Immigration Minister promises to address concerns over new federal immigration program

Lots of commentary regarding the barriers encountered by temporary workers in “other essential sectors” given language proof requirements, computer skills and accessibility and the like (likely less significant for healthcare workers not clear, and not barriers to international students).

The initial application numbers, as of about 5:30 this morning, highlight the barriers:

  • Healthcare workers: 644 applications out of 20,000 slots;
  • Essential non-healthcare workers: 4,460 out of 30,000;
  • International graduates: 37,778 out of 40,000 (almost completely subscribed).

The federal Immigration Minister says he is working to address concerns about a program launching this week that is aimed at creating a pathway to permanent residency for 90,000 people.

Marco Mendicino said he is committed to working with stakeholders and that he is open to the criticisms of various migrant groups as the program begins Thursday.

Announced in April, the program is designed to grant permanent residency to thousands of temporary foreign workers and graduated international students.

Under the measures, 20,000 temporary foreign workers in health care, 30,000 workers in other occupations deemed essential and 40,000 international students who have graduated from a university or college will be able to apply to become permanent residents.

“Before we prematurely rush to make any judgments about the train being on the tracks, let’s see it pick up steam, and ensure it stays on track and gets to its final destination,” Mr. Mendicino said Wednesday, “which is to welcome 90,000 newcomers in a way that is unprecedented.”

In a news conference this week, the Migrant Rights Network, representing organizations across Canada, said current requirements for this program, the short timeframe and the arbitrary caps ensure that only those in the best situations will be able to apply.

Opposition parties have called for a broader opening to welcome many more than 90,000 people.

On Wednesday, the minister was asked about specific problems with the program. They included application guides only now being available, many people scrambling to get language tests required to apply, and essential workers facing challenges applying.

In response, Mr. Mendicino said the program is “unprecedented” and ambitious. It was not a forgone conclusion that the government would proceed with the effort during a pandemic, he said, but that it was launched because of feedback from economists and the immigrant and migrant-workers community.

“I also acknowledge that because it is a new program, we have a lot of legwork to do to make sure that it is communicated clearly and there will be access to the program,” he said.

He added that guidelines have now been posted online, clarifying application needs. and said language-instruction operations are working to meet the demand.

Despite the minister’s assurances, Syed Hussan, executive director of the Migrant Workers Alliance for Change, said in an interview that he remained concerned about what his group sees as flaws in the program

He said, based on the alliance’s research, that the 90,000 openings fall far short of meeting the needs of 1.6 million migrants and undocumented people in Canada. He also said only a estimated 470,000 people can apply for spaces under the current rules.

“This is a short-term window, which excludes most people. It prioritizes those with the highest earnings, the highest access, and excludes the essential, low-wage workers that the Prime Minister, the Immigration Minister and most of our society says we value.”

Source: Immigration Minister promises to address concerns over new federal immigration program

The ‘hijab penalty’: Feminist backlash to Muslim immigrants in Germany | Penn Today

Of note. Interesting experiment:

Why do some Europeans discriminate against Muslim immigrants, and how can these instances of prejudice be reduced? Political scientist Nicholas Sambanis has spent the last few years looking into this question by conducting innovative studies at train stations across Germany involving willing participants, unknowing bystanders and, most recently, bags of lemons.

His newest study, co-authored with Donghyun Danny Choi at the University of Pittsburgh and Mathias Poertner at Texas A&M University, is forthcoming in the American Journal of Political Scienceand finds evidence of significant discrimination against Muslim women during everyday interactions with native Germans. That evidence comes from experimental interventions set up on train platforms across dozens of German cities and reveals that discrimination by German women is due to their beliefs that Muslims are regressive with respect to women’s rights. In effect, their experiment finds a feminist opposition to Muslims, and shows that discrimination is eliminated when Muslim women signaled that they shared progressive gender attitudes, says Sambanis, who directs the Penn Identity and Conflict Lab (PIC Lab), which he founded when he came to Penn in 2016.

Many studies in psychology have shown bias and discrimination are rooted in a sense that ethnic, racial, or religious differences create distance between citizens, he says. “Faced with waves of immigration from culturally different populations, many Europeans are increasingly supporting policies of coercive assimilation that eliminate those sources of difference by suppressing ethnic or religious marker, for example, by banning the hijab in public places or forcing immigrants to attend language classes,” Sambanis says. “Our research shows that bias and discrimination can be reduced via far less coercive measures—as long as immigration does not threaten core values that define the social identities of native populations.”

“The Hijab Penalty: Feminist Backlash to Muslim Immigrants” is the fourth study in a multiyear project on the topic of how to reduce prejudice against immigrants conducted by Sambanis and the team. The study’s co-authors, Choi and Poertner, started working on this project as postdoctoral fellows at the PIC Lab.

The new paper builds on the first leg of the project which was publishedin the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2019 and which explored whether discrimination against immigrants is reduced when immigrants show that they share civic norms that are valued by native citizens. That study found evidence that shared norms reduce but do not eliminate discrimination. The new study explores the impact of norms and ideas that are important to particular subgroups of the native population, and finds stronger effects when such norms are shared by immigrants.

The findings have implications for how to think about reducing conflict between native and immigrant communities in an era of increased cross-border migration, Sambanis says.

He and his co-authors conducted the large-scale field experiment in 25 cities across Germany involving more than 3,700 unknowing bystanders.

“Germany was a good case study because it has received the largest number of asylum applications in Europe since 2015, a result of the refugee crisis created by wars in Syria and other countries in the Middle East and Central Asia,” Sambanis says. “Germany has had a long history of immigration from Muslim countries since the early post-war period, and anti-immigrant sentiments have been high as a result of cultural differences. These differences are manipulated politically and become more salient.”

The intervention went like this: A woman involved in the study approached a bench at a train station where bystanders waited and drew their attention by asking them if they knew if she could buy tickets on the train.

She then received a phone call and audibly conversed with the caller in German regarding her sister, who was considering whether to take a job or stay at home and take care of her husband and her kids. The scripted conversation revealed the woman’s position on whether her sister has the right to work or a duty to stay at home to care for the family.

At the end of the phone call, a bag she was holding seemingly tears, making her drop a bunch of lemons, which scatter on the platform and she appeared to need help gathering them.

In the final step, team members who were not a part of the intervention observed and recorded whether each bystander who was within earshot of the phone call helped the women collect the lemons.

They experimentally varied the identity of the woman, who was sometimes a native German or an immigrant from the Middle East; and the immigrant sometimes wore a hijab to signal her Muslim identity and sometimes not.

They found that men were not very receptive to different messages regarding the woman’s attitude toward gender equality, but German women were. Among German women, anti-Muslim discrimination was eliminated when the immigrant woman signaled that she held progressive views vis-à-vis women’s rights. Men continued to discriminate in both the regressive and progressive conditions of the experiment.

It was a surprise that the experimental treatment did not seem to make a big difference in the behavior of men towards Muslim women.

“Women were very receptive to this message that we had about Muslims sharing progressive beliefs about women’s rights, but men were indifferent to it,” says Sambanis. “We expected that there would be a difference, and that the effect of the treatment would be larger among women, but we did not expect that it would be basically zero for men.”

The experiment makes gender identity more salient and establishes a common identity between native German women—most of whom share progressive views on gender—and the immigrant women in the progressive condition. This is the basis of the reduction of discrimination, Sambanis says, and it does not require coercive measures like forcing Muslims to take off the hijab. “You can overcome discrimination in other ways, but it is important to signal that that the two groups share a common set of norms and ideas that define appropriate civic behaviors.”

The results are surprising from the perspective of the prior literature, which assumed that it is very hard for people to overcome barriers created by race, religion, and ethnicity. At the same time, this experiment speaks to the limits of multiculturalism, says Sambanis. “Our work shows that differences in ethnic, racial, or linguistic traits can be overcome, but citizens will resist abandoning longstanding norms and ideas that define their identities in favor of a liberal accommodation of the values of others,” he says.

Nicholas Sambanis is a Presidential Distinguished Professor in the School of Arts & Sciences, chair of the Department of Political Science, and director of the Penn Identity and Conflict Lab at the University of Pennsylvania.

Source: The ‘hijab penalty’: Feminist backlash to Muslim immigrants in Germany | Penn Today

France grants citizenship to over 2,000 foreign workers for Covid-19 response

Faster than Canadian and Quebec programs to regularize the “anges guardians:”

Marlene Schiappa, junior interior minister in charge of citizenship, said that 2,009 people, including 665 minors, had been fast-tracked for naturalisation for “showing their attachment to the nation”.

Schiappa had instructed the authorities in September to speed up the citizenship applications of essential workers who had “actively contributed” to the fight against Covid-19.

She had ordered that they be allowed to apply for citizenship after just two years in France, instead of the usual requirement of five years.

Those involved include health workers, security guards, checkout workers, garbage collectors, home-care providers and nannies.

Over 8,000 people have applied for citizenship under the scheme, Schiappa’s office said, adding that all requests were being given “the greatest consideration”.

In 2020, 61,371 people acquired French citizenship, a decline of 20 percent compared with 2019.

Source: France grants citizenship to over 2,000 foreign workers for Covid-19 response

B.C. gives $2M to Japanese Canadian seniors as step toward righting internment wrongs

Of note:

British Columbia is offering tangible recognition of the historical wrongs caused by the province when it helped to intern thousands of Japanese Canadians during the Second World War.

The province has announced a $2-million fund for the Nikkei Seniors Health Care and Housing Society to enhance programming for seniors and local communities.

A statement from the Ministry of Attorney General says the fund will be used to develop and deliver health and wellness programs to Japanese Canadian internment survivors.

The society and the National Association of Japanese Canadians will also spread the funding to other organizations supporting survivors.

The ministry statement says the grant is a first step toward fulfilling a provincial promise to honour Japanese Canadians by recognizing the traumatic internment of almost 22,000 people beginning in 1942.

Health Minister Adrian Dix says the funding will allow internment survivors to connect with others in their community, helping them stay healthy and remain independent.

“The terrible loss suffered by thousands of Japanese Canadians in the 1940s is still impacting the community today, with many experiencing lasting health issues and trauma,” Dix says in the statement.

The Canadian government detained thousands of Japanese Canadians in early 1942 under the War Measures Act. They were held in crowded internment camps in B.C.’s Interior or were offered the option to work on sugar beet farms in Alberta and Manitoba for the remainder of the Second World War.

Their homes, farms, businesses and other property were sold off by the government and the proceeds were used to pay the cost of their detention.

Ruth Coles, president of the Nikkei Seniors Health Care and Housing Society, says many Japanese Canadian seniors were forced to rebuild their lives outside B.C. and now have “unique needs stemming from internment, forced uprooting, dispossession and displacement.”

Many still feel “shame and a lack of resolution” caused by the internment that have led to a lifetime of challenges, she says.

Then-prime minister Brian Mulroney formally apologized in 1988 for Canada’s role in the internment of Japanese Canadians and British Columbia recognized the discrimination and tremendous losses they suffered when it issued its own apology in the legislature in 2012.

Source: B.C. gives $2M to Japanese Canadian seniors as step toward righting internment wrongs

New Cato Survey Helps Reframe the Debate Over Legal Immigration

Cato Institute’s summary of the key takeaways of their survey that will inform their future work, featured earlier:

My colleagues Emily Ekins and David Kemp just released an excellent new survey on how Americans view immigration and identity. We all worked together on crafting the questions for several months prior to publication and the results are very interesting. Below are some findings and some lessons that folks who support immigration should take to heart.

First, the survey shows that most people know almost nothing about immigration. Even basic facts elude them. About 14 percent of the U.S. population is foreign‐​born but the average respondent thinks that 40 percent of the country’s population is foreign‐​born. Immigrants were the most likely to think that the immigrant population of the United States is high, estimating that 56 percent of the country is foreign‐​born, while third generation and higher Americans estimated 36 percent.

The differences likely result from where the respondents reside in the United States. Immigrants live close to other immigrants and native‐​born Americans live close to other native‐​born Americans. For instance, about 27 percent of California’s population is foreign‐​born compared to just 1.5 percent in West Virginia. Those who live closer to other immigrants are probably more likely to overestimate the immigrant percentage of the population. Using those two states as examples, immigrants in California overestimated the foreign‐​born share of the population by about a factor of two, while third generation and higher Americans in West Virginia were off by a factor of 24. Regardless, native‐​born Americans and immigrants both overestimate the share of immigrants.

Second, focusing on understandable metrics when communicating how the legal immigration system functions is more effective. Americans can better conceptualize the handful of years it takes to wait for a green card than the borderline abstract large quantity of visas issued per year. For example, one of the survey questions asked how long it should take to immigrate to the United States. Eighty percent of respondents said that it should take five years or less to immigrate, and they may have chosen that number because the question prompted them with a mention of a five‐​year average. However, 52 percent of respondents said it should take less than five years. However, responses to another question revealed that 61 percent of respondents said they wanted fewer than one million immigrants a year – probably because one million is a large and abstract number that is difficult to visualize even though it’s a relatively small number of people compared to the roughly 330 million people living in the United States. By comparison, everybody understands what five years feels like and 80 percent of respondents answered that immigrants should wait five years or less for a green card. One lesson is that we should talk about immigration restrictions in terms of waiting times rather than numbers of visas. On the policy side, a maximum wait time for a visa without regard to the numerical caps would increase the number of visas issued without increasing the numerical caps on paper and be more rhetorically appealing. Fortunately, Cato proposed just such a reform in 2020.

Third, Americans care much less about job protectionism than we all thought. Two‐​thirds of respondents said that businesses should be “allowed to hire whoever they believe is best qualified for the job regardless of nationality.” This is great news because wage and job‐​protection regulations are responsible for a large percentage of the regulatory costs for sponsoring immigrants for employment‐​based green cards and other temporary work visas such as the H-1B, H-2A, and H-2B. Removing those regulations would face less popular backlash than many of us assumed.

Fourth, most Americans think that restrictive immigration laws cause illegal immigration. Forty‐​one percent said illegal immigration is caused by the legal immigration system being too restrictive and 19 percent said illegal immigrants were ineligible to apply. Most respondents are primed to understand that restrictions and government bureaucracy are the causes of illegal immigration.

Fifth, 56 percent said that simplifying the legal immigration process is a better way to deal with illegal immigration than building a border wall or increasing border security. This is incredibly good news for those of us who want to expand and liberalize legal immigration. Some findings in the field of political psychology suggest otherwise, that perceptions of chaos along the border influence voters to oppose immigration liberalization. Apparently, most people see chaos and their instinct is to support more enforcement and government control rather than liberalization. This creates a Catch‐​22 because the only way to get sustainable control over the border is through liberalization but liberalization can only be politically sustainable if voters think the border is under control. On the contrary, this survey result indicates that respondents are more open to liberalization as a means of border control than the political psychology literature suggests.

There are many other fascinating findings in this Cato survey on immigration and identity and I recommend that you read and digest it all. However, the above findings are those that we will seek to most incorporate into our work.

Source: New Cato Survey Helps Reframe the Debate Over Legal Immigration

Pelletier: La polarisation numéro 1 [Loi 21]

Of note:

La réputation consensuelle du Québec en prend pour son rhume. Les reportages publiés dans Le Devoir depuis une semaine démontrent que la chicane habite bel et bien nos cabanes, à cette différence près : on se divise, oui, mais en se donnant des « câlins ». En minimisant la discorde dans la mesure du possible. Ce n’est pas tant la chicane qu’on n’aime pas, en fait, c’est son étalage. À cet égard, les réseaux sociaux sont bien arrimés à la psyché québécoise. Sur les plateformes numériques, on fesse, on crache, on insulte, mais sous couvert de l’anonymat. Le mythe d’un Québec consensuel et harmonieux peut donc continuer comme si de rien n’était.

Il n’y a pas meilleur exemple d’un supposé consensus, pourtant pétri de discorde, que la question de la laïcité. « Au Québec, c’est comme ça qu’on vit », disait fameusement François Legault, lors de sa défense télévisée de la loi 21. Comme si, à ce sujet, nous regardions tous dans la même direction. La décision récente du juge Marc-André Blanchard reconnaissant la constitutionnalité de la loi, tout en soustrayant les commissions scolaires anglophones de son application, est venue, bien malgré lui, consacrer cette notion du Québec francophone tout de go derrière l’interdiction des signes religieux. Ce verdict permettait de conclure que seuls les gens de l’extérieur de la province ou encore les minorités religieuses et anglophones s’opposent à la loi.

Rien n’est plus faux, évidemment. Si on a souligné à gros trait la participation du Conseil canadien musulman à cette contestation juridique, rappelons que la Fédération autonome de l’enseignement du Québec, et d’autres, en faisait également partie. Au moment de l’adoption de la loi, en 2019, deux autres centrales syndicales, la CSN et la CSQ, se sont également opposées, sans oublier les commissions scolaires, le Barreau du Québec, la Ligue des droits et libertés, la Commission des droits de la personne, le Parti libéral et Québec solidaire ainsi que de nombreux artistes et intellectuels québécois.

Non, le Québec, même francophone, n’est pas d’un même avis sur cette question. Seulement, c’est tout comme. Il est de plus en plus difficile d’argumenter contre la Révolution tranquille, contre la société distincte, contre la nécessité pour le Québec de défendre sa façon de faire et, par extension, sa survivance. Il est quasi impossible d’opposer des arguments purement rationnels à quelque chose d’aussi profondément émotif — le jugement Blanchard le rappelle de plus belle.

Après avoir redoré le blason de trois partis politiques — l’ADQ de Mario Dumont en 2007 jusqu’à la CAQ de François Legault en 2018, en passant par le PQ et sa charte des valeurs en 2013 —, l’interdiction des signes religieux est désormais perçue comme l’ultime acte de résistance de la nation francophone. Peu importe si le geste est démesuré, voire inutile — il n’y a pas de problème de religion au Québec depuis plus d’un demi-siècle ! — le vrai « leadership », clamait M. Legault récemment, exige qu’on défende le Québec l’arme au poing. Il ne faudrait surtout pas avoir peur d’utiliser la clause dérogatoire, dit-il. Loin d’en avoir honte, cette mesure serait devenue un véritable badge d’honneur, la mesure du vrai patriote.

Déjà très polarisée, la décision du juge Blanchard a invariablement polarisé la question de la laïcité encore davantage. Le débat se pose désormais en ces termes : se laisser dicter nos règles de l’extérieur ou pas. Va-t-on laisser ceux qui ne nous comprennent pas (lire la Cour suprême) nous dire quoi faire ? Il y a ici un véritable enjeu démocratique, c’est vrai. Seulement, il n’est pas celui que l’on pense. Le danger n’est pas que le Québec perde de son autonomie législative, le danger est l’affaiblissement à long terme des droits et libertés pour l’ensemble du Québec.

Rappelons, d’abord, ce qui se perd de plus en plus dans ce débat à sens unique : pourquoi il nous faut des chartes des droits et libertés et pourquoi celles-ci bénéficient d’un statut « supralégislatif ». La Déclaration universelle des droits de l’homme, la première à voir le jour en 1948, et toutes celles qui ont été adoptées par la suite, comme au Québec (1975) et au Canada (1982), sont là pour assurer que personne, indépendamment de son sexe, son ethnie, sa religion ou son orientation sexuelle ne soit traité différemment. C’est la règle la plus sophistiquée, la plus civilisée, dont dispose l’humanité depuis la nuit des temps. C’est également un code qui, par définition, doit transcender l’enceinte politique. On ne peut pas laisser le sort des plus vulnérables (les minorités) entièrement dans les mains des plus puissants (les majorités), c’est la grande leçon du XXe siècle. Par conséquent, il n’y a que les tribunaux, consacrés à l’arbitrage impartial, qui peuvent y voir.

Rappelons aussi que la loi 21 suspend non seulement la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés mais également la Charte québécoise, nous laissant orphelins en la matière. À force de jouer la carte du salut de la nation, pour des raisons opportunistes, strictement politiques, le Québec est en train de se peinturer dans un coin sombre.

Source: https://www.ledevoir.com/opinion/chroniques/600085/la-polarisation-numero-1?utm_source=infolettre-2021-05-05&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=infolettre-quotidienne

Le critère du français pourrait être abaissé pour certains immigrants au Québec

Of note (reality):

Pour être plus compétitif, Québec envisage de modifier sa grille de sélection et d’abaisser le critère de la connaissance du français pour les travailleurs qualifiés de certains secteurs. Rappelant que l’immigration doit répondre aux besoins du marché du travail, la ministre de l’Immigration, de la Francisation et de l’Intégration, Nadine Girault, a reconnu que pour attirer certains talents, les programmes devront s’ajuster.

« On va modifier une partie, car on veut aller chercher des spécialistes du marché. Dans certains secteurs, c’est extrêmement difficile [d’attirer des gens qui parlent français] », a-t-elle dit en répondant aux nombreuses questions de l’opposition lors de l’étude des crédits de son ministère mardi. « Le critère du français va être toujours là. On veut le faire en fonction des différents postes, mais on est en train de négocier là-dessus. »

Certains projets pilotes testent actuellement cette possibilité, a rappelé la ministre. « On va peut-être regarder pour ouvrir certains de ces postes de nos projets pilotes à des gens qui ne sont pas nécessairement francophones actuellement, mais qui auront l’obligation de se franciser », a-t-elle précisé, assurant que ces personnes devront « signer un engagement formel » pour se franciser.

Mme Girault a déclaré du même souffle que le français devait être encouragé chez les immigrants. « On ne baissera pas le niveau de français et c’est pour ça qu’on met tous les efforts en francisation. On a augmenté le nombre de ressources en francisation », a-t-elle dit, soulignant que jamais autant d’argent n’aura été mis en francisation que les 170 millions consacrés en 2019 par son prédécesseur, Simon Jolin-Barrette.

Un « recul majeur »

Cette déclaration de la ministre a fait grandement réagir les députés de l’opposition. « On a un recul majeur si on est en train de réviser pour certains secteurs professionnels le niveau de français exigé. Surtout que ça vient d’un gouvernement qui dit qu’il aurait le plan le plus costaud en matière de protection de la langue française », a déclaré au Devoir la députée péquiste Méganne Perry-Melançon. Selon elle, le niveau de français ne doit pas uniquement être déterminé par le cadre professionnel, le rôle qu’il joue dans l’intégration doit aussi être pris en compte. « Ces gens-là doivent pouvoir se sentir intégrés et ça passe certainement par la maîtrise du français. »

La députée libérale Christine St-Pierre a quant à elle dénoncé le double discours de la ministre Girault. « Il y a le discours comptable et économique de dire que dans certains secteurs, ce n’est pas grave si on réduit les critères de français, mais pour d’autres catégories, on va dire aux gens qu’ils seront soumis à des critères plus sévères et stricts. » Pour elle, les gens pour qui le critère du français sera abaissé se destinent à des emplois nichés, bien payés et visant des entreprises qui se concentrent à Montréal, alors que plusieurs études ont démontré que la métropole s’anglicise. « C’est deux discours. Ceux qui sont riches, vous êtes les bienvenus et ceux qui n’ont pas de bons salaires, ce sera plus difficile pour vous. »

À la défense de Legault

La ministre de Girault s’est également portée à la défense du premier ministre François Legault, en réaffirmant l’importance de sélectionner l’immigration en fonction des besoins du marché du travail. Lors d’une rencontre privée devant le Conseil du patronat, M. Legault avait parlé de son obsession pour augmenter le salaire moyen au Québec et réduire l’écart avec l’Ontario. « À chaque fois que je rentre un immigrant qui gagne moins de 56 000 [$], j’empire mon problème », peut-on entendre dans un enregistrement obtenu par Radio-Canada.

Les députés de l’opposition ont talonné la ministre sur cette question pendant l’étude des crédits. Le député de Québec solidaire, Andrés Fontecilla, a tenté en vain d’obtenir des données sur le type de qualification et les catégories « par lesquelles rentre l’immigration en ce moment. »

Nadine Girault a expliqué que la plateforme Arrima permet aux employeurs d’aller chercher des travailleurs qualifiés dont ils ont besoin, et ce, dans tous les domaines. « Les immigrants qu’on veut aller chercher, oui ils pourraient combler [ce type de] postes [à plus haut salaire] mais on a aussi des programmes pilotes pour des immigrants, comme des préposées aux bénéficiaires, en transformation agroalimentaire. Ces immigrants ne vont pas gagner 56 000 par année. »

Longs délais de traitement

La députée libérale a également tenu à rappeler à la ministre qu’à l’automne dernier, le secrétaire d’État chargé du Tourisme, des Français de l’étranger et de la Francophonie, Jean-Baptiste Lemoyne, s’était publiquement déclaré insatisfait de la façon dont étaient gérés les dossiers de résidence permanente de nombreux Français et que ce dossier devait être en tête de liste des discussions entre la France et le Québec. La semaine dernière, Le Devoir faisait état des longs délais de traitement des dossiers de résidence permanente, en rapportant des témoignages de nombreux immigrants qui attendent une réponse depuis parfois plus de deux ans. Plus de 50 000 personnes sont en attente d’une résidence permanente au Québec.

La ministre Girault a insisté sur le fait que l’octroi de ce statut relève du gouvernement fédéral et qu’elle a eu des discussions sur le sujet avec son homologue, Marco Mendicino, mardi matin. Elle aurait eu l’assurance que le traitement serait accéléré pour que les cibles de 2021 soient atteintes, de même que le rattrapage pour l’année 2020, où moins d’immigrants que prévu ont été admis.

Programme des anges gardiens

La ministre de l’Immigration n’entend pas élargir le programme l’admissibilité au programme spécial de régularisation des demandeurs d’asile ayant travaillé dans la santé. Depuis son annonce l’été dernier, elle subissait des pressions du milieu pour qu’il soit étendu à toutes personnes ayant occupé des emplois les mettant à risque de contracter la COVID-19, et non pas uniquement au cours de la première vague. « Le programme a été monté pour aider les gens de la première vague », a insisté la ministre Girault. « On voulait une façon spéciale de les remercier », a-t-elle ajouté, laissant entendre que les demandeurs d’asile ayant travaillé durant les 2e et 3e vagues avaient eu du renfort.

Selon les chiffres d’Immigration, Réfugiés et Citoyenneté Canada (IRCC) datés du 10 avril, à peine 7 % (94 sur 1400) des « dossiers » du Québec avaient reçu une « approbation en principe », contre près de 50 % pour ceux dans le reste du Canada. Le cabinet de la ministre de l’Immigration a assuré de son côté que la délivrance des Certificats de sélection du Québec (CSQ) allait bon train, en fournissant des statistiques plus récentes. En date du 3 mai, il aurait finalisé 377 dossiers de CSQ, ce qui correspond à 809 CSQ délivrés.

Source: Le critère du français pourrait être abaissé pour certains immigrants au Québec

Applicants to Canada’s special, one-time immigration program are being forced to navigate the system alone, critics charge

Will be an interesting and important test of IRCC’s modernization efforts. We will see whether the fears of immigration lawyers and consultants are overblown or whether IRCC can design pathways and processes that many can navigate on their own.

Not to be cynical, but simplification in any area or online tools (e.g., will and tax software) often prompt fears of lawyers, accountants and other professionals who benefit from complexity:

With Canada’s highly anticipated special immigration program set to open Thursday, experts say they’re worried about the potential for chaos.

Immigration lawyers briefed about the new program and its portal say they’ve been told applicants must create their own accounts, complete the online application and upload all required documents on their own — without professional legal help.

“There are different forms they need to fill out about family information, travel history, all the (previous) addresses, work history and study periods. They require all the forms and documentations upfront, just shy of the medical and police clearances,” said Toronto lawyer Barbara Jo Caruso.

“Everything needs to be labelled, uploaded and properly attached. If they are not done properly, they will be deemed incomplete and refused.”

The applications are being taken on a first-come, first-served basis. Even if an application is incomplete or an applicant is ineligible, once it’s logged into the portal, it’s counted toward the 90,000 cap under this new program. The system will stop accepting applications once that cap is reached.

Lawyers and consultants asked during the briefing if the portal would reopen if many applicants turned out to be ineligible, but they said immigration officials didn’t have an answer.

The one-time-only immigration pathway, announced in April, aims to grant permanent residence to 90,000 applicants comprising recent international graduates and temporary foreign workers with experience in health-care and essential occupations.

These already-in-Canada candidates have been prioritized to help the country meet its 410,000 annual immigration targets amid uncertainty given the ongoing COVID-19 border restrictions.

The new pathway has already created a buzz — and frenzy — among candidates who have found themselves scrambling to register for one of the two government-designated language tests required to prove language proficiency in their application. (Details about the application process have yet to be published.)

Authorized lawyers and consultants have previously had their own portals with the immigration department that they use to complete and submit applications on behalf of clients.

However, the new stand-alone portal for the new pathway only allows applicants to log in through their personal email and there’s no interface to link their account to their counsel.

“If your whole future depends on this whole process, you want to be fair, you want to be understanding, you want people to have experience in working in the government portal to assist you,” Caruso said.

“It’s tedious work. Government technology is not user-friendly at the best of times, let alone when you are under pressure. There’s a cap and you want to make sure you’re the first one in.”

Among the 90,000 spots of the new program, 20,000 will be dedicated for temporary foreign workers in health care; 30,000 for those in other selected essential occupations; and the remaining 40,000 for international students who graduated from a Canadian institution.

Many of the essential workers will likely have to take time off from work and spend hours to figure out the new pathway application process.

“They are the essential workers. They are the people driving trucks. They’re the people on the front line in the health-care system,” said Toronto immigration lawyer Ravi Jain.

“Many people will apply even if they don’t have their language test results. They are just going to ignore the instructions and hit the submit button. Every time you hit ‘submit,’ you take a spot.”

Last year, the federal government got rid of its first-come-first-serve system for Canadians to sponsor their parents and grandparents abroad as permanent residents after public outrage that the available spots were snapped up within minutes.

It prompted Ottawa to re-introduce a lottery system, in which interested sponsors are now required to first register to enter into the draw, then submit a full sponsorship application if they are selected after duplicate and incomplete forms are weeded out.

“The reality is there are always going to be people who are going to be harmed no matter what direction it goes. There’s a race to file. There are so many things that could go wrong. But then what are the alternatives?” said Mark Holthe, chair of the Canadian Bar Association immigration law section.

“There’s a lot of little nuances with the application that people won’t understand. I envision that we could have up to 20 per cent or even 30 per cent of spoiled applications that people are ineligible who are using up the capped spots.”

Holthe, who started an online course in April to help applicants manoeuvre the basics of the immigration portal, expects the application package for the new pathway to be comparable to the existing one for the immigration of skilled workers.

Anyone interested in applying should start compiling and scanning documentations such as copies of their passports, work permits, reference letters and employment records as these are likely what would be required in the application, he suggested.

There is still time for the immigration department to get the process “right,” says Kareem El-Assal, managing editor of immigration news site CIC News and policy director at CanadaVisa.com.

“Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada deserves credit for trying to accommodate more essential workers and graduates during this crisis,” he said. “But they need to be careful about dotting their i’s and crossing their t’s before they launch the (pathway) streams.”

Alexander Cohen, Immigration Minister Marco Mendicino’s press secretary, said his office is aware of the concerns raised regarding the access to the new portal.

“We remain in close contact with several key stakeholders and are looking into this,” Cohen told the Star.

Source: Applicants to Canada’s special, one-time immigration program are being forced to navigate the system alone, critics charge

Germany Sees 72 Percent Increase in Anti-Immigrant Crimes

Of note:

Germany recorded a 72.4 percent increase in anti-immigrant crimes in 2020 – up to 5,298 total cases – as officials warned Tuesday that the country is experiencing a dangerous rise in far-right violence.

Interior Minister Horst Seehofer said in total, far-right crimes rose 5.65 percent in 2020, and accounted for more than half of all “politically motivated” crimes.

“This shows again that right-wing extremism is the biggest threat for our country,” Seehofer said Tuesday, according to the Associated Press.

In February 2020, the country saw its deadliest anti-immigrant attack when nine immigrants were killed near Frankfurt, Germany, after a gunman opened fire and called for the “complete extermination” of many “races or cultures in our midst,” the AP reported.

Authorities have since raised concerns that the far-right Alternative for Germany party, or AFD, which placed third in the country’s 2017 election and has grown in influence, has played a role in stoking a climate of hatred toward immigrants and the government.

German security agencies have warned of the growing threat of violent far-right extremism. In July 2019, a regional politician from Chancellor Angela Merkel‘s party was killed by a neo-Nazi; three months later, a gunman tried to force his way into a synagogue on Yom Kippur, killing two people.

Seehofer said antisemitic crimes in Germany were up 15.7 percent in 2020 over 2019 with 2,351 total incidents — 94.6 percent of which were committed by a far-right suspect.

Of the total, 62 were acts of violence while the majority were antisemitic hate speech and other related crimes, frequently on the internet or over social media, Seehofer said.

“This development in Germany is not only troubling, but in view of our history, deeply shameful,” he said.

Moshe Kantor, president of the European Jewish Congress, said the German numbers highlighted a broader issue.

“This is a wake-up call, not just for Germany, but for the whole world,” he said. “These figures should ring alarm bells, because we are seeing similar trends across the Western world.”

Many in the AfD have expressed support for, and participated in, the regular protests in Germany against lockdown measures, organized by the Querdenker movement. The demonstrations have become increasingly violent, and the country’s domestic intelligence service last month said it had put some members of the movement under observation.

The protests have brought together a broad range of demonstrators, including people opposing vaccinations, those who deny the existence of the coronavirus, mask opponents, conspiracy theorists and others.

Seehofer said the protests have also attracted neo-Nazis and other right-wing extremists, and have regularly become violent, targeting police and the media. Seehofer said of the 260 reported crimes against journalists, 112 were related to protests against coronavirus restrictions.

“I want to say here very clearly: These acts of violence are no longer about exercising a constitutional right (to demonstrate), but are acts of violence of a criminal nature that I condemn in the strongest possible terms,” he said.

Source: Germany Sees 72 Percent Increase in Anti-Immigrant Crimes

#COVID-19: Comparing provinces with other countries 5 May Update

The latest charts, compiled 5 May as the third wave continues. The ongoing spike of infections and deaths in India per million still has not resulted in a change in the relative ranking given the size of India’s population.

Vaccinations: Overall, Canada and most provinces continue to be comparable or greater to EU countries.

Trendline charts

Infections per million: The ongoing spikes in Alberta and Ontario continue, with Alberta significantly ahead of Quebec, Ontario ahead of the Prairies.

Deaths per million: Gap between G7, Quebec and other provinces continues to grow.

Vaccinations per million: Vaccination rates in Canadian provinces continue to increase more quickly than overall G7 less Canada countries. Increases among immigration source country reflect China and India mass vaccination roll-out, but at lower rates of increase compared to Canadian provinces and G7.

Weekly

Infections per million: Sweden now ahead of California, Italy now ahead of UK, and Ontario ahead of Canada .

Deaths per million: France ahead of California, India ahead of Philippines