Australia’s multicultural framework under review after 50 years

2023/02/27 Leave a comment

Of note and to watch. Given that the review is under a Labour government, likely to incline towards greater diversity, equity and inclusion:

The Australian Government is set to begin a policy review of the 50-year-old ‘A multi-cultural society for the future’ report by Whitlam.

Consultation on the draft terms of reference to ensure they advance a multicultural Australia, support a cohesive and inclusive multicultural society, and harness the talents of all Australians.

“Australia is proudly one of the world’s most vibrant and successful multicultural societies. Widespread community support for multiculturalism is one of our major strengths as a nation,” said Minister Giles, adding that “50 years on from our first multicultural policy it is time to look at Australia’s multiculturalism and make sure we have the settings right. We need to make sure every Australian from a culturally and linguistically diverse background can reach their full potential.”

“Drawing on the knowledge of culturally and linguistically diverse communities, the Review will assess what the Commonwealth needs to do at institutional and policy levels to ensure no one is left behind, and everyone feels as though they truly belong.”

The draft Terms of Reference for the Multicultural Framework Review are now open for public comment and close on 19 March 2023. Find it here.

Source: Australia’s multicultural framework under review after 50 years

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

Lisée: And what if Quebecers are less racist than other Canadians?

2023/02/25 Leave a comment

Lisée contrasting Quebec and RoC polling data and providing context for Quebec policies on immigration, multiculturalism/interculturalisme and language. Polling data with regional breakdowns between Montreal and the regions would likely nuance his assertions, nor fully explain the high levels of support for Bills 21 and 96 or the general level of political discourse on these issues, but they certainly play a part.

Lisée may have overstepped his case with respect to the number of visible minorities elected in the 2022 election, 12 elected members by my count, 9.6 percent, not 12 percent, largely reflecting the concentration in and around Montreal (just as the GTA bumps up Ontario provincial and federal MP representation numbers:

The number is nine. That’s the percentage of Quebecers who believe some races are superior to others. They, along with other Canadians, were asked this straightforward question by Angus Reid in 2021: “In all honesty, do you think that all races are equal in terms of their natural characteristics, or do you think that some races are naturally superior to others?”

Nine per cent may seem high, but compare it to Ontario, Saskatchewan and Manitoba with a rate of 14 per cent. There is a spike of 19 per cent in PEI (this may be a sampling error) and lows of 11 per cent in Alberta and eight per cent in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Interestingly, one finds that 13 per cent of Indigenous people believe in the inequality of races and 18 per cent of non-Caucasian/non-Indigenous – double the Quebec number.

How can we possibly square this result with the mere existence of Quebec’s secularism law, known as Bill 21, and the apparent consensus outside Quebec that citizens there are closed-minded? The answer, as Justin Trudeau explained the other day, is Quebecers relation to religion, especially with the misogynistic aspects of the Catholic religion of yesteryear and, these days, Islam.

https://e.infogram.com/lisee-racisme-fig-2-en-1h8n6m31ngx0j4x?live?parent_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpolicyoptions.irpp.org%2Fmagazines%2Ffebruary-2023%2Fquebec-racism%2F&src=embed#async_embed

That is why this same Angus Reid poll found what every other poll will tell you: a much bigger slice of Quebec opinion has negative views of religions as a whole and of Islam in particular. Angus Reid reports that whereas 25 per cent of all Canadians feel “cold” towards Muslims, the chill reaches 37 per cent in Quebec. Still in minority territory (63 per cent feel warm towards them) but a significant difference.

Since support for the secularism bill, which bans the wearing of all religious signs for civil servants in authority, hovers around 65 per cent, there are simply not enough Quebecers who dislike Muslims to account for that great a number. Clearly, other variables are at play and racism is not one of them.

In fact, Canadian pollsters regularly find Quebecers more tolerant on a range of issues than other Canadians. Ekos found in 2019 that 30 per cent of Quebecers believed there were too many members of visible minorities among immigrants. That is awful. But this level rose to 46 per cent in Ontario and 56 per cent in Alberta. And among visible minorities, 43 per cent felt there were too many visible minorities among immigrants. In short, Quebecers were less intolerant of racialized immigrants than Canadians as a whole and citizens of color themselves.

https://e.infogram.com/lisee-racisme-fig-3-en-1h7k2305xlekg2x?live?parent_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpolicyoptions.irpp.org%2Fmagazines%2Ffebruary-2023%2Fquebec-racism%2F&src=embed#async_embed

But these are opinions. What about actions? Hate crimes were more numerous in Ontario than in Quebec per capita in 2019, 2020 and 2021, the year in which there is the latest available data. The Montreal police reports that in 2020 and 2021, the first years of application of the law on secularism, the number of hate crimes related to religion was down 24 per cent. Sure, with the pandemic, there were fewer opportunities to meet and hate each other. Yet they also had a pandemic in Toronto and there, according to the Toronto Police 2021 Hate/Bias Crime Statistical Report, religious hate crimes increased by 16 per cent over the same period.

How about discrimination in employment? 2021 Statistics Canada data show that immigrants in Quebec have an employment rate greater than workers born in Quebec (at a ratio of 107 per cent) whereas the opposite is true in Ontario (a ratio of 95 per cent). The gap is greatest for women, with a ratio of 102 per cent employment in Quebec versus 91 per cent in Ontario, probably a result of Quebec’s far reaching daycare program. The same is true for members of visible minorities, whose rate of employment is equal to that of the rest of Quebecers, better than the 95 per cent level in Ontario. Simply put, as an immigrant or a BIPOC, your chances of getting a job is higher in Quebec than in Ontario, especially if you are a woman.

The recent October 2022 Quebec election was remarkable for one barely noticed achievement. For the first time, it delivered the same proportion of elected members from visible minorities, (12 per cent) than their share of the electorate and the same rate (20 per cent) of members of non-French and non-English origin. A perfect score. In Ottawa, Parliament still falls short of its goal of representing 25 per cent of visible minorities, having reached only 15.7 per cent.  In Ontario, with 30 per cent of minority population, the recent parliament counts 23 per cent representation.

None of these numbers are new, but I bet you are reading them here for the first time. Why? Simply because they are so counter-intuitive that few people outside Quebec look for them. Or when these numbers are encountered, they are treated as outliers that surely do not represent reality.

Yet going back in time, Quebec has reached achievements on race significantly before others on the continent. For example, the August 1 commemoration of the British Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 is problematic in Quebec because it ignores the fact that slavery had already been abolished there for 30 years. In Upper Canada, MPs had voted in 1793 to abolish slavery but grandfathered the “property” of current slave-owners. Slavery thus persisted until 1820. The British 1833 act compensated slave-owners for the “loss” of their property.

Quebecers had none of that. Open-minded judges started declaring slavery illegal in Quebec as early as 1798, without delay or compensation. It disappeared completely in very short order, as told by Frank Makey in his seminal Done with Slavery: The Black Fact in Montreal, 1760-1840 (McGill-Queen’s Press). “The way in which slavery was abolished in Quebec turned out to be one of the most humane and least constraining,” he writes. Slavery thus ended in Quebec 20 years before its demise in Upper Canada, 30 years ahead of the rest of the Empire and 63 years before the emancipation of Black Americans.

Jews were barred from elected office in the entire British Empire until 1858, except in Quebec. In 1832 the Assembly, with a Patriote majority (the ancestor of both the Quebec Liberal Party and the Parti Québécois) voted an act granting full citizenship to Jews, the Brits be damned.

As for relations with First Nations, in 1701 the Governor of New France and 39 leaders of First Nations gathered in Montreal for the most far-reaching peace treaty ever negotiated between settlers and First Nations in the hemisphere. That’s Nobel Peace Prize territory. In modern times, Quebec signed the first comprehensive land claim in Canada in 1975 and René Lévesque made sure the Quebec National Assembly was the first Parliament in Canada in 1984 to recognize the existence of Indigenous nations on the territory. In 2003 the Paix des Braves with the Cree nation became the gold standard for the granting of autonomy to First Nations.

Environics Institute reports that like other Canadians 44 per cent of Quebecers believe the government has not done enough to ensure true reconciliation. But there are laggards. Those who find that we have gone too far, that we have been too generous. In Quebec, 13 per cent think so. Too many. In Canada: 20 per cent. Too many and a half.

It is also interesting to note how the anti-religious sentiment of Quebecers is intertwined with the issue of residential schools. Polling firm Léger asked who was responsible for this disaster: the federal government or the Catholic Church. Obviously, the answer is: both. But the pollster forced his respondents to choose. Two-thirds of Canadians pointed to the church. Quebecers even more: 69 per cent. The more memory Quebecers have, the more they condemn the church, at 76 per cent among those over 55 years old. Quebecers also say they are more ashamed, at 86 per cent, than the high Canadian average of 80 per cent.

Surely, tons of columns can be – and have been – written on all the faults and frailties of Quebecers. I have written a few myself. Comparative arguments have little weight when the task is to fight back against discrimination, racial profiling, decades-long neglect of Indigenous communities.

They have value, however, when mainstream voices outside Quebec take a moral high ground to misjudge and mischaracterize Quebec, its citizens and its history on issues of race and tolerance.

Source: And what if Quebecers are less racist than other Canadians?

Filed under Immigration, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

Pregnant Russians flock to Argentina, seeking passports — and options — for their kids

2023/02/25 Leave a comment

More detailed account than elsewhere. In contrast to some earlier reports, appears many are fairly afflluent. And not all are birth tourists with some settling in Argentina:

Shortly after Vladimir Putin ordered the invasion of Ukraine, Alla Prigolovkina and her husband, Andrei Ushakov, decided they had to flee their Sochi, Russia, home.

Ushakov had been detained for holding up a sign that read “Peace,” and Prigolovkina, a pregnant ski instructor, feared he would soon be drafted and potentially killed, leaving their baby fatherless.

The original plan was to stay in Europe, but anti-Russian sentiment discouraged them.

“We chose Argentina because it has everything we needed: Fantastic nature, a large country, beautiful mountains,” Prigolovkina, 34, told The Associated Press inside the home her family is renting in Argentina’s western Mendoza province. “We felt it would be ideal for us.”

They were hardly alone.

Over the past year, Argentine immigration authorities have noticed flights packed with dozens of pregnant Russians. But whereas Prigolovkina said her family intends to build a life here at the foot of the Andes mountains, local officials believe many of the other recent Russian visitors are singularly focused on receiving one of Argentina’s passports.

All children born in Argentina automatically receive citizenship and having an Argentine child speeds up the process for the parents to obtain residency permits and, after a couple of years, their own passports.

Crucially, the navy blue booklets allow entry to 171 countries without a visa, a backup plan that Russians believe could come in handy in the ever-uncertain future. Due to sanctions, Russians have also had trouble opening bank accounts in foreign countries, something an Argentine passport could solve.

According to official figures, some 22,200 Russians entered Argentina over the last year, including 10,777 women — many of whom were in the advanced stages of pregnancy. In January, 4,523 Russians entered Argentina, more than four times the 1,037 that arrived in the same month last year.

After an investigation, Argentine officials concluded that Russian women, generally from affluent backgrounds, were entering the country as tourists with the plan to give birth, obtain their documentation and leave. More than half of the Russians who entered the country in the last year, 13,134, already left, including 6,400 women.

“We detected that they don’t come to do tourism, they come to have children,” Florencia Carignano, the national director for migration, said during a meeting with international media.

Although Argentina generally has a relatively permissive immigration process, the recent arrest of two alleged Russian spies who had Argentine passports in Slovenia raised alarms in the South American country, where officials reinforced immigration controls.

“We canceled residencies of Russians who spent more time outside than in,” Carignano said, expressing concern the Argentine “passport will cease to have the trust it enjoys in all countries.”

Immigration authorities have also called on the justice system to investigate agencies that allegedly offer assistance to Russian women who want to give birth in Argentina.

It’s unclear how many women have left Russia to give birth in the last year, but the issue is big enough that lawmakers in Moscow this month raised the question of whether those who choose to give birth abroad should be stripped of the so-called maternity fund that all Russian mothers receive — a financial benefit of almost $8,000 for the first child and about $10,500 for the second.

There is no discussion on whether to cut off access to the maternity fund for Russian mothers who give birth abroad, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said.

The phenomenon also is not entirely new. Prior to the Russia-Ukraine war, Russian women were part of a wave of “birth tourists” in the U.S. and many paid brokers tens of thousands of dollars to arrange their travel documents, accommodations and hospital stays, often in Florida.

Embarking on a long journey during an advanced pregnancy can be particularly perilous, and Russians in Argentina insist that their decision to leave their homes goes beyond a new passport. Despite the government’s claims, some at least seem eager to make Argentina their new home.

In spite of the language barrier and the unfamiliar, stifling summer heat, Prigolovkina and Ushakov have quickly adopted Argentine customs since their July move. Prigolovkina said they especially enjoy spending time in the park with their dogs. And while the family may not have been interested in soccer in Russia, they happily cheered when their newly adopted country won the World Cup late last year.

Still, she also concedes that obtaining a passport for their newborn son, Lev Andrés, was a motivating factor for the move: “We wanted our baby to have the chance to not just be Russian and have a single passport.”

Some experts say a country in which migrants once made up as much as 30% of the population should be particularly sensitive to the plight of Russians trying to start a new life. The South American country was transformed in the late 19th and early 20th century by the influx of millions of European migrants, including many from Italy and Spain.

“Given our history of migration, a country like ours should empathize more with the humanitarian dimension” of these recent immigrants, Natalia Debandi, a social scientist and migrations expert who is a researcher at the publicly funded CONICET institute, said. “They are not terrorists, they are people.”

A study by immigration agents based on interviews with 350 newly arrived Russians concluded that most are married and largely well-off professionals who have remote jobs in finance and digital design or live off savings.

Days before giving birth to a boy named Leo, 30-year-old Russian psychologist Ekaterina Gordienko lauded her experience in Argentina, saying “the health care system is very good, and people are very kind. My only problem is Spanish. If the doctor doesn’t speak English, I use the (Google) translator.”

Gordienko arrived in the nation’s capital of Buenos Aires in December with her 38-year-old husband, Maxim Levoshin. “The first thing we want is for Leo to live in a safe country, without a war in his future,” Levoshin said.

In Mendoza, Prigolovkina is excited for her family’s new life in Argentina and optimistic they will be able to give back to the country that has welcomed them.

“We have left everything behind to live in peace. I hope that Argentines understand that Russians can be very useful in different areas of life, in business, the economy, in science,” she said. “They can help make Argentina better.”

Source: Pregnant Russians flock to Argentina, seeking passports — and options — for their kids

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship, Immigration Tagged with , ,

Canada to introduce open work permit for Iranians, simplify process to stay

2023/02/25 Leave a comment

Not sure how widely the measures – waiving fees for passports, Permanent Resident travel documents and citizenship certificates – has been done in the past and for which groups.

Given the announcement in North Vancouver, where many Iranian Canadians live, not sure the fee waivers makes sense from a policy perspective (no issue with open work permit pathways).

The federal government is rolling out special temporary measures to make it easier for Iranians in Canada to stay.

As of March 1, measures will come into effect to simplify the process for Iranians who are visiting, studying in or working in Canada to extend their stay and switch between temporary streams.

For Iranians already in Canada, an open work permit pathway will be introduced as well.

The federal government will waive fees for passports, permanent resident travel documents and citizen certificates for Canadian citizens and permanent residents in Iran who wish to come back, and for those in Canada who want to remain.

Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson made the announcement in North Vancouver today as part of the federal government’s ongoing effort to support Iranians following unrest.

Protests erupted in Iran in response to the death of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini in the custody of the country’s morality police, leading to a brutal crackdown by the Iranian government.

Source: Canada to introduce open work permit for Iranians, simplify process to stay

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

Lanctôt: Préparer l’avenir [future waves of climate refugees]

2023/02/25 Leave a comment

Reminder that today’s problems may be insignificant compared to the futuree:

Puisqu’il faut battre le fer pendant qu’il est chaud et qu’on fait tout pour qu’il le demeure, nous y voilà encore. La panique entourant le chemin Roxham semble s’être installée pour de bon, dans les termes déplorables qu’on connaît. Si au moins il s’agissait de braquer les projecteurs sur le drame humain qui se joue dans l’espace liminal des frontières, ce serait une chose. Or, c’est sur le « fardeau » de l’accueil qu’on se focalise, pendant que les demandeurs d’asile eux-mêmes flottent en périphérie de la discussion, comme une simple variable dans un calcul qui se fait sur leur dos, mais sans eux.

C’est ainsi que, cette semaine, le premier ministre François Legault s’est adressé directement à son homologue fédéral, Justin Trudeau, pour exiger qu’Ottawa agisse pour soulager le Québec de la pression exercée par les demandeurs d’asile sur sa société. La lettre est remarquable en ce qu’elle condense, en quelques paragraphes, plusieurs années d’une construction méticuleuse de la version toute québécoise du discours sur le péril migratoire aux frontières.

Les États-Unis, l’Europe aussi, ont une longueur d’avance à ce chapitre, alors que ces discours se construisent, se reconfigurent et se peaufinent depuis bien plus longtemps. Mais alors que la migration d’urgence s’intensifie partout dans le monde, le Québec fait face soudain, lui aussi, à une détresse qu’il lui était autrefois plus facile d’ignorer. Sans surprise, on réagit en important les dispositifs idéologiques qui, partout ailleurs, président au durcissement des frontières et à la construction de la figure du migrant comme menace.

François Legault l’a bien compris, et sa lettre à Justin Trudeau est une formidable radiographie de la panique migratoire telle qu’elle se vit chez nous. Le premier ministre québécois campe d’abord ses revendications sur le terrain de la défense des services publics, soulignant que l’arrivée « massive » de demandeurs d’asile au Québec pèse bien lourd sur des institutions déjà à bout de souffle.

Il ne se trouvera personne pour le contredire : les services publics, tout comme les groupes communautaires — à qui l’on demande d’éponger le trop-plein du réseau public avec une fraction des ressources —, sont poussés à bout de manière structurelle. La crise est chronique, et elle a été délibérément fabriquée par des décennies de gouvernance néolibérale.

Il est vrai que les ressources manquent pour accompagner les demandeurs d’asile de manière digne. Les histoires que l’on entend brisent le coeur ; des familles qui passent d’un refuge à l’autre, des gens contraints de dormir dans la rue après avoir traversé la frontière par Roxham, une attente interminable pour obtenir de l’aide financière, et le dépassement bien réel des organismes qui prodiguent de l’aide immédiate. Tout cela est insupportable, sauf qu’on pose le problème à l’envers : notre échec à accueillir correctement ces personnes est le symptôme de carences préexistantes, et non leur cause. On pointe la lune et on regarde le doigt.

Il faudrait plutôt renverser la question : comment se fait-il que le Québec n’ait rien de mieux à offrir que l’itinérance et des dédales administratifs déshumanisants à des personnes qui ne demanderaient pas mieux que de pouvoir contribuer à la société québécoise ?

François Legault brandit le chiffre de 39 000 migrants arrivés de manière irrégulière en 2022, ajoutant que cela s’ajoute aux 20 000 personnes admises par voie régulière. Il veut souligner, on l’imagine, l’ampleur de la contribution du Québec. Or, comme le remarquait la directrice générale d’Amnistie internationale Canada francophone, France-Isabelle Langlois, dans une lettre parue dans ces pages, on compte actuellement 100 millions de personnes déplacées de force à travers le monde. À travers les Amériques, la Colombie accueille à elle seule 1,8 million de personnes. On estime par ailleurs que d’ici 2050, plus de 200 millions de personnes seront déplacées par la crise climatique à l’échelle mondiale.

Qu’à cela ne tienne, le Québec, lui, a déjà statué quant à sa responsabilité dans la prise en charge des mouvements de population mondiaux : « La capacité d’accueil du Québec est désormais largement dépassée », écrit le premier ministre. François Legault le dit sans détour : il ne veut pas améliorer la capacité d’accueil du Québec. Il ne demande pas à Ottawa plus de ressources pour mieux accueillir. Il affirme au contraire que le Québec en a déjà fait assez, et qu’il espère même être dédommagé pour les efforts déjà déployés.

Il fait ensuite un pas de côté pour mentionner le déclin du français à Montréal, qu’il associe, d’ailleurs, à l’arrivée de tous les migrants, pas seulement les demandeurs d’asile — après tout, il a une base à exciter. Puis, il réclame l’élargissement de l’entente sur les tiers pays sûrs à tous les points d’entrée au Canada, et la fermeture complète du chemin Roxham. Comme si l’interdiction de demander l’asile au Canada par voie terrestre, ainsi que la fermeture d’un seul point d’entrée devenu emblématique n’allaient pas tout simplement pousser plus de gens sur des routes clandestines.

Au-delà de ce que cette lettre dit de la situation présente, on y lit aussi l’ébauche, plus troublante, d’une vision à plus long terme. François Legault prépare le terrain, il entame doucement la normalisation du mot d’ordre qui sera celui de l’avenir cauchemardesque de la crise climatique : laissez-les se débrouiller.

Source: Préparer l’avenir

Filed under Immigration, Refugees Tagged with , , ,

@IRCC Consultations: Shaping the future of immigration in Canada

2023/02/25 Leave a comment

Somewhat cynical about the consultations exercise.

On the surface, may be a response to the increased public commentary questioning the impact that current and planned high immigration levels have on housing, healthcare adnn infrastructure but without the political will for a fundamental review of immigration programs and policies, which appear largely based on a “more the merrier” approach. The “learn more” section suggests that no fundamental review is planned.

Will be interesting to see if those consulted include critics of the current approach, not from the various advocacy groups but more broadly:

Immigration is critical to Canada’s long-term success. To fully harness the potential of immigration and create the best experience for newcomers,

Canada needs an immigration system that is strong, easy to navigate and adaptive to change.

The Honourable Sean Fraser, Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, today announced the start of a broad-based engagement initiative—An Immigration System for Canada’s Future—aimed at exploring how immigration policies and programs can support a shared vision for Canada’s future. The engagement, which will continue throughout the spring, will include in-person dialogue sessions across the country, thematic workshops and a survey for the public and our clients. The input gathered will inform Canada’s future immigration policies and programs, and will help shape a system that will benefit communities across the country for decades to come.

The next generation of Canada’s immigration system will involve continued, whole-of-society collaboration. That is why this engagement initiative is intended to capture a diversity of perspectives from a broad range of partners and stakeholders, including all levels of government, businesses, academia, post-secondary institutions, settlement organizations, implicated sectors in Canada and our clients.

To kick off the engagement initiative, Minister Fraser chaired the first dialogue session in Halifax. The session provided an opportunity for the Minister and participants to exchange ideas and discuss how Canada’s immigration policies and programs can better support the needs of communities from coast to coast.

If you would like to contribute to the future of Canada’s immigration system, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) will also be launching a survey, which will be available to the public later in March in addition to the dialogue sessions and thematic workshops with stakeholders. We encourage you to visit our website to learn more about how to get involved.

Source:

Filed under Immigration Tagged with ,

Clark: Let’s get politicians to tell us how they would close Roxham Road, not why, Yakabuski: Trudeau can no longer avoid tough choices on Roxham Road 

2023/02/24 Leave a comment

As always, the herd instinct at play in coverage of irregular arrivals and Roxham Road, given Premier Legault’s public pressure and Pierre Poilievre’s simplistic solution.

Two of the best are Clark, who calls for a needed but unlikely change, and Yakabuski who argues time for though choices:

Let’s hold all our politicians to one simple rule about Roxham Road: Don’t tell us what you want to do about it. Tell us how you would do it.

Quebec politicians have been calling for the unofficial crossing on the border between Quebec and New York state to be closed. And Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has called for the feds to do so within 30 days.

But as it turns out, there is no switch that opens and closes the border. So what is it they are actually proposing?

Mr. Poilievre said that all it takes is a simple decision, but he couldn’t say what the government should decide to do.

Of course, there are plenty of reasons why the government should do something. People want the border to be under control. They want migration to be safe and orderly.

And there is palpable frustration when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau essentially says he’s got nothing other than time to wait for U.S. President Joe Biden to solve the problem by changing a border agreement. And that’s essentially what Mr. Trudeau was saying Wednesday when he said that if Roxham Road was closed, asylum-seekers would just cross at other places. It’s probably true, but not a solution.

So how can it be done? Quebec Premier François Legault wants a deal with the U.S., too, but faster. Mr. Poilievre – and most politicians – don’t want to specify. Real proposals usally involve doing things the politicians don’t want to talk about. And many so far have been ineffective or ridiculous.

When People’s Party Leader Maxime Bernier was running for the leadership of the Conservative Party in 2017, he proposed sending the military. In 2018, two Conservative MPs proposed declaring the entire 8,891-kilometre border into an official border crossing, arguing that would trick the U.S. into taking back those who entered Canada at Roxham Road. That same year, then-Parti Québécois leader Jean-François Lisée briefly suggested a fence, or “a sign, a cedar grove, a police officer, whatever.”

Mr. Poilievre told reporters on Tuesday that it must be easy, because Mr. Trudeau shut down Roxham Road during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. But that didn’t happen with a snap of the fingers. When the two countries shut their borders, the U.S. agreed that Canada could direct border-crossers back. When the borders reopened, that arrangement ended. And here we are again.

That’s one thing to remember: Once they step foot into Canada, non-Americans can’t be sent back to the U.S. unless the U.S. agrees. The Safe Third Country Agreement allows for asylum seekers who enter Canada at official border posts to be turned back, but not those who cross in between. Canadian governments have tried for years to get the U.S. to change that, to no avail. On Wednesday, Mr. Trudeau said he’s working on it.

Of course, the simplest way to stop people from crossing at Roxham Road would be to scrap the Safe Third Country Agreement. Then asylum-seekers would just show up at official border crossings, as they did before 2004. And as Mr. Legault pointed out the other day, Mr. Trudeau tweeted in 2017 that Canada welcomes those fleeing persecution and war. It’s just that scrapping the agreement would almost certainly bring a lot more of them.

Some have proposed a fence. But obviously, people can go around it. There are lots of places to cross the border. It might disrupt the organized route to Roxham Road but police would probably have to intercept border-crossers at more places.

And there is Mr. Bernier’s idea: Send in the troops. Or police. But the real question is what they would do. Presumably they wouldn’t shoot everyone. Would all asylum-seekers be thrown in jail indefinitely?

Maybe there are better ideas. It would be nice to hear them. But Canadian politicians who don’t tell us how they would do it are avoiding the talk about costs, or the potential for border breaches to proliferate, or locking people up, or toughening the system.

Those are things debated by American politicians, who argue about harsher rules to discourage asylum-seekers from trying to enter the U.S. Mr. Biden is proposing refusing asylum claims from people who travelled through central America.

But now, Mr. Trudeau has essentially admitted he won’t do anything until Mr. Biden agrees to solve the problem for him.

And those such as Mr. Poilievre who call for Roxham Road to be closed are just mouthing meaningless words until they tell us how.

Source: Let’s get politicians to tell us how they would close Roxham Road, not why

François Legault has got his mojo back, or sort of.

After returning from Ottawa this month with a fraction of the billions of additional health care dollars he had been demanding for his province, the Quebec Premier was ridiculed by opposition parties and political pundits alike for being all bark and no bite.

Thanks to Ottawa’s recent transfer to cities in Ontario of asylum seekers arriving at the unofficial border crossing at Roxham Road in Quebec, Mr. Legault has been able to boast to the home crowd that he’s still got it. That his government’s constant efforts to force Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to do something about the “migrant crisis” facing Quebec is finally getting results. Thanks to his leaked letter to Mr. Trudeau and an op-ed in The Globe and Mail, Mr. Legault can tell Quebeckers that he has finally got the rest of Canada’s attention, if not its respect.

In truth, Ottawa last year began bussing some asylum seekers from Roxham Road to hotels in Cornwall, Niagara Falls, Ottawa and Windsor when it could no longer find rooms in Quebec. Since early 2023, those transfers have been occurring on a systematic basis. Mr. Legault wants Ottawa to continue to transfer migrants to other provinces, arguing correctly that Quebec has “taken on a completely disproportionate share” of asylum seekers entering Canada since Roxham Road was reopened in late 2021.

Mr. Legault also wants Mr. Trudeau to permanently “close the breach” in Canada’s border-security by prohibiting migrants from claiming asylum at Roxham Road, as it had temporarily done for an 18-month period during the pandemic. Federal Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre is calling for Roxham’s closing within 30 days, also citing the pandemic-related closing as proof that Ottawa has the authority to act unilaterally to address the loophole in the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement that enabled more than 39,000 migrants to enter this country in 2022 at what has become our most official unofficial border crossing.

Immigration Minister Sean Fraser called Mr. Poilievre’s ideas “reckless” and lacking in “depth and understanding.” Amid a global migration crisis, Mr. Fraser added, Canada has a “responsibility to implement real, long-term solutions.”

Real, long-term solutions are not this government’s strong suit. It does excel at posturing, virtue signalling and dithering. But it has offered little evidence that it is taking concrete steps to address the increasing flow of asylum seekers at Roxham Road.

It is easy to understand why a government that prefers to project a compassionate image would be reluctant to act in any manner that might make it look heartless to some. Turning asylum seekers away at Roxham Road, in effect surrendering them to U.S. immigration authorities, would subject the Trudeau government to a backlash from within Liberal ranks.

Yet, it must be pointed out that this government has no problem turning away asylum seekers who arrive at official land border crossings. Are those who arrive at Roxham Road any more worthy of refugee status in Canada than the others?

What we do know is that almost half of “irregular border crossers” who arrived in Canada after 2016 saw their asylum claims rejected by the Immigration and Refugee Board or abandoned or withdrew their applications before a final IRB determination. And that the surge in irregular crossings at Roxham Road has left the IRB with a backlog of more than 74,000 cases that is growing rapidly each month. A refugee system that is meant to provide asylum to those fleeing persecution in their country of origin is being exploited by smugglers who prey on vulnerable people seeking to escape economic hardship in Latin America and Africa.

There are those in Liberal circles who argue that the “fundamental premise” at the heart of the STCA – specifically, the designation of the United States as a “safe” country for refugee claimants – no longer holds true. But as the Federal Court of Appeal found in 2021, it is up to the federal cabinet to undertake continual review to ensure that the United States continues to meet the criteria for safe country designation.

Not once since taking power in 2015 has the Trudeau government sought to cancel this designation – not even during the dark days of Donald Trump’s presidency, when some migrant children were separated from their parents.

The Supreme Court of Canada is expected to rule on the STCA this year. Even if it upholds the legality of the agreement, a new proposal by President Joe Biden to turn away all asylum seekers at the U.S. border who arrive from a third country via Mexico raises new questions about Canada’s continued designation of the U.S. as a safe country.

For Mr. Trudeau, there are no “real, long-term solutions” to the Roxham Road dilemma that do not include making tough, even excruciating, choices.

Source: Trudeau can no longer avoid tough choices on Roxham Road

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , , ,

Krauss: Artificially Intelligent Offense?

2023/02/24 Leave a comment

Of note, yet another concern and issue that needs to be addressed:

…Let’s be clear about this: Valid, empirically derived information is not, in the abstract, either harmful or offensive.

The reception of information can be offensive, and it can, depending upon the circumstances of the listener, potentially result in psychological or physical harm. But precisely because one cannot presume to know all such possible circumstances, following the OpenAI guidelines can instead sanction the censorship of almost any kind of information for fear that someone, somewhere, will be offended.

Even before ChatGPT, this was not a hypothetical worry. Recall the recent firing of a heralded NYT science reporter for using “the N-word” with a group of students in the process of explaining why the use of that word could be inappropriate or hurtful. The argument the NYT editors made was that “intent” was irrelevant. Offense is in the ear of the listener, and that overrides the intent of the speaker or the veracity of his or her argument.

A more relevant example, perhaps, involves the loony guidelines recently provided to editors and reviewers for the journals of the Royal Society of Chemistry to “minimise the risk of publishing inappropriate or otherwise offensive content.” As they describe it, “[o]ffence is a subjective matter and sensitivity to it spans a considerable range; however, we bear in mind that it is the perception of the recipient that we should consider, regardless of the author’s intention [italics mine] … Please consider whether or not any content (words, depictions or imagery) might have the potential to cause offence, referring to the guidelines as needed.”

Moreover, they define offensive content specifically as “Any content that could reasonably offend someone on the basis of their age, gender, race, sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs, marital or parental status, physical features, national origin, social status or disability.”

The mandate against offensiveness propounded by the RSC was taken to another level by the journal Nature Human Behaviour, which indicated that not only would they police language, but they would restrict the nature of scientific research they publish on the basis of social justice concerns about possible “negative social consequences for studied groups.” One can see echoes of both the RSC and Nature actions in the ChatGPT response to my questions.

The essential problem here is removing the obligation, or rather, the opportunity, all of us should have to rationally determine how we respond to potentially offensive content by instead ensuring that any such potentially offensive content may be censored. Intent and accuracy become irrelevant. Veto power in this age of potential victimization is given to the imaginary recipient of information.

Free and open access to information, even information that can cause pain or distress, is essential in a free society. As Christopher Hitchens so often stressed, freedom of speech is primarily important not because it provides an opportunity for speakers to speak out against prevailing winds but because that speech gives listeners or readers the freedom to realize they might want to change their minds.

The problem with the dialogues presented above is that ChatGPT appears to be programmed with a biased perception of what might be offensive or harmful. Moreover, it has been instructed to limit the information it provides to that which its programmers have deemed is neither. What makes this example more than an interesting—or worrying—anecdote is the emerging potential of AI chatbots to further exacerbate already disturbing trends.

As chatbot responses begin to proliferate throughout the Internet, they will, in turn, impact future machine learning algorithms that mine the Internet for information, thus perpetuating and amplifying the impact of the current programming biases evident in ChatGPT.

ChatGPT is admittedly a work in progress, but how the issues of censorship and offense ultimately play out will be important. The last thing anyone should want in the future is a medical diagnostic chatbot that refrains from providing a true diagnosis that may cause pain or anxiety to the receiver. Providing information guaranteed not to disturb is a sure way to squash knowledge and progress. It is also a clear example of the fallacy of attempting to input “universal human values” into AI systems, because one can bet that the choice of which values to input will be subjective.

If the future of AI follows the current trend apparent in ChatGPT, a more dangerous, dystopic machine-based future might not be the one portrayed in the Terminator films but, rather, a future populated by AI versions of Fahrenheit 451firemen.

Source: Artificially Intelligent Offense?

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

UK now among most accepting countries for foreign workers, survey finds

2023/02/24 Leave a comment

Interesting shift:

The UK has become one of the world’s most accepting places for foreign workers, according to a survey in 24 nations revealing a sharp increase in British acceptance of economic migration.

People in the UK emerged as less likely to think that when jobs are scarce employers should give priority to people of their own country than those in Norway, Canada, France, Spain, the US, Australia and Japan. Only Germany and Sweden were more open on that question.

In what the study’s authors described as “an extraordinary shift”, only 29% of people in the UK in 2022 said priority over jobs should go to local people, compared with 65% when the same question was asked in 2009.

The findings come as employers call for more migration to help fill more than 1m vacancies, and after the prime minister appointed the anti-immigration firebrand Lee Anderson as deputy chair of the Conservative party. He has called people arriving in small boats on the south coast “criminals” and called for them to be “sent back the same day”. Police have been deployed to hotels where asylum seekers are being housed amid violent protests by anti-immigration activists.

“It was unthinkable a decade ago that the UK would top any international league table for positive views of immigration,” said Prof Bobby Duffy, the director of the Policy Institute at King’s College London, who shared the findings from the latest round of the survey exclusively with the Guardian and the BBC. “But that’s where we are now, with the UK the least likely, from a wide range of countries, to say we should place strict limits on immigration or prohibit it entirely.”

The UK ranked fourth out of 24 nations for the belief that immigrants have a very or quite good impact on the development of the country – ahead of Norway, Spain, the US and Sweden.

One factor in the shift in opinions on the question of “British jobs for British workers” may be that in 2009 the UK was in a deep recession, with more than double today’s unemployment, whereas today the economy suffers from a worker shortage, with 1.1m vacancies in the UK, 300,000 more than before the pandemic.

Robert Jenrick, the immigration minister, last year urged employers to look to the British workforce in the first instance and “get local people”, although the government has widened visa programmes for seasonal workers and care staff.

Duffy said the findings showed that “it’s time to listen more carefully to public attitudes”. He said: “Politicians often misread public opinion on immigration. In the 2000s, Labour government rhetoric and policy on this issue was more relaxed than public preferences, and arguably they paid the price – but the current government is falling into the reverse trap.”

People in the UK are now the least likely of the 24 countries that participate in the World Values Survey study to think immigration increases unemployment, and second from top in thinking that immigrants fill important job vacancies.

They are very likely to say immigration boosts cultural diversity, and very unlikely to think immigration comes with crime and safety risks. However, more people in the UK think immigration leads to “social conflict” than in several other countries, including Canada, Japan and China.

The UK ranks highly for believing immigrants have a positive impact

The World Values Survey asks the same questions in countries that account for almost half the world’s population. The surveys in each country are not carried out simultaneously, so the latest UK findings are compared with data from other countries gathered since 2017.

“We have seen a shift that is quite remarkable in the UK,” said Madeleine Sumption, the director of the migration observatory at Oxford University, adding that the findings were in line with decreasing public concern about immigration since the 2016 EU referendum.

“There is speculation it is about the fact that the end of freedom of movement has created a feeling the UK now has more control,” she said.

She added that there had also been positive media coverage about what migrant workers bring to the economy, especially given worker shortages in industries such as agriculture.

“I think it potentially creates space for a less polarised debate about immigration,” she said. “To the extent there is a consensus that immigration can be positive for the country and the question was how to manage it well, you can imagine that would be more a technocratic debate.”

A Home Office spokesperson said: “Our points-based immigration system recognises the valuable contribution that people from around the world can make to our economy, public services and wider society. It attracts the best and brightest talent from across the globe by putting skill and talent first – not where someone comes from.”

Source: UK now among most accepting countries for foreign workers, survey finds

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , ,

Nicolas: Ô Canada… quoi?

2023/02/24 Leave a comment

Of interest:

La star du R&B canadien Jully Black refusait de chanter l’Ô Canada dans des événements sportifs depuis déjà quelques années. En entrevue à la CBC, elle raconte avoir été profondément ébranlée par les nouvelles entourant la découverte présumée de tombes non identifiées d’enfants autochtones sur les terrains d’anciens pensionnats. Depuis, les mots ne venaient plus.

Le week-end dernier, elle a toutefois accepté d’interpréter l’hymne national pour un match des étoiles de la NBA… à sa façon. Plutôt que de prononcer les paroles anglaises habituelles « our home and native land » (« notre maison et terre natale ») , elle y est plutôt allée d’un « our home on native land » bien senti. Notre maison en terre autochtone. Il n’en a pas fallu plus pour que tout le pays réagisse.

D’un côté, sur les médias sociaux, son geste a suscité beaucoup d’admiration, notamment de plusieurs personnalités autochtones. De l’autre, des Canadiens très attachés à l’Ô Canada ont cru qu’elle avait outrepassé son rôle. La division dans les réactions n’est pas sans rappeler la tempête qu’a déclenchée le genou à terre de Colin Kaepernick en 2016. L’ex-joueur étoile de la NFL avait ainsi voulu attirer l’attention sur le problème de la brutalité policière aux États-Unis.

Sauf que nous ne sommes pas aux États-Unis. Et ici, l’hymne national a une histoire très particulière. On a presque envie de sourire devant un chroniqueur conservateur de Toronto qui croit qu’on ne peut pas toucher aux paroles de l’Ô Canada.

On a envie de lui rappeler que la musique originale est de Calixa Lavallée, et que le poème est d’Adolphe-Basile Routhier. Que l’hymne a été chanté pour la première fois le 24 juin 1880, pour les fêtes de la Saint-Jean-Baptiste. Que le mot « Canada », à l’époque, était encore largement synonyme du Canada français. Et que les traductions anglaises (oui, au pluriel — il y en a eu plusieurs) constituent déjà une forme de récupération politique d’un chant qui a été conçu pour parler de tout autre chose que ce qu’il représente aujourd’hui.

Au fond, le geste de Jully Black représente l’appropriation d’une appropriation d’une oeuvre. En en modifiant les paroles dans son interprétation, Black a posé un geste politique sur un chant dont la trajectoire est déjà liée intimement à l’évolution sociale du pays.

Ce n’est qu’en 1980, juste avant le rapatriement de la Constitution par Pierre Elliott Trudeau, que l’Ô Canada est devenu par loi l’hymne national du pays. Avant, des générations d’enfants avaient dû entonner God Save the Queen (ou King) dans les écoles du Dominion. Et en 2018, les paroles anglaises ont été modifiées par le Parlement, pour que le « true patriot love in all thy sons command » devienne un « true patriot love in all of us command », moins genré.

L’Ô Canada porte donc en lui les traces du nationalisme canadien-français du XIXe siècle, de l’autonomisation progressive du pays par rapport à l’Empire britannique au cours du XXe siècle, et de l’égalité des genres du XXIe siècle.

La réflexion sur la place des peuples autochtones au pays et sur l’histoire de la colonisation, qui a pourtant largement avancé dans les dernières années, se trouve encore absente du texte. Par son interprétation, Jully Black a repris une suggestion qui avait d’ailleurs été faite à maintes reprises auparavant, notamment sur nombre d’affiches dans les manifestations des dernières années.

Reste à savoir si, au-delà du moment viral, quelque chose de concret restera de son geste.
• • • • •
La réflexion ci-haut pourrait apparaître à première vue complètement futile. En effet, il y a mille et une crises urgentes dans le monde : un hymne national n’est certainement pas une priorité. Et même modifiées, les paroles d’un chant symbolique restent nécessairement symboliques. « Our home on native land » entonné avec la plus belle voix du monde ne fait absolument rien, concrètement, pour changer les rapports de force entre Autochtones et non-Autochtones au pays. On aurait raison, donc, de pointer du doigt les limites des discussions sur des sujets aussi complexes que la colonisation qui portent seulement sur des questions de représentations abstraites.

Ce qui est intéressant ici, c’est que le débat sur l’Ô Canada advient parce qu’il y a eu transformation — ou du moins, évolution — des mentalités canadiennes. C’est parce qu’il y a une réflexion de plus en plus répandue sur le rapport de l’État canadien à ses territoires que le geste de Jully Black trouve un écho. Ce qui est intéressant ici, c’est donc moins la modification des paroles elle-même que la manière dont elle résonne.

La politique québécoise a longtemps été principalement divisée entre souverainistes et fédéralistes. Et le « fédéralisme », dans ce contexte, sous-entendait une défense du statu quo.

Le Canada qui a organisé le love-in de 1995 était un Canada convaincu de ses propres vertu, grandeur et perfection. Pour bien des Canadiens, dont Black s’est en quelque sorte fait la voix le week-end dernier, ce Canada-là n’existe plus.

La critique du nationalisme canadien n’est plus, depuis plusieurs années déjà, une question politique qui émane presque exclusivement du Québec. Bien sûr, les peuples autochtones ont aussi critiqué le pays depuis sa fondation même. Mais il se trouve aussi maintenant de plus en plus d’alliés sensibilisés à ces perspectives qui utilisent leur voix (ici, littéralement) pour remettre en question des idées pourtant centrales à l’édifice idéologique sur lequel le Canada s’est construit.

Parfois, cette évolution politique s’exprime sous forme de débat sur les statues présentes dans l’espace public ou sur le nom d’un édifice. Maintenant, c’est de l’hymne national dont il est question. Mais l’important, dans ces moments d’éclat, ce n’est jamais la statue, l’édifice ou le chant. L’essentiel de l’affaire réside toujours dans le récit qu’on se raconte, comme société, pour faire corps.

Source: Ô Canada… quoi?

Filed under Aboriginal Tagged with , , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →