Big Data has allowed ICE to dramatically expand its deportation efforts.

Of note (Palantir hired former Canadian Ambassador to Washington to lead its Canadian operations):

A New Mexico man gets a call from federal child welfare officials. His teenage brother has arrived alone at the border after traveling 2,000 miles to escape a violent uncle in Guatemala. The officials ask him to take custody of the boy. He hesitates; he is himself undocumented. The officials say not to worry. He agrees and gives the officials his information. Seven months later, ICE agents arrest him at his house and start deportation proceedings.

A family in suburban Maryland gets a knock at their door. A child opens it. ICE agents enter and take away a man as his children watch. In the decades that he lived in this country as an unauthorized immigrant, the man never had a run-in with law enforcement. No, the agents explain as they walk him to their car: They found him because of the information he gave the Maryland DMV when he got a driver’s license.

For the past decade, ICE often found its targets in the interior of the U.S. by analyzing booking fingerprints from state and local jails. But the New Mexico and Maryland stories demonstrate a new trend: Increasingly, ICE is tapping much deeper wells of data to identify people for deportation. That’s possible in large part due to Palantir Technologies, a Silicon Valley start-up poised to go public Sept. 29 in the biggest tech stock listing since Uber. Palantir’s case management software, data analysis and visualization software, and mobile app are the final layer of ICE’s vast surveillance and data sharing network.

I have worked in technology policy for more than a decade. In most meetings, I am the only Latino in the room. I’m almost always the only Latinx immigrant. Much of my work focuses on how surveillance affects immigrants and people of color. Yet, even for me, it is hard to see the technology behind ICE’s brutality. Palantir’s public offering forces us to reckon with that dinfrastructure. As authorities separated thousands of children from their parents, used reunification interviews to track down and deport children’s relatives, and warehoused immigrants in fetid facilities where six children died in less than a year, they also consolidated a powerful and dangerous domestic surveillance dragnet.

For a long time, mass deportations were a small-data affair, driven by tips, one-off investigations, or animus-driven hunches. But beginning under George W. Bush, and expanding under Barack Obama, ICE leadership started to reap the benefits of Big Data. The centerpiece of that shift was the “Secure Communities” program, which gathered the fingerprints of arrestees at local and state jails across the nation and compared them with immigration records. That program quickly became a major driver for interior deportations. But ICE wanted more data. The agency had long tapped into driver address records through law enforcement networks. Eyeing the breadth of DMV databases, agents began to ask state officials to run face recognition searches on driver photos against the photos of undocumented people. In Utah, for example, ICE officers requested hundreds of face searches starting in late 2015. Many immigrants avoid contact with any government agency, even the DMV, but they can’t go without heat, electricity, or water; ICE aimed to find them, too. So, that same year, ICE paid for access to a private database that includes the addresses of customers from 80 national and regional electric, cable, gas, and telephone companies.

Amid this bonanza, at least, the Obama administration still acknowledged red lines. Some data were too invasive, some uses too immoral. Under Donald Trump, these limits fell away.

In 2017, breaking with prior practice, ICE started to use data from interviews with scared, detained kids and their relatives to find and arrest more than 500 sponsors who stepped forward to take in the children. At the same time, ICE announced a plan for a social media monitoring program that would use artificial intelligence to automatically flag 10,000 people per month for deportation investigations. (It was scuttled only when computer scientists helpfully indicated that the proposed system was impossible.) The next year, ICE secured access to 5 billion license plate scans from public parking lots and roadways, a hoard that tracks the drives of 60 percent of Americans—an initiative blocked by Department of Homeland Security leadership four years earlier. In August, the agency cut a deal with Clearview AI, whose technology identifies people by comparing their faces not to millions of driver photos, but to 3 billion images from social media and other sites. This is a new era of immigrant surveillance: ICE has transformed from an agency that tracks some people sometimes to an agency that can track anyone at any time.

This is where Palantir’s work for ICE comes into focus. A panoply of companies collect the data.
Palantir connects the dots. The firm helps agents access different databases, build profiles from disparate sources, from commercial data brokers to driver’s license records, and see how targets interrelate to each other. The company’s software appears to be part of the agency’s largest and most aggressive enforcement actions.

Indeed, the plan for the 2017 operation that first targeted the sponsors of unaccompanied immigrant kids, obtained by the immigrant rights group Mijente, reveals a complex web of interlocking agencies, including Health and Human Services, Customs and Border Protection, and two branches of ICE. To track the moving pieces, the paper repeatedly tells officials to enter data into “ICM,” ICE’s custom-built Investigative Case Management software. Who wrote that code? Palantir.

In its recent 310-page securities filing, Palantir makes no express mention of ICE, immigrants, deportations, or the controversy that its work for ICE has generated. Instead, in his letter to investors, CEO Alex Karp repeatedly touts Palantir’s commitment to the military and the intelligence community: “Our software is used to target terrorists and to keep soldiers safe,” he writes. When criticized, Karp has described Palantir’s work for ICE as “limited,” “a de minimis part of our work”—strange things for American contractor to say about its second–largest U.S. government client.

There is another way to read Palantir’s silence: Its leadership has decided that the cost of its work for ICE is de minimis, that in the eyes of its clients and the investing public it simply does not matter. As a Latino and an immigrant, I worry that on this point they will be right.

Source: Big Data has allowed ICE to dramatically expand its deportation efforts.

Cost Of Racism: U.S. Economy Lost $16 Trillion Because Of Discrimination, Bank Says

From Citigroup:

Nationwide protests have cast a spotlight on racism and inequality in the United States. Now a major bank has put a price tag on how much the economy has lost as a result of discrimination against African Americans: $16 trillion.

Since 2000, U.S. gross domestic product lost that much as a result of discriminatory practices in a range of areas, including in education and access to business loans, according to a new study by Citigroup. It’s not an insignificant number: By comparison, U.S. GDP totaled $19.5 trillion last year.

And not acting to reverse discriminatory practices will continue to exact a cost. Citigroup estimates the economy would see a $5 trillion boost over the next five years if the U.S. were to tackle key areas of discrimination against African Americans.

“We believe we have a responsibility to address current events and to frame them with an economic lens in order to highlight the real costs of longstanding discrimination against minority groups, especially against Black people and particularly in the U.S.,” wrote Raymond J. McGuire, a vice chairman at the bank and the chairman of its banking, capital markets and advisory team.

Wall Street itself has also faced accusations for years of discriminatory practices against African Americans, such as limiting approval for mortgages or not providing enough banking options in minority neighborhoods, which are among the damaging actions identified by Citigroup researchers.

Specifically, the study came up with $16 trillion in lost GDP by noting four key racial gaps between African Americans and whites:

  • $13 trillion lost in potential business revenue because of discriminatory lending to African American entrepreneurs, with an estimated 6.1 million jobs not generated as a result
  • $2.7 trillion in income lost because of disparities in wages suffered by African Americans
  • $218 billion lost over the past two decades because of discrimination in providing housing credit
  • And $90 billion to $113 billion in lifetime income lost from discrimination in accessing higher education

As a result, Citigroup urges a slew of actions to reverse discriminatory practices and boost GDP over the next five years, including addressing the wage gap suffered by African Americans and promoting diversity at the top within banks and companies.

Citigroup’s recommendations aren’t new: Various studies have shown similar findings, and experts have called for similar action for years, though so far progress has been slow.

Source: Cost Of Racism: U.S. Economy Lost $16 Trillion Because Of Discrimination, Bank Says

EU immigration: two fifths of firms won’t reallocate roles to Britons

Yet more aftereffects from Brexit:

Nine out of 10 UK businesses believe the recruitment of EU nationals plays an important role in their UK operations, but despite potential losses of EU employees, two fifths of businesses do not plan on reallocating roles to Britons.

According to a report released today by immigration law firm Fragomen, 41% of respondents said they would not replace low-skilled workers with new hires, opting instead to move work overseas, scale down production, do less business in the UK or to automate more. And 39% of employers plan to do the same for high-skilled roles that may be lost to the new immigration system.

Following the UK’s departure from the EU, the UK government is set to overhaul the UK immigration system on 1 January 2021, ending the free movement for European citizens.

Fragomen, which surveyed 502 UK businesses, found that 70% of employers have concerns about the prospect of new immigration policies coming into effect. Only 20% of UK employers fully understand how the new policies will impact their recruitment and less than 60% have offered support to employees in applying for settled status in the UK.

Ian Robinson, partner at Fragomen, said: “We are rapidly moving closer to a new immigration system which will mean huge changes for businesses across the UK, but it is clear that a vast majority of employers are not prepared. The end of free movement for EU citizens is a fundamental change to the UK’s relationship with the EU and businesses will need to rethink how they staff their organisation and run their operations”.

“The report clearly demonstrates businesses are unprepared for the changes, with the IT, hospitality and construction sectors most concerned about new policies. Understandably, the global pandemic has made long-term planning difficult but all business with EU employees need to take immediate steps to assess their business to understand how the new immigration policies will impact their staffing and what the associated costs of the new system will be to your company. There is still time, but employers must act now.”

Despite government efforts to promote the scheme, 22% of UK employers do not know where to find information in order to support their EU employees ahead of the deadline, while three in 10 did not fully understand the cost of the new immigration system.

Fragomen surveyed 502 people working in human resources and global mobility across a range of sectors and company sizes.

There has been some discussion about the UK introducing a Displaced Talent Mobility programme to enable UK employers to sponsor skilled people who are forcibly displaced. Asked what business would do if such a visa was introduced, 73% of employers said they would actively look for or consider opportunities to sponsor candidates from this talent pool.

Marina Brizar, UK director of Talent Beyond Boundaries, which helps displaced people move internationally for work by leveraging their professional, said: “Talent shortages will affect the future of the UK’s economy and society, so developing new and creative solutions to address shortages is essential.

“The globally forcibly displaced population should be part of the solution through Displaced Talent Mobility. It is encouraging that this model is being seriously considered and enthusiastically embraced by the policymakers and the business community.”

Source: EU immigration: two fifths of firms won’t reallocate roles to Britons

SFT: Anti-racism and immigration language

While the “addressing systemic racism” is reasonably specific and focussed, the section on immigration appears deliberately vague given the uncertainty due to COVID:

Addressing systemic racism

For too many Canadians, systemic racism is a lived reality. We know that racism did not take a pause during the pandemic. On the contrary, COVID-19 has hit racialized Canadians especially hard.

Many people – especially Indigenous people, and Black and racialized Canadians – have raised their voices and stood up to demand change.

They are telling us we must do more. The Government agrees.

The Government pledged to address systemic racism, and committed to do so in a way informed by the lived experiences of racialized communities and Indigenous Peoples.

The Government has invested in economic empowerment through the Black Entrepreneurship Program, while working to close the gaps in services for Indigenous communities. Important steps were taken with the release of Canada’s Anti-Racism Strategy for 2019-2022, the creation of an anti-racism secretariat, and the appointment of the first-ever Minister focused specifically on diversity and inclusion. This is all good, but much more needs to be done for permanent, transformative change to take shape.

The Government will redouble its efforts by:

  • Taking action on online hate;
  • Going further on economic empowerment for specific communities, and increasing diversity on procurement;
  • Building a whole-of-federal-government approach around better collection of disaggregated data;
  • Implementing an action plan to increase representation in hiring and appointments, and leadership development within the Public Service;
  • And taking new steps to support the artistic and economic contributions of Black Canadian culture and heritage.

Progress must also be made throughout the policing and justice systems. All Canadians must have the confidence that the justice system is there to protect them, not to harm them. Black Canadians and Indigenous Peoples are overrepresented in the criminal justice system. That has to change.

The Government will take steps to ensure that the strong hand of criminal justice is used where it is needed to keep people safe, but not where it would be discriminatory or counterproductive.

The Government will:

  • Introduce legislation and make investments that take action to address the systemic inequities in all phases of the criminal justice system, from diversion to sentencing, from rehabilitation to records;
  • Move forward on enhanced civilian oversight of our law enforcement agencies, including the RCMP;
  • Modernize training for police and law enforcement, including addressing standards around the use of force;
  • Move forward on RCMP reforms, with a shift toward community-led policing;
  • And accelerate work to co-develop a legislative framework for First Nations policing as an essential service.

A welcoming Canada

Immigration remains a driver of Canada’s economic growth.

With other countries rejecting global talent that could help their economy, Canada has an opportunity as we recover to become the world’s top destination for talent, capital, and jobs. When people choose Canada, help build Canada, and make sacrifices in support of Canada, we should make it easier for them to formally become Canadian.

Earlier this year, the Government announced measures to grant permanent residency to people who, although not Canadian citizens, had cared for the most vulnerable in long-term care homes and other medical facilities.

The Government will continue to bring in newcomers and support family reunification. We know that there is an economic and human advantage to having families together.

As part of both the short-term economic recovery and a long-term plan for growth, the Government will leverage the advantage we have on immigration to keep Canada competitive on the world stage.

Source: https://www.canada.ca/en/privy-council/campaigns/speech-throne/2020/stronger-resilient-canada.html

Black business owners win against racism in Ontario Superior Court decision

Of note:

Lassie Charles was almost ready to give up.

She told her husband that they would have to close down the successful restaurant they had started eight years ago in order to find another location. Their new landlord was deliberately making it difficult for the couple to renew their lease agreement, even though they were ideal tenants.

Ideal in almost every way — except that they, and many of their customers, were Black.

That was the essence of a conclusion that an Ontario Superior Court judge came to in the case between Elias Restaurant and Keele Sheppard Plaza Inc. and Castlehill Properties Inc. in a judgement released earlier this month.

The case centered on the fact that the landlord and manager wanted a new tenant who “would somehow be more suitable to the shopping plaza.” They did everything they could to avoid responding to the Charles family’s efforts to renew their lease, using a technicality to try to evict them from their bustling location at Keele Street and Sheppard Avenue. Such a move would cut them off from a diverse customer base that had remained loyal, even throughout the pandemic. The couple had continued to pay their monthly rent on time, despite a 125 per cent rental increase.

During the trial, various statements by representatives for the landlord were indicative of “racial stereotyping,” wrote Justice Ed Morgan in his September 11 judgement.

“Identifying a family-run restaurant as not family-friendly, and impugning a restaurant-bar for serving ‘liquor’ and having smokers stand outside the premises, all point to a mindset that condemns the minority population for what is considered normal behaviour for the majority population,” he wrote.

“This was racism,” agreed Lassie in an interview. “I was insulted on the phone and was told my place was undesirable and that they were going to renovate it to their liking. My husband deserves the credit for this because he said ‘let’s fight them.’”

The couple, originally from Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, have lived in Canada for over 30 years. It was her husband’s exceptional cooking skills (passed down from his mother) that led the couple to invest in a restaurant and bar that employ their 31-year-old son and two other servers. Over the years, they had invested $150,000 in the 1,500-square-foot space.

“I told Lassie that I could win this case,” said Clebirth Charles in an interview, speaking from the restaurant’s kitchen where he and his son prepare popular Afro-Caribbean cultural foods including curry goat, oxtail, and jerk chicken.

Their lawyer Miguna Miguna agreed, and argued they were being forced out because of anti-Black racism.

“Over the years, the courts have not focused as much attention at the outright racism of commercial landlords,” said Miguna in an interview from his office in Toronto, pointing out that the racism involving people of colour looking to rent or purchase property to live in is much more widely acknowledged than the ghettoization of Black-owned commerce. “No one has ever interrogated through litigation the issue of racism and how it impacts negatively on African Canadians in business. I was hopeful that the judge would not turn the other way and he didn’t.”

Citing case law to support his conclusions, Justice Morgan described the landlord’s suggestions that the restaurant owners were “unattractive” tenants as a form of “‘Othering’ of minority people . . . in the guise of a legal method.” The lawyer for the landlord objected to the suggestion of racial bias, but Justice Morgan pointed out that it wasn’t up to the justice system to determine whether someone is aware of their bias, only whether or not their statements and actions point to its existence.

“For the judge to make such accurate and warranted remarks, is a testament to what the Black community endures in all aspects of life,” said Earlan Charles, the couple’s son and the restaurant’s head chef.

“To be honest, although we were the victims, I wonder if we would have gotten the same outcome if the attention and momentum around systemic racism wasn’t on our side,” he wondered.

We’ll never know, but this case demonstrates progress — and a much needed win.

Canada No. 1 for Migrants, U.S. in Sixth Place

Given the contrast in media coverage and political discourse in both countries, would have expected a larger gap:

Canada and the U.S. remained among the most-accepting countries in the world for migrants in 2019. In fact, with a score of 8.46 (out of a possible 9.0) on Gallup’s second administration of its Migrant Acceptance Index, Canada, for the first time, led the rest of the world. The U.S. ranked sixth, with a score of 7.95.

Most-Accepting Countries for Migrants
Migrant Acceptance Index
Canada 8.46
Iceland 8.41
New Zealand 8.32
Australia 8.28
Sierra Leone 8.14
United States 7.95
Burkina Faso* 7.93
Sweden 7.92
Chad* 7.91
Ireland* 7.88
Rwanda 7.88
*Country not on the list in 2016-2017
GALLUP WORLD POLL, 2019

The index is based on three questions that Gallup asked in 140 countries in 2016 and 2017 and updated again in 145 countries in 2019. The questions ask whether people think migrants living in their country, becoming their neighbors and marrying into their families are good things or bad things.

The index is a sum of the points across the three questions, with a maximum possible score of 9.0 (all three are good things) and a minimum possible score of zero (all three are bad things). The higher the score, the more accepting the population is of migrants.

Both Canada and the U.S., which have long histories as receiving countries for migrants, made the most-accepting list in 2017 as well. Migration policies in each country have taken different paths since then, with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau opening Canada’s doors even wider, as President Donald Trump has tried to shut doors in the U.S. However, the acceptance of migrants among residents in each country has remained resolute and relatively unchanged from where they stood three years ago.

In Canada, residents almost universally saw migrants living in their country (94%) and being in their neighborhoods (95%) as good things, while more than nine in 10 (91%) said a migrant marrying into their family would be a good thing. Most Americans said the same, although not nearly to the same degree as Canadians. Nine in 10 (90%) said a migrant living in their neighborhood would be a good thing, and similar percentages said migrants living in their country (87%) and marrying into their families (85%) would be good things.

Migrant Acceptance Continues to Follow Political Fault Lines

As in 2017, migrant acceptance in both countries continues to be polarized. In the U.S., those who approved of Trump’s job performance scored a 7.10 out of a possible 9.0 on the Migrant Acceptance Index, while those who disapproved scored an 8.59 on the index. In Canada, those who approved of Trudeau’s job performance scored an 8.73, while the score was 8.21 among those who disapproved.

The same relationships persist, although not to the same degree, looking at approval of the country’s leadership in general.

Political Divides on Migration in Canada, U.S.
Migrant Acceptance Index
Americans
Approve of Trump 7.10
Disapprove of Trump 8.59
Approve of country’s leadership 7.10
Disapprove of country’s leadership 8.49
Canadians
Approve of Trudeau 8.73
Disapprove of Trudeau 8.21
Approve of country’s leadership 8.59
Disapprove of country’s leadership 8.31
GALLUP WORLD POLL, 2019

In the U.S., interestingly, there are differences in migrant acceptance among those who personally identified most with their city and country where they live (8.16) compared with those who identified most with their race or religion (7.69). In Canada, there were no differences in migrant acceptance based on how people identified themselves.

Most Educated in Each Country Are Most Accepting

For the most part, as it did in 2017, people’s acceptance of migrants follow the same patterns in both Canada and the U.S.: Acceptance is higher among those with the most education and among those living in urban areas.

Interestingly, the patterns by age in the two countries are different. In the U.S., acceptance was highest among the youngest Americans and then declined with age. Among Americans between the ages of 15 and 29, the index score was 8.34; it measured nearly a full point lower among those aged 65 and older (7.37). In Canada, there were no real statistical differences by age group.

Migrant Acceptance by Age in the U.S., Canada
Migrant Acceptance Index
Americans
15-29 8.34
30-44 8.11
45-54 8.04
55-64 7.79
65+ 7.37
Canadians
15-29* 8.32
30-44 8.54
45-54 8.53
55-64 8.41
65+ 8.51
*Difference not significant because of smaller sample sizes
GALLUP WORLD POLL, 2019

Bottom Line

Both Canada and the U.S. have long histories as receiving countries, but over the past several years, policies in each country have moved in opposite directions. Until the pandemic forced Canada to slow immigration to a trickle, the country was poised to admit more than 1 million permanent residents between 2019 and 2021, with targets increasing every year. In the U.S., the Trump administration is estimated to have cut legal immigration by almost half since taking office.

However, it appears that these changes in policies haven’t drastically changed most people’s acceptance of migrants. Residents in each country, and particularly in Canada, are accepting of the migrants who will continue to play a huge role in shaping their country’s future.

Source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/320669/canada-migrants-sixth-place.aspx

And for a broader take:

Global tolerance of migrants declined between 2016 and 2019, Gallup’s Migrant Acceptance Indexrevealed on Wednesday.

The survey showed that several of the least tolerant countries were from the EU. Member states met Wednesday to discuss a new joint migration policy.

The report gave countries scores based on the attitudes of respondents to the idea of migrants living in their country, moving into their neighborhood and marrying into their family. The average score globally fell from 5.34 in 2016 to 5.21 in 2019. Nne was the highest possible result.

The largest drop in tolerant attitudes towards migrants was seen in South America, where several countries have experienced a large influx of refugees from Venezuela. In Colombia, which bore the brunt of the exodus, the percentage of respondents with a positive view of migrants living in the country plummeted from 61% to 29%.

Belgium and Switzerland had some of the largest decreases in tolerant attitudes. Belgium, home to the European Parliament, saw its score fall by 1.33.

EU member states Hungary, Croatia, Latvia and Slovakia were among the top ten least accepting countries according to the poll, with a further four Balkan countries making it onto the list.

Another country which has played a significant role in the EU’s immigration policy was also revealed to have largely negative attitudes towards immigration. Turkey, which became home to some 4 million refugees as part of a deal with the European bloc, was the 10th least accepting country for migrants according to the data collected by Gallup.

However, one eastern European country with a traditionally low tolerance of immigration saw an increase in positive and tolerant attitudes. A share of 42% of Polish respondents said that they considered migrants living in the country as something good, up from 29% three years prior.

Which countries are most tolerant of immigration?

Canada topped the list for the countries most accepting of immigration — 94% of respondents had positive views of immigrants living in their country, followed by Iceland and New Zealand. Within the EU, only Sweden and Ireland made it into the top 10.

Despite a series of anti-immigration policies by President Donald Trump’s administration in the US, the country came in sixth place for its generally pro-immigration attitudes. When asked about immigrants moving into their neighborhood, 90% of US respondents said this was a good thing.

Among those who supported Trump, the average score was 7.1 out of nine. The biggest difference was between the younger and older generations with 16- to 29-year-olds scoring 8.34 and those older than 65 scoring around one point less, at 7.37.

#COVID-19: Comparing provinces with other countries 23 September Update

Highlights:

Deaths per million: Philippines ahead of British Columbia

Infections per million: India ahead of  Canada, Prairies ahead of Pakistan

Immigration services to reopen gradually after pandemic shut down many programs

Useful overview:

Immigration officials are beginning gradually to resume in-person services after the pandemic forced many programs to shut down, frustrating immigrants whose lives were put on hold.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) shut down immigration tests and citizenship ceremonies in March to protect the health and safety of staff and clients. The department started offering some virtual services over the last few months. Starting this week, it is opening in-person services by appointment only.

“This testing phase will allow us to assess our protocols and procedures and ensure the safety of our staff and our clients. The lessons learned will help us plan for reopening services more widely in the future,” says the IRCC’s website.

Limited services being offered at specific locations include citizenship, services related to permanent residence, asylum claims and biometrics.

Clients must wait for government officials to schedule appointments before visiting an IRCC site and should not call IRCC to try to arrange a date themselves, the department says.

William Ojeda and his family have waited an agonizing three years to renew their permanent residency, a time frame he said is unreasonable. They are now unable to re-enter Canada from Mexico.

“Being unable to be in Canada, and the uncertainty and anxiety of almost three years checking the IRCC website pretty much daily after the initial reasonable delay, and worrying for the well-being of my kids has been really, really hard,” he wrote in an email from Guadalajara.

Odeja, his wife and their eldest daughter were born in Mexico, while his two younger daughters were born in Canada and are citizens.

‘Three years lost’

“We have never broken a law … we live, by choice, by Canadian written and social laws and yet we feel treated as second class immigrants,” he said.

“If the decision is favourable, of course, it would be a happy ending and all the uncertainty, anxiety and fear will blur over time. If negative, it would be all for nothing, with three years lost on our life plan, which is in Canada.”Ojeda said the delay in processing his file predated the pandemic. COVID-19 has created a bigger backlog in many cases, however.

Conservative immigration critic Raquel Dancho said she’s heard from countless families affected by what she calls the “administrative ineptness” of IRCC.

“The lack of a plan throughout the pandemic has failed refugees and immigrants who wish to come to Canada,” she said.

“The Liberals have failed to ensure a fair and compassionate immigration process for the world’s most vulnerable. Frankly, it’s unacceptable and those that depend on the immigration system deserve better.”

NDP MP Jenny Kwan said MP offices have been “inundated” with immigration applicants’ desperate pleas for help. She said several of her MP colleagues have reported that immigration cases consume up to 90 per cent of their constituency casework.

“It’s apparent that there has been little to no movement on IRCC offices resuming their work up to now. The limited capacity of the restart will still mean that too many people are still just going to be stuck in the system with ongoing delays,” she said.”People are still being asked to continue to put their lives on hold. Is it a wonder that families desperate to reunite with their loved ones feel that their cries for help are just falling on deaf ears? The problems with the backlog are so deep that this limited restart will do little to reassure those stuck in the system.”

Efforts to speed up processing

Mathieu Genest, spokesperson for Immigration Minister Marco Mendicino, said the department has been adapting its systems to speed up the processing of applications while protecting the health and safety of staff, clients and Canadians. IRCC has prioritized applications from Canadians and permanent residents returning to Canada, as well as people performing essential services.

Staff now have more resources and streamlined processes for working remotely, he said.

“The expansion of the resumption of in-person services will depend on the results of and lessons learned during this pilot, as well as regional health guidelines, available capacity and virtual alternatives, among other considerations,” he said.

IRCC has introduced safety measures at its locations — including a self-assessment questionnaire that must be completed before an appointment and again before entering the premises.

All employees and clients are required to wear masks, maintain physical distance and follow signs directing the flow of foot traffic. People who appear ill will have to reschedule their appointments.

Source: Immigration services to reopen gradually after pandemic shut down many programs

Twitter apologizes after users notice image-cropping algorithm favours white faces over Black

Big oops:

Twitter has apologized after users called its ‘image-cropping’ algorithm racist for automatically focusing on white faces over Black ones.

Users noticed that when two separate photos, one of a white face and the other of a Black face, were displayed in the post, the algorithm would crop the latter out and only show the former on its mobile version.

PhD student Colin Madland was among the first to point out the issue on Sept. 18, after a Black colleague asked him to help stop Zoom from removing his head while using a virtual background. Madland attempted to post a two-up display of him and his colleague with the head erased and noticed that Twitter automatically cropped his colleague out and focused solely on his face.

“Geez .. any guesses why @Twitter defaulted to show only the right side of the picture on mobile?” he tweeted along with a screenshot.

Entrepreneur Tony Arcieri experimented with the algorithm using a two-up image of Barack Obama and U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell. He discovered that the algorithm would consistently crop out Obama and instead show two images of McConnell.

Several other Twitter users also tested the feature out and noticed that the same thing happened with stock models, different characters from The Simpsons, and golden and black retrievers.

Dantley Davis, Twitter’s chief design officer, replied to Madland’s tweet and suggested his facial hair could be affecting the model “because of the contrast with his skin.”

Davis, who said he experimented with the algorithm after seeing Madland’s tweet, added that once he removed Madland’s facial hair from the photo, the Black colleague’s image showed in the preview.

“Our team did test for racial bias before shipping this model,” he said, but noted that the issue is “100% (Twitter’s) fault.” “Now the next step is fixing it,” he wrote in another tweet.

In a statement, a Twitter spokesperson conceded the company had some further testing to do. “Our team did test for bias before shipping the model and did not find evidence of racial or gender bias in our testing. But it’s clear from these examples that we’ve got more analysis to do. We’ll continue to share what we learn, what actions we take, and will open source our analysis so others can review and replicate,” they said, as quoted by the Guardian.

Source: Twitter apologizes after users notice image-cropping algorithm favours white faces over Black

Ethnie-fiction et indépendance

Reminder how some Quebec intellectuals remain mired in Québecois de souche as the benchmark rather than language, in this critique by Charles Castonguay:

Dans sa chronique intitulée « Blues souverainistes » du 8 août dernier, Louis Cornellier souligne que « le poids des Québécois d’ascendance canadienne-française diminue sans cesse. Le chercheur Charles Gaudreault a montré qu’il était passé de 79 %, en 1971, à 64,5 %, en 2014 ». Selon Cornellier, il conviendrait « de constater une réalité qui rend l’indépendance de plus en plus improbable ».

Dans la revue L’Inconvénient (no 81, été 2020), Ugo Gilbert Tremblay enfonce le clou. « Or qu’en est-il exactement ? Quelle est la réalité sur laquelle plusieurs parmi les souverainistes préfèrent fermer les yeux ? [Le] chercheur Charles Gaudreault a voulu jeter un regard froidement objectif sur la question. La conclusion de son étude est que, de 1971 à 2014, [le poids] des Canadiens français est passé de 79 % à 64,5 % […] En projetant sur les prochaines décennies un flux migratoire comparable à celui des années précédentes, Gaudreault prédit que les Canadiens français deviendront minoritaires en sol québécois dès 2042 et que leur poids ne sera plus que de 45 % en 2050 […] Il me semble qu’un souverainiste mature devrait être capable de réfléchir — sans hargne ni rancune — aux implications de ces changements démographiques. »

Tout cela repose, cependant, sur de l’ethnie-fiction. Les projections en question ne tiennent pas la route.

Par exemple, Gaudreault définit le « groupe ethnique canadien-français » comme étant formé des descendants des colons français arrivés entre 1608 et 1760. Pour estimer son effectif en 1971, il utilise toutefois la population qui, au recensement, s’est déclarée d’origine française. Or, cette population découle aussi de deux bons siècles d’assimilation par voie de métissage ou d’adoption de personnes d’origine allemande, amérindienne, irlandaise, etc. ainsi que d’un siècle de nouvelle immigration française depuis 1870.

Gaudreault soutient également qu’en 1971, les répondants au recensement ne pouvaient indiquer qu’une seule origine. C’est faux. Ils pouvaient parfaitement en déclarer deux, trois ou plus. Statistique Canada a tout simplement éliminé les déclarations multiples avant la publication des données, en assignant à chaque répondant en cause une seule de ses origines déclarées.

Gaudreault affirme en outre que les données de 1971 sont les dernières observations fiables sur l’origine ethnique depuis 50 ans du fait qu’elles se fondent sur des « choix fermes », alors que tous les recensements suivants ont procédé par autoénumération. Faux encore. L’autorecensement a débuté en 1971 même, et Statistique Canada a recueilli des données fiables sur l’origine française jusqu’en 1991 inclusivement.

Les projections de Gaudreault excluent ensuite tout nouvel apport — même celui de nouveaux immigrants français — à sa population de départ, soit la population d’origine française énumérée en 1971. Pas surprenant, alors, qu’à force de faire mourir une population fermée et foncièrement sous-féconde, Gaudreault aboutisse, sous l’hypothèse d’une immigration non française abondante et soutenue, à un moignon de « Canadiens français ». Semblable appareil de projection réduirait en peu de temps n’importe quelle majorité à un statut minoritaire.

Dérapage

Notons qu’après une répartition égale des déclarations d’origines multiples entre les origines déclarées, le poids de la population d’origine française recensée en 1991 s’élevait à 77,5 %, en baisse de seulement 1,5 point de pourcentage depuis 1971. Par comparaison, les « descendants de Canadiens français » de Gaudreault en perdent 5, plongeant en 1991 à 74 %. Les projections de Gaudreault dérapent sérieusement, donc, dès 1991, soit 20 ans seulement après leur point de départ.

L’étude de Gaudreault a été mise en ligne en 2019 par la revue Nations and Nationalism. L’Action nationale en a repris l’essentiel en mars dernier, bonifié de quelques pages additionnelles dans lesquelles Gaudreault accuse Statistique Canada de ne pas avoir recueilli de données valables sur la langue depuis 1971. Faux toujours. Il y gratifie même Navdeep Bains, ministre responsable de Statistique Canada, et Anil Arora, son statisticien en chef, tous deux d’ascendance indienne, de remarques gentiment racistes.

Bel exemple de « regard froidement objectif ».

C’est d’ailleurs en fonction de la langue, et non de l’origine ethnique, qu’on juge du caractère français du Québec ou de l’appui éventuel à l’indépendance. Le poids de la population québécoise parlant le français comme langue principale à la maison est d’abord passé de 80,8 % en 1971 à près de 83 % en 1991, puis est revenu à 80,6 % en 2016. Dans cette optique, tout ne serait pas encore perdu.

Source: Ethnie-fiction et indépendance