emergency immigration program was set to expire.

Under the Canada-Ukraine authorization for emergency travel (CUAET), launched in March 2022, Ukrainians were able to come to Canada and live and work for up to three years. They benefited from a variety of measures meant to speed up the visa process, including prioritized processing and waived fees.

Roughly 166,000 Ukrainians have come to Canada through the special visa program. That’s about 21 per cent of the 800,000 emergency visas granted, from around 1.1 million applications, according to the government.

‘We’re just asking for lots of flexibility’

In an interview Saturday, the head of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress said the details to come would be key to their response to the program. But in general, he said his organization is pushing for more options for Ukrainians coming to Canada.

“We’re just asking for lots of flexibility on the pathways for people as they make their way through what is a very uncertain situation,” said Ihor Michalchyshyn, the UCC’s CEO.

“The war has not ended, we have to keep options open for people.”

One key unknown was what set of questions the government would be using to determine eligibility and approvals throughout the process, he noted.

Ukrainians approved under the CUAET will still be able to travel to Canada up until March 31 of next year. Afterward, they will be subject to the standard immigration measures available to others around the world.

“Once in Canada, temporary residents will be eligible to apply for an extended stay of up to three years through study permits and open work permits, all of which will be prioritized. They will also have access to settlement services, such as language training and employment services. These measures will help them thrive in communities across the country,” the government release said.

Canada has the largest diaspora of Ukrainians outside of Ukraine and Russia, with over 1.4 million people of Ukrainian descent living here, according to government statistics.

Michalchyshyn said while immigration programs and settlement services are important for people coming to this country, the priority push from his organization is still aid to Ukraine itself.

“The sooner that Ukraine wins the war, the sooner peace and normality can resume and this massive refugee crisis will come to an end.”

Source: Canada to launch new permanent residency program for Ukrainians fleeing war

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , ,

Kheiriddin: Abortion policy is the tool. Authoritarianism is the goal.

2023/07/15 Leave a comment

Of note and interesting parallels among disparate countries:

This week, Mike Pence made it clear: he would ban abortions when pregnancies aren’t viable. The former Vice President, now candidate for the 2024 Republican nomination, expanded on his anti-abortion position, which includes a federal ban at six weeks gestation, such as Iowa has now imposed, and outlawing the sale of mifepristone, an abortion pill that the FDA approved twenty years ago.

“I want to always err on the side of life,” Pence told AP News. “I would hold that view in these matters because … I honestly believe that we got this extraordinary opportunity in the country today to restore the sanctity of life to the center of American law.”

It seems illogical, not to mention inhumane, to outlaw abortion when there is no chance a fetus can be born alive.  One is not saving a life, because that life will end before it comes to term. And one may be taking a life: a non-viable pregnancy can kill the woman carrying it, as evidenced in a recent lawsuit challenging an abortion ban in the state of Texas.

Forcing a woman to carry a fetus fated to die is also psychological torture of the highest order. Every time a stranger asks about her pregnancy, every time she catches a glimpse of her swollen abdomen in the mirror, every time she thinks of the child she wanted but who is not to be, she is made to suffer. There’s nothing Christian about that.

But that does not matter to Pence. He needs to mobilize the votes of the religious right to win the GOP nomination. He has the pedigree: he championed their issues in the White House during the Trump administration and since then only hardened his stance. “I am pro-life and I don’t apologize for it,” Pence told Face the Nation in April. He argued this week that restricting abortion is “more important than politics” and calls it the “cause of our time.”

Share

That’s where the clothes come off the emperor. Pence is no defender of the American Constitution, nor is he a conservative. He is a religious autocrat. Founding father Thomas Jefferson famously declared that when the American people adopted the First Amendment, they built a “wall of separation between the church and state.” Christian autocracy flies in the face of this dictate, basing policy not on evidence, reason, or debate, but on the tenets of a specific faith. It violates the United States Supreme Court’s neutrality test that requires that government be neither the ally nor the adversary of religion.

But the American religious right isn’t concerned about this. It has friends in high places. Domestically, it now has the Supreme Court on its side, as evidenced by its overturning of Roe v. Wade. And internationally, it has a lot of disturbing company.

One of those is Hungary’s Fidesz Party, that came to power in 2010 under Viktor Orban. In 2022, the European Union Parliament condemned Orban for creating an “electoral autocracy” that restricts the rights of the judiciary, LGBT individuals, the press and ethnic minorities.  That same year, Orban set his sights on Hungary’s abortion law. It currently permits terminations up to twelve weeks in cases of rape, risks to the mother’s health, serious personal crisis, or a severe foetal disability. But by decree, the Hungarian government now requires that pregnant women must listen to the foetal heartbeat prior to making their decision, similar to laws enacted in Texas and Kentucky.

This is no coincidence. In 2022, Orban addressed the American Conservative Political Action Conference, proclaimed his nation “the Lone Star State of Europe” and said, “The globalists can all go to hell. I have come to Texas.” (Note to my Canadian readers: Orban’s fandom is not just limited to American Conservatives. Just this month, former Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who now heads the International Democrat Union, called for greater ties between conservative parties worldwide, including the Canadian Conservative Party and Fidesz.)

Iran’s Islamic theocracy is another regime infamously hostile to human rights, including those of women. In September 2022, 22-year-old student Jina Masa Amini was killed while in police custody. Her “crime” was not wearing her hijab tightly enough, in contravention of Iran’s strict religious dress codes. Amini’s death sparked nationwide and then worldwide demonstrations under the motto “Woman, Life, Freedom”. In her home country, more than 500 Iranians were killed in the protests and five sentenced to death between September 2022 and April 2023.

As for abortion, it is illegal in Iran unless a fetus is diagnosed with a genetic disorder or the mother’s life is endangered.  But the government has now upped the ante. In May 2023, Iran’s Center for Population Rejuvenation created a volunteer militia called Nafs (life) to identify doctors and clinics performing abortions, and shut them down. Iranian media have dubbed the group the “[Anti] Abortion patrols analogous to the same type of hijab enforcement units that arrested Amini.

Then, there’s China. In 1980, faced with a rising birth rate, China imposed a one-child policy. Millions of women were forced to terminate additional pregnancies, and due to a cultural preference for male children, hundreds of thousands of girls were aborted, abandoned or killed. In 2016, China repealed the policy due to an imbalance of the sexes and low birth rate, resulting in an aging population and demographic decline.

At first glance, China’s policy appears to be the polar opposite of religious pro-life policies that restrict abortion, but it’s driven by the same principle: removing bodily autonomy from women in the name of the state. China’s goal isn’t religious, but secular: the manipulation of the birth rate to ensure a steady supply of workers and soldiers to carry out the nation’s ambitions. And to ensure that the “right” children are conceived, namely, ethnic Han Chinese.

What all three nations have in common is not piety, but ethnic nationalism. The real drivers for their abortion and fertility policies are low birth rates among “desired” groups, coupled with aging populations.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khameni has described population growth as one of the “most urgent duties and essential policies of the Islamic Republic as the leading Shia country in the Muslim world.” Pregnancies are being documented to prevent abortion “so that the population of the country could grow.” Hungary is not only making access to abortion more difficult, but decreeing that women with four children will be exempt from paying income tax for life. In China, whose population shrank this year and was surpassed by that of India, companies are paying employees to have children. But according to an Associated Press investigation, China continues to limit births – including by forced sterilizations — among ethnic minorities including the Muslim Uyghur population of Xinjiang. It further seeks to assimilate these cultures to achieve its policy of “ethnic fusion”.

Pence’s anti-abortion policies are right in step with those of these authoritarian regimes. They meld religious belief with white nationalism and state power. It is no secret that a majority of the Christian right in the United States subscribes to the Great Replacement theory, a conspiracy which claims that white America is being deliberately replaced by non-white immigrants.

Theocracies are not pluralist. They favour believers and condemn those who dissent to second class status, or worse. If Americans think Pence would stop at abortion, they are deluded. Any minority – defined by race, belief, gender or country of origin – would be in his administration’s sights.

If the Republican party is to truly preserve the Constitution, if it is to offer a truly conservative political option, it must reject authoritarianism, including Pence’s Christian autocracy. Otherwise, it will become just as statist as the Left that it condemns.

Source: Abortion policy is the tool. Authoritarianism is the goal.

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , , , ,

Canada ends policy that forced immigration applicants and refugees to disclose HIV status to sponsors

2023/07/15 Leave a comment

Of note:

The federal government has revoked a controversial policy that required immigration applicants or refugees to disclose an HIV diagnosis to the person who was sponsoring them to Canada.

The immigration department’s move to put an end to the automatic partner notification policy was hailed by advocates who have criticized the rule, saying it discriminated against people living with HIV and failed to reflect medical advancements in treating the once-deadly virus.

On Friday, officials posted an update online noting the department would “discontinue” the program, days after the Star published a story about three advocacy groups demanding Ottawa rescind the policy. The change took effect immediately.

All permanent resident applicants are still required to undergo an HIV test as part of their medical screening. Being HIV positive does not make someone inadmissible due to a formal public health concern, but it can still lead to inadmissibility if the person’s anticipated health care exceeds a set threshold.

The notification policy has been in place since 2003 as a public health measure to stop the spread of HIV, which, if untreated, can lead to acquired immunodeficiency syndrome or AIDS, a disease that has killed millions.

Modern medical treatment has transformed the virus into a manageable condition, and advocates say that, after two decades, the “out-of-date and discriminatory” policy needed to go.

This policy was unique to HIV-positive applicants; there was no similar requirement for other health conditions. The rule also only applied to sponsored family members and refugees, not to visitors, international students, temporary foreign workers or those applying for permanent residence under the economic class.

“Congratulations to the Immigration Minister for doing the right thing,” said lawyer Michael Battista, who had represented immigration applicants caught in this situation, which further caused delays in processing their applications due to the long wait for a in-person interview that was subsequently required.

“The swift termination of this policy has been a tremendous relief for our clients. The policy added to their stress and sense of being stigmatized. It also achieved no purpose, because most sponsors were fully aware of their partners’ HIV status.”

In June, three groups wrote to Immigration Minister Sean Fraser and Marci Ien, the minister for women and gender equality and youth, demanding the policy be reconsidered. The signatories to the letter included the HIV & AIDS Legal Clinic of Ontario (HALCO), the HIV Legal Network and the Coalition des organismes communautaires québécois de lutte contre le sida (COCQ-SIDA).

“Canada has long claimed to be a leader on the world stage when it comes to both HIV and human rights. This is certainly a positive step in that direction,” said the HIV Legal Network in a statement to the Star.

The network, however, said the medical inadmissibility provision will continue to be a barrier for applicants with medical needs by reducing them to the cost of their health care.

Source: Canada ends policy that forced immigration applicants and refugees to disclose HIV status to sponsors

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , ,

Begum: UK Minority ethnic politicians are pushing harsh immigration policies – why representation doesn’t always mean racial justice

2023/07/15 Leave a comment

Always surprised that so many make these kinds of assumptions about minorities and minority politicians, given that political and ideological differences are normal in most groups:

There’s no question that British politics is becoming more diverse. From only four minority ethnic MPs elected in 1987, now 67 MPs are from a minority ethnic background.

The Scottish first minister, Humza Yousaf, recently became the first minority ethnic leader of a devolved government and the first Muslim to lead a major UK party. Yousaf follows a number of historic firsts: a Muslim mayor of London (Sadiq Khan), the first British Asian UK prime minister (Rishi Sunak), and the first female minority ethnic home secretary (Priti Patel) succeeded by another minority ethnic woman, (Suella Braverman).

People often assume that if a person in power is an ethnic minority, they will advocate more strongly for minority ethniccommunities. But, as our research shows, ethnic diversity in government is not a guarantee of racial justice.

Some minority ethnic politicians align themselves with a “model minority” archetype, attributing their success to quintessentially British, conservative values of hard work and entrepreneurship. This was an oft-repeated message in the 2022 Conservative leadership campaign, the most racially diverse in history.

Minority ethnic politicians’ presence in the senior echelons of UK politics is a symbol of diversity and social progressiveness. This, ironically, allows these government ministers to justify policies that are cruel to immigrants, and ignore legitimate concerns of minority ethnic citizens.

Badenoch has rebuffed calls for more teaching of black history in schools. A 2020 report from the race equality thinktank the Runnymede Trust said that more diversity in what children are taught is key to addressing the racism that is “deeply embedded” in Britain’s schools.

Speaking about perpetrators of child sexual exploitation, Braverman claimed grooming gangs are “almost all British Pakistani men”. This was despite the government’s own evidence to the contrary. She was flanked by Sunak suggesting that “political correctness” and “cultural sensitivities” were getting in the way of stamping grooming gangs out.

As home secretary, Priti Patel criticised Black Lives Matter protesters in 2020, and described England’s footballers taking the knee – a widely-supported symbol of anti-racist activism – as “gesture politics”.

Patel has implied that as a victim of racism herself, she – and the government – understand racial inequality. Her sidelining of others’ very real experiences of racism is seemingly permissible, given Patel’s minority ethnic identity.

Anti-immigration sentiment

There are also examples of minority ethnic ministers pushing policies that actively stigmatise and target vulnerable minority groups.

The illegal migration bill is the latest example of this. As post-racial gatekeepers, politicians like Braverman give legitimacy to hard-right views on race and immigration. At the same time, they prop up the line that immigration is no longer about race.

At the Conservative Conference in 2022, Braverman said, “It’s not racist for anyone, ethnic minority or otherwise, to want to control our borders.” And yet she has likened refugee flows to an “invasion” and said that immigration threatens the UK’s “national character”.

Notably, the government’s immigration policies of recent years are being formulated and championed by politicians who are themselves the children or grandchildren of immigrants. Sunak’s grandparents were among the Hindu and Sikh refugees who fled Punjab following the partition of India. Patel admitted that her own parents would not have been allowed into the UK under her immigration laws.

The illegal migration bill comes just a year after Patel led the passage of the Nationality and Borders Act. Both policies are designed to keep out outsiders, many of whom are black or brown. It is contradictory that the ministers responsible for these policies are descendants of immigrants themselves.

Immigration is still about race

Despite comments like Braverman’s, evidence shows that immigration is still very much linked to race and racism.

Many minority ethnic people – even those who are British-born or naturalised citizens – feel they are still targets of the immigration debate. Ethnic minorities are the worst affected by stringent immigration policies and stigmatised by anti-immigration language.

Perceptions of migrants in relation to worth and value continue to be influenced by class and race. The current system, which depends on a hierarchy of immigrants by “skill”, means mostly white, university-educated and English-speaking migrants are consistently viewed more favourably than black, Asian and Muslim migrants.

And public opinion is far warmer towards Ukrainian refugeescompared with those also fleeing war in Afghanistan, Syria, Sudan and Somalia.

Minority ethnic voters also perceived racial undertones in the anti-immigrant language used by the Leave campaign during Brexit. But while most voted Remain, some minority ethnic Brexit voters supported Leave in opposition to immigration from eastern Europe.

As with minority ethnic politicians calling for harsh border policies, immigrant status or family history is no guarantee of liberal attitudes to immigration or asylum.

Of course, this analysis does not apply to every minority ethnic politician. It is heartening to see other Conservatives speaking out about the inflammatory anti-migrant climate. Mohammed Amin, a former chair of the Conservative Muslim Forum, described Braverman’s rhetoric as “disgusting”.

But it is important to remember that ethnic diversity is not racial justice, nor can it protect the government from challenges to its harmful policies. As Baroness Sayeeda Warsi noted: “Braverman’s own ethnic origin has shielded her from criticism for too long.”

Source: Minority ethnic politicians are pushing harsh immigration policies …

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Lavoie: What’s the good of immigration?

2023/07/14 Leave a comment

Bit of a ramble but largely captures some of the nuances:

For some, immigration is a problem: the rise of human trafficking, the perceived pressures on employment, culture, values, the French language in Quebec, and so on. For others, it’s a solution to labour shortages and an aging population. This debate has only just begun, as growing global inequalities and climate change will continue to increase migratory pressures around the world.

Why welcome immigrants? What’s in it for citizens, apart from increasing their culinary offerings? The Immigration Canada website talks about “growing the economy through immigration,” the most oft-cited benefit, which is stating the obvious. But for us to benefit from immigration, it must increase the size of the economy per person – commonly measured by gross domestic product per capita. Here, the answer is less positive, and varies according to the type of immigrants and their ability to integrate our society.

Neither positive nor negative

There are three main types of immigrants. Economic immigrants, chosen for their human capital and representing 25 per cent of all immigrants to Canada, integrate well. It takes them less than five years after arrival, on average, to do as well or better economically than someone born in Canada. Their impact on the average Canadian’s standard of living is therefore negative in the early years, but positive thereafter.

The family members who accompany them or join them later, representing 60 per cent of immigrants, have more difficulty and take one to two decades to do as well as someone born here. And, of course, those who have the most difficulty are refugees (15 per cent of immigrants). Most of them will never reach the standard of living of the average Canadian. Although this suggests that the economic contribution of immigrants to per capita income is rather negative, that only concerns the first cohort of immigrants. The wonderful thing is that the children and grandchildren of these immigrants will, on average, do as well as the children and grandchildren of native-born Canadians.

Some studies also suggest immigration and diversity have positive induced effects on society’s innovative capacity. But more studies are needed to validate these impacts more precisely. Greater population density also brings economies of scale. And, no, immigration does not increase crime, nor does it have a significant negative impact on wages, but it does negatively impact the wages of previous cohorts of immigrants.

It’s also true that immigrants help fill certain short-term labor shortages. However, they eventually create others, by increasing demand for education, health care, housing and so on. It’s the same with aging: immigrants age too, and are often joined by their parents. In the long term, therefore, immigration has little effect on the age of the population.

So, is immigration good or bad for our standard of living? Basically, immigration seems to have a slight negative effect on our standard of living in the short term (ignoring the wealth that diversity can bring) and a slightly positive impact in the long term. This conclusion is not dissimilar to those reached in the research paper by economist Pierre Fortin for the Ministère de l’Immigration, de la Francisation et de l’Intégration du Québec, or in the article by W. Craig Riddell, Christopher Worswick and David A. Green, published in Policy Options.

The social network effect

We can thank our support systems – including the education system – for these results which are, all in all, quite good. It is thanks to these structures that immigrants succeed relatively well in integrating economically. Successful integration and gradual acculturation also ensure that the social cohesion necessary for the integration of future cohorts of immigrants is maintained.

Research shows that people have little trust in people who are different from them, but that this trust increases as they get to know them. To get to know them, however, they need to speak the same language. Learning the common language, a particularly important topic in Quebec, is essential for acculturation and economic integration. It’s the lack of resources for teaching French, not the unwillingness of new immigrants, that often explains the difficulties in communicating in French.

It is therefore essential that any increase in the number of immigrants be accompanied by an exponential rise in the resources allocated to their integration. Since the federal government wants to increase the number of immigrants by more than 10 per cent by 2025, the resources allocated to their integration must increase by much more than 10 per cent.

The first reason is that these resources already seem insufficient. The second is that the increase in the number of immigrants will necessarily involve accepting immigrants who, under current criteria, would not have been admitted. In other words, additional immigrants have profiles that make their integration more difficult, which means that their integration – all other things being equal – will require more resources. Failure to do so will tip the balance of impacts towards the negative.

It’s not about the money

Given these integration costs and relatively mixed or uncertain economic benefits, even when integration goes well, why then accept immigrants? Indeed, all the evidence suggests that the greatest beneficiaries are the immigrants themselves, and less so the society that welcomes them.

We must therefore welcome immigrants simply for humanitarian reasons, and stop thinking that immigration is the solution or the cause of our problems. Consequently, Ottawa must change the way it presents immigration to Canadians.

But before we praise our humanitarianism too highly, we must remember that immigration impoverishes the countries of origin of immigrants, often robbing them of their best and brightest. These people would surely have preferred to stay in their own countries if conditions had been better. The solution to really helping them, and slowing the flow of migration, is to limit climate change and help these countries develop better institutions.

But we don’t really know how to do that. The disastrous experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan are striking examples of our inability to build institutions. Yet this is where we should be focusing our research and international cooperation, because it’s here that the real solution to migration problems lies.

Claude Lavoie is an economist. He was director general of economic studies and policy analysis at the Department of Finance from 2008 to 2023.

Source: What’s the good of immigration?

Filed under Immigration Tagged with

Tech sector praises Ottawa’s immigration policy | The Star

2023/07/14 Leave a comment

Of note. Interesting, despite all the talk about Canada being more attractive than the USA, the USA is not among the top source countries:

More than 32,000 tech workers moved to Canada during the past year and their top three destinations were Mississauga, Montreal and Kitchener-Waterloo.

That’s from a report released Wednesday by Canada’s Tech Network and the Technology Councils of North America about the migration of tech workers and tech jobs between April 2022 and March 2023.

During that period, 1,900 tech workers moved to Mississauga, 959 to Montreal, 633 to Waterloo and 467 to Kitchener. The combined numbers for Kitchener and Waterloo push the region into second place, nationwide.

The rest scattered to every province and territory, working in cities big and small including Windsor, Ottawa, Vancouver, London, Hamilton and Calgary.

The report says 32,115 new tech workers came to Canada during the 12-month period, mostly from India (15,097), Nigeria (1,808), Brazil (1,675) Ukraine (1,207), Philippines (1,129), Iran (1,046), France (935) the United Arab Emirates (744), Hong Kong (715) and Pakistan (588).

“Canada is pulling in tech workers in droves from all over the world,” said Jennifer Young, CEO of the Technology Councils. “The Canadian policy is really impressive, and I think the world should take note.”

Ottawa’s immigration policies should be held up as an example to other countries with shortages of tech workers, said Young during a telephone interview Wednesday from the Technology Councils’ headquarters in Pittsburgh.

“The U.S. is vastly behind Canadian policy,” said Young.

Canada also has a cost advantage over the U.S., says the report. The average compensation for U.S. tech workers in the report is C$175,600. The average compensation for the same tech occupations in Canada is C$100,400, says the report, called “Tech Workforce Trends: The Migration of Tech Workers and Tech Jobs Since the Pandemic.”

The numbers of tech workers in smaller centres such as Timmins, Windsor and Cape Breton increased thanks to the rise of remote work during the pandemic.

“This shift is reflective of broader workforce trends, with largely remote tech workers moving away from major metropolitan areas toward more rural locations,” says the report.

Canada’s Tech Network used to be called the Canadian Digital Media Network. It is based at Communitech in Kitchener. The Technology Councils of North America represents regional tech hubs such as Communitech.

“It is global thinking, your immigration policy, and really addresses the needs of the economy,” said Young. “Keep doing what you are doing, it is working.”

During the past 18 months the U.S. tech sector was hit with massive layoffs, and thousands of foreign workers in the U.S. on H1B visas are looking for new jobs. For months, Communitech and its members have called on Ottawa to welcome them here. Last month, Federal Immigration Minister Sean Fraser announced a program to speed up work permits for them and their families.

Communitech CEO Chris Albinson welcomes the move, saying: “This groundbreaking program is set to bring 10,000 highly skilled professionals to our country, fortifying our position as a leading destination for tech talent.

Source: Tech sector praises Ottawa’s immigration policy | The Star

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

‘Wild West’: Amid foreign meddling headlines, lawyers fear unfair immigration rulings

2023/07/14 Leave a comment

Always a risk, as is not going far enough:

Even as the conversation around foreign interference continues to centre on efforts to disrupt Canadian elections, the federal government is routinely deporting people suspected of engaging in espionage or terrorism — or barring them entry to Canada.

Lawyers who work within the immigration system say they expect security officials to ramp up those efforts amid the heightened attention on other countries’ meddling attempts. Some fear they could go too far.

Athena Portokalidis, an immigration lawyer based in Markham, Ont., said there seems to be a growing number of such cases.

“What I’m kind of starting to notice is that … whether it’s explicit or not, they can be politically motivated,” she said. “There might be a trend here. It may be too early to tell, but that’s … something that I’ve noticed and something that I’ve heard.”

The federal government was unable to provide data on the number of related cases in time for publication.

The Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Canada Border Services Agency and the Immigration Department are all involved in the security screening process. None of them provided comment in time for publication, including data on the number of related cases.

The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act allows officials to bar permanent residents or foreign nationals from entering Canada if they are engaged in terrorism or in espionage contrary to Canada’s interests. The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada is the independent administrative tribunal that hears applications.

When people submit apply for visas, they are subject to background and security checks before being admitted to the country. If there are red flags, CSIS and CBSA can make reports to the board, which then decides what to do with an application.

“It is next to impossible to challenge the advice that security intelligence agents offer to the department,” said Sharry Aiken, a professor of law at Queen’s University.

Many people are screened out based on secret evidence that can’t be reviewed, which “often leads to egregious injustices,” she said.

“It’s really about how we interpret what constitutes a risk, and what sort of association actually renders someone inadmissible,” Aiken added. “What I would say is that in the immigration domain, it is pretty much a Wild West.”

People deemed inadmissible have the right to appeal their cases in Federal Court.

Earlier this year, Portokalidis successfully fought for a former Canadian citizen who had been denied permanent residency and deemed inadmissible on the basis that he allegedly taught English to Chinese spies and might be involved in espionage himself.

The allegations against Liping Geng, a 68-year-old Chinese citizen, were contained in a report prepared by the CBSA’s National Security Screening Division, which cited information from a CSIS report.

Court records show that as a young man, Geng was a member of China’s People’s Liberation Army. After completing school, he worked as an English teacher at an army-operated department that trained students in foreign languages.

Canadian officials argued that everyone who attended the school was “in or was linked to Chinese military intelligence,” and that the teachers were actively engaging in espionage.

Geng spent nine years completing master’s and doctoral degrees at the University of Toronto, where he went on to teach, documents say. His family was approved for permanent residence status in Canada and became citizens in 1995.

When Geng returned to China in 2007, he renounced his Canadian citizenship because China doesn’t recognize dual citizenship. Still, the court documents say, Geng regularly visited family in Canada in the years that followed. He chose to return permanently in 2019 after his retirement.

Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley found that the CSIS and CBSA reports used to accuse Geng of espionage were never disclosed to him, and that this was problematic because the documents “drove the decision-making process.”

Moreover, security officials were criticized for drawing upon newspapers and other open sources to build their case, rather than hard evidence.

Mosley wrote in a ruling quashing the Immigration and Refugee Board’s decision that the security assessments amounted to an “overzealous effort” to establish Geng as a member of the Chinese military.

Portokalidis said many people who find themselves in a similar position don’t have the means to fight it in court.

“Our client was fortunate enough that he had the resources and the means to hire a lawyer to assist him this process, but if you weren’t so fortunate, I mean, he might be facing a lifetime ban,” she said.

It wasn’t the first time that Portokalidis said she had seen a failure to disclose information.

“Mr. Geng’s not the only person, unfortunately, who’s been subjected to this,” she said. “It’s unfortunate, because we could have avoided the time and expense for everyone involved if he had just been properly advised of what the concerns were from the get-go.”

The matter has been punted back to the board for further review, which Portokalidis said could take months.

The push-and-pull between maintaining an open immigration system and prioritizing security can put people’s lives and futures on hold. But the law only vaguely defines what constitute security threats, and clearer definitions could prevent injustice, Aiken suggested.

“I would, in my view, assert that it has unfortunately been an invitation, all too often, for overreach,” she said.

Evidence that would otherwise not be admissible in a criminal or civil courtroom can be used in immigration proceedings. And unlike in a criminal courtroom, there aren’t parameters specifically detailing what constitutes guilt.

“Basically, little more than suspicion is enough to render you inadmissible,” said Aiken.

In 2020, the Federal Court overturned a 2019 decision to deport a 34-year-old Ethiopian citizen who had arrived in Canada in 2017 to seek asylum.

The reasons used to determine that Medhanie Aregawi Weldemariam should be rendered inadmissible were not relevant to Canada’s national security interests, the court found.

Weldemariam was a former employee of Ethiopia’s state security and intelligence agency. That line on his resume was enough to kick him out of Canada, officials argued.

Security officials made the assessment that the Information Network Security Agency had committed cyberespionage on Canada’s allies and targeted journalists outside of Ethiopia who worked for an outlet critical of its government.

But they did not establish why such surveillance was contrary to Canadian interests and made “too tenuous” a jump in finding that Weldemariam was involved in activities against Canada, Federal Court Justice John Norris found.

He ordered a new admissibility hearing, but the federal government challenged that decision.

The matter is currently waiting to be argued at the Federal Court of Appeal, pending the decision in a separate Supreme Court matter challenging how the federal government applies its “national security” provisions.

The case involved two people who were charged, but not convicted, of separate and unrelated violent crimes.

The federal government could not remove either one of them from Canada based on the charges because of the lack of conviction, but it tried using national security provisions in immigration law as a reason to deport the two men.

Their lawyers maintain that the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act should not be used as a catch-all for using criminal conduct to kick someone out of the country.

There are legitimate concerns about foreign interference in Canada, Aiken said. People who represent genuine threats are being screened out.

“But you know, there’s a line there,” she said.

“Not any and all tenuous connections to foreign interference should render somebody’s security inevitable.”

Source: ‘Wild West’: Amid foreign meddling headlines, lawyers fear unfair immigration rulings

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , ,

Americans Still Value Immigration, but Have Concerns

2023/07/14 Leave a comment

Of note:

Americans remain largely supportive of U.S. immigration, with the majority saying it is good for the country and preferring to see immigration kept at its present level or increased rather than decreased. At the same time, they harbor concerns about the effect immigrants have on the country in some areas, especially on the crime and drug problems and, to a lesser extent, taxes.

The June 1-22 poll asks Americans about immigration and immigrants, generally, but likely reflects their views on both legal and illegal immigration. Prior Gallup research found Americans slightly more supportive of increased immigration and positive about the effect of immigration on the country when asked specifically about legal immigrationthan immigration generally.

Immigration Still Seen as Beneficial

Two-thirds of Americans consider immigration a good thing for the country, while 27% consider it a bad thing. The percentage calling it a good thing is down from its peak of 77% in 2020 and is the lowest Gallup has recorded since 2014 (when it was 63%).

However, the 68% currently saying immigration is a good thing is generally higher than was the case in the first decade of the trend, from 2001 through 2012.

While barely a quarter of Americans consider immigration a bad thing for the country, that view is far more prevalent among Republicans (43%) than Democrats (10%), with independents roughly matching the nation as a whole (28%). Still, half of Republicans consider it a good thing, as do 67% of independents and 87% of Democrats.

The poll was conducted after the Biden administration lifted emergency regulations employed during the pandemic, known as Title 42, that had allowed border control officers to immediately deport people caught entering the U.S. illegally rather than give them an asylum hearing.

Since Title 42 was suspended in mid-May, the number of illegal border crossings has declined sharply, partly because aspiring migrants are being encouraged to book appointments for asylum hearings through a mobile phone system called the CBP One App. Additionally, the risk of being charged with a felony if deported under current policies may be discouraging people from attempting illegal crossings.

The sharp decline in illegal border crossings in June, after record-high numbers were registered in 2022 and much of 2021, may have lessened Americans’ concern about the issue this past month. In the June survey, 8% named immigration as the most important problem facing the country, down from 13% in May.

Growing Minority Wants Immigration Curtailed

Gallup takes the public’s temperature on the volume of immigration by asking if immigration should be kept at its present level, increased or decreased. This was first measured in 1965, when Congress passed the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965that reformed federal immigration policy. That poll found few in favor of increasing immigration (7%), while the rest were split between wanting it kept the same (39%), wanting it decreased (33%) or unsure (20%).

The next measures, from 1977 through the early 1990s, found the public even less supportive, with more wanting immigration decreased than kept the same or increased. However, attitudes softened by 2000, and the desire for less immigration continued to trend downward thereafter, reaching a low of 28% in 2020. At the same time, those favoring an increase more than doubled, rising from 13% in 2000 to the trend high of 34% in 2020.

Given the major increase in the number of migrants seeking to enter the U.S. at the Southern border in recent years, Americans’ desire for less immigration has ticked upward, now reaching 41%. This exceeds the 26% who now want more immigration and is the highest since 2014.

Partisans Growing Further Apart on Immigration

Currently, 73% of Republicans, matching the prior high from 1995, want immigration decreased, while 10% want it increased, meaning their net preference for more immigration is -63. By contrast, 40% of Democrats want it increased, while just 18% want it decreased — a +22 net preference score. Independents still tilt negative, with 27% wanting it increased and 39% increased, or -12.

Today’s differences in immigration views by party are markedly different from the 1990s, when large proportions of both Republicans and Democrats favored a decrease in immigration. Since then, Republicans have maintained their preference for curtailing immigration. By contrast, even with dips in their support this year, Democrats and independents have grown more supportive than they were a decade or more ago.

Immigrants Seen as Asset to Culture but Some Downsides

A different question provides more detail on how Americans perceive the impact immigrants have on the U.S., asking if they make the situation better or worse in each of seven areas.

More than half of Americans, 54%, think immigrants make the country better rather than worse when it comes to “food, music and the arts.” More also say immigrants make social and moral values better (32%) rather than worse (25%). At the same time, the majority say they make the drug problem worse (55%), and far more — though less than majorities — think immigrants worsen the nation’s crime situation and taxes than say they improve these things.

The public is split on whether immigrants help (39%) or hurt (38%) the country economically. And while the majority say immigrants have no effect on job opportunities for themselves and their families, more see immigrants as a detriment in this area (26%) than an asset (18%).

Gallup has previously measured public perceptions of immigrants’ effect on all of these areas except the drug problem, finding them viewed in roughly the same rank order as today.

Americans’ net-positive views of immigrants’ effect (the percentage saying they make the situation better minus the percentage saying worse) are slightly lower today than in the most recent prior measurements, in 2017 and 2019. This decline is seen particularly for the perceived effect immigrants have on culture, the economy, taxes and crime, while views haven’t changed much with respect to immigrants’ effect on social values and job opportunities.

On the other hand, the average net-positive rating today is higher than the average Gallup found from 2004 to 2007, when far fewer valued immigrants’ influence on culture, social and moral values, the economy, job opportunities, and taxes. Current perceptions about immigrants’ effect on social and moral values, job opportunities and taxes are also a bit higher than in 2001-2002.

Again, sizable partisan differences exist in views about immigrants, with far more Republicans than Democrats saying they make the country worse in each respect. Independents’ views fall in between, although slightly closer to Democrats’ than Republicans’ in all areas except crime and taxes, where they are right in the middle.

And mirroring the widening gap in partisans’ views about the level of immigration, Democrats’ views of immigrants’ effect on the country in each area have grown increasingly positive, while Republicans’ have soured further.

The change has been particularly stark with respect to the economy. Whereas the three party groups were similarly split from 2001 through 2004 over whether immigrants made the economy better or worse, Democrats have since become solidly positive (62% now say they make the economy better versus 17% worse), while Republicans have gone in the other direction (14% better and 64% worse). After becoming slightly more positive about immigrants’ effect on the economy in 2017 and 2018, independents’ views are back to what they were in 2001.

Bottom Line

Americans are a bit less supportive of immigration now than in the past few years. However, largely because of a major pro-immigrant shift in Democrats’ views, the country as a whole is more positive toward immigration than it was in the 1990s and early 2000s. This is seen in national preferences for the level of immigration as well as views of whether immigrants help or hurt the country overall and in several specific areas.

Source: Americans Still Value Immigration, but Have Concerns

Filed under Immigration Tagged with ,

Petition e-4511: Opposing self-administration of the citizenship oath (“citizenship on a click”)

2023/07/13 Leave a comment

As readers are aware, the Government has proposed allowing the oath of citizenship to be self-administered rather than in front of other new and existing Canadians as it currently the practice. 

In my view, this seriously diminishes the meaning and impact of citizenship and the ceremonies, a rare positive celebratory moment in the immigration journey. 

Opposition to the change has been voiced by former governor general Adrienne Clarkson, former minister of immigration Sergio Marchi, former Calgary mayor Naheed Nenshi and a number of former citizenship judges. The Conservatives opposed the change in Parliament. 

And of the nearly 700 comments on the notice during the consultation period. Of them, two-thirds disapproved (A one-click citizenship oath isn’t the way to go provides the details).

Most new Canadians find the ceremony to be a major moment for them and their families, marking an end to their immigration journey and strengthening their sense of belonging to Canada.

I initiated this petition to ensure that this weakening of the citizenship ceremony and meaning does not pass unnoticed and hopefully, with enough signatures, will prompt the government to reconsider.

Please consider signing the petition and encouraging family, friends, colleagues and social networks to sign the petition. We need at least 500 signatures in order for the petition to be presented to the House.

Link: https://petitions.ourcommons.ca/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-4511 

Thanks, Andrew

Text of petition below:

Petition to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

Whereas:

  • The government has published a notice in the Canada Gazette permitting self-administration of the citizenship oath;
  • Affirming the Oath of Citizenship in the presence of other new Canadians was the will of Parliament when the original Citizenship Act was approved by Parliament in 1947 and has been central to citizenship since Canadian citizenship ever since;
  • One of the fundamental objectives of the citizenship program is “to enhance the meaning of citizenship as a unifying bond for Canadians;”
  • Citizenship ceremonies mark the end of an often lengthy and difficult immigration journey and provide a unique celebratory moment for new and existing Canadians;
  • Most citizenship ceremonies should be in-person rather than virtual given their greater impact on new Canadians;
  • The stated cost and time savings in the notice are unlikely to be realized and are minimal in relation to total processing time and overall cost of the citizenship program; and
  • Two-thirds of submissions opposed the proposed change.

We, the undersigned, citizens and residents of Canada, call upon the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship to: 

1. Abandon plans to permit self-administration of the citizenship oath;

2. Revert to in-person ceremonies as the default, with virtual ceremonies limited to 10 percent of all ceremonies;

3. Focus on administration and processing efficiencies prior to citizenship ceremonies, where most frustrations are; and

4. Explore evening and weekend ceremonies to improve accessibility along with more flexible scheduling management.

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with ,

The Global Immigration Backlash

2023/07/13 Leave a comment

Of note. Canada still the exception in terms of public support:

The global migration wave of the 21st century has little precedent. In much of North America, Europe and Oceania, the share of population that is foreign-born is at or near its highest level on record.

In the U.S., that share is approaching the previous high of 15 percent, reached in 1890. In some other countries, the immigration increases have been even steeper in the past two decades:

Foreign-born population share by country from 1960 to 2020

Charts showing the increase in the share of each country’s ­­— Australia, the U.S., Spain, United Kingdom, Netherlands and France — population that is foreign-born.

This scale of immigration tends to be unpopular with residents of the arrival countries. Illegal immigration is especially unpopular because it feeds a sense that a country’s laws don’t matter. But large amounts of legal immigration also bother many voters. Lower-income and blue-collar workers often worry that their wages will decline because employers suddenly have a larger, cheaper labor pool from which to hire.

As Tom Fairless, a Wall Street Journal reporter, wrote a few days ago:

Record immigration to affluent countries is sparking bigger backlashes across the world, boosting populist parties and putting pressure on governments to tighten policies to stem the migration wave. …

The backlashes repeat a long cycle in immigration policy, experts say. Businesses constantly lobby for more liberal immigration laws because that reduces their labor costs and boosts profits. They draw support from pro-business politicians on the right and pro-integration leaders on the left, leading to immigration policies that are more liberal than the average voter wants.

The political left in both Europe and the U.S. has struggled to come up with a response to these developments. Instead, many progressives have dismissed immigration concerns as merely a reflection of bigotry that needs to be defeated. And opposition to immigration is frequently infused with racism: Right-wing leaders like Marine Le Pen in France traffic in hateful stereotypes about immigrants. Some, like Donald Trump, tell outright lies.

But favoring lower levels of immigration is not inherently bigoted or always right-wing. The most prosperous large countries in Africa, Asia and South America tend to have much smaller foreign-born shares of their population. Japan and South Korea make it particularly difficult for foreigners to enter.

Foreign-born population share in 2020

Chart showing the foreign-born population share in 2020 for select countries in Africa, South America and Asia, compared with the U.S., Europe and global shares.

In earlier eras, the political left in the U.S. included many figures who worried about the effects of large-scale immigration. Both labor leaders and civil-rights leaders, for example, argued for moderate levels of immigration to protect the interests of vulnerable workers.

“There is a reason why Wall Street and all of corporate America likes immigration reform, and it is not, in my view, that they’re staying up nights worrying about undocumented workers in this country,” Bernie Sanders said in 2015. “What I think they are interested in is seeing a process by which we can bring low-wage labor of all levels into this country to depress wages for Americans, and I strongly disagree with that.”

Today, though, many progressives are uncomfortable with any immigration-skeptical argument. They have become passionate advocates of more migration and global integration, arguing — correctly — that immigrants usually benefit by moving from a lower-wage country to a higher-wage country. But immigration is not a free lunch any more than free trade is. It also has costs, including its burden on social services, as some local leaders, like Mayor Eric Adams of New York and officials in South Texas, have recently emphasized.

With today’s left-leaning and centrist parties largely accepting of high levels of immigration, right-wing parties have become attractive to many voters who favor less immigration. The issue has fueled the rise of far-right nationalist parties in France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Finland and elsewhere, as Jason Horowitz of The Times explained in a recent article. Jason focuses on Spain, another country where the anti-immigration party is growing.

The latest case study is the Netherlands. The governing coalition there collapsed on Friday after centrist parties refused to accept part of the conservative prime minister’s plan to reduce migration. Rather than alter his plan, the prime minister, Mark Rutte, dissolved the government, setting up an election this fall.

Rutte, notably, is not a member of the far right. He is a mainstream Dutch conservative who has tried to marginalize the country’s extremist anti-immigrant party. Yet he came to believe that reducing immigration was “a matter of political survival” for his party, my colleagues Matina Stevis-Gridneff and Claire Moses reported.

Although the details are different, President Biden has also recently taken steps to reduce unauthorized immigration. So far, his new policy — which includes both more border enforcement and an expansion of legal pathways to apply for entry — appears to have reduced the surge of migration at the U.S.-Mexico border. Still, the issue clearly divides Biden’s party. Many liberal Democrats have criticized his policy as heartless and said the U.S. should admit more migrants, not fewer.

Democrats frequently like to point out the many ways in which Republicans are out of step with public opinion, including on abortion bans, the minimum wage, taxes on the wealthy and background checks for gun owners. Immigration cuts the other way, polls show. It is a subject on which much of the Democratic Party, like the political left in Europe, is in a different place than many voters.

Source: The Global Immigration Backlash

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →