Thousands of former international students’ visas will expire soon. What happens next is murky

Would be nice if we had reliable exit data to know:

Tens of thousands of international students who were granted postgraduate work permits will see their visas expire this year, casting doubt on their futures in Canada and leading economists to wonder if some will stay in the country as undocumented residents.

There were 31,610 people with valid postgraduate work permits in the country as of Sept. 30, and those visas will expire by Dec. 31, according to data from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) provided to The Globe and Mail.

Those numbers have recently come under scrutiny by economists and immigration experts because it’s unclear how many temporary residents remain in the country after their visas expire, adding to the undocumented population….

In a statement to The Globe, the federal Immigration Department said it did not have an estimate of the number of people in Canada on expired postgraduate work permits. 

“Once someone receives a permit, they must abide by the condition of their permit, including the legal requirement to leave Canada at the end of the authorized period of stay,” the IRCC said in the e-mailed statement. 

Last year, the Canada Border Services Agency deported approximately 18,000 people, but the agency does not publicly break that number down by type of study or work permit. 

The latest IRCC data show that the number of expiring postgraduate work permits is down sharply from the same period last year, when approximately 70,000 were due to expire. …

Source: Thousands of former international students’ visas will expire soon. What happens next is murky

USA: New Immigration Policy Likely To Block Many Family Immigrants

Of course, that is the point:

The Trump administration has proposed a new immigration policy likely to block many family-based immigrants from coming to America. The policy would label more family immigrants a “public charge,” allowing officials to prevent their entry. However, new research undermines the policy push, finding that a recent Federal Register notice ignores crucial empirical evidence: Individuals entering as family immigrants start with lower initial earnings but quickly adapt by trying new jobs and investing in skills and education that lead to rapid earnings growth. They are also unlikely to receive public assistance income.

Individuals who immigrate with family members or join them in the United States have been a central feature of immigration throughout American history. After Intel’s Andy Grove immigrated to America as a refugee following the Hungarian Revolution, he immediately pursued ways to sponsor his parents, who joined him in the United States. Years earlier, in 1885, a 16-year-old Friedrich Trump, Donald Trump’s grandfather, immigrated to America to join his sister Katherine, who “had immigrated to New York a year earlier,” according to Trump biographer Gwenda Blair.In 1930, Mary Anne MacLeod immigrated to America from Scotland as an unskilled 18-year-old to live with her married sister in Queens. Six years later, she met Fred Trump at a party, they married and had children, one of whom was Donald Trump. “Donald Trump is a product of (family) ‘chain migration,’” according to Columbia University historian Mae M. Ngai.

…DHS concedes in the Federal Register notice that new immigrants are not eligible for federal means-tested public benefits for at least five years after entering the United States. (The rules differ for refugees and asylees.) DHS also notes that sponsors of family immigrants sign legally binding affidavits of support. If considered, the affidavits of support should mitigate concerns that individuals may become a public charge since sponsors can reimburse benefit costs.

DHS does not express or cite concern that removing a structured review of applicants detailed by regulation in favor of subjective determinations by consular officers and others will, based on previous estimates, result in hundreds of thousands of immigrants annually being denied entry. The proposed rule does not consider it a cost that the DHS action will prevent many Americans from living in the United States with a spouse, child or other close relative, which will be the primary impact of the new policy.

The Federal Register notice cannot detail any quantitative benefits from the new policy, stating “DHS anticipates this proposed rule will produce benefits but is limited to providing a qualitative analysis.” The “qualitative” benefits DHS anticipates will not go to Americans or the U.S. economy, but to government personnel who will not be “unnecessarily” limited in their “ability to make public charge inadmissibility determinations.”

In recent weeks, the State Department issued a notice to consular officers to direct them to deny visas to people with obesity, diabetes or other health issues if they could be considered potential public charges. “A diplomat who received last week’s cable, and also spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media, said State Department leadership has been very active in finding new ways to deny foreigners entry into the U.S. or just slow down the system,” reported the Washington Post (November 13, 2025)….

Source: New Immigration Policy Likely To Block Many Family Immigrants

Deportations to be reported to Parliament each month under Conservative changes to border bill 

Hard to argue against more data but the Government and NDP rejected a similar amendment in the case of C-3 (citizenship). But yes, quarterly and annual reports are more informative in terms of trends but given that all IRCC immigration-related data sets are released monthly on open data, same should apply here and on open data, not reports to parliament:

Ottawa would have to report to Parliament every month on the number of foreign nationals who have been deported, including those with criminal convictions, under changes to the government’s border bill pushed through by the Conservatives

A slew of amendments to Bill C-12, including boosts to immigrationenforcement, passed in a marathon meeting of the Commons public safety meeting on Tuesday evening, where MPs scrutinized the bill until midnight. 

The committee voted for detailed monthly reports to Parliament on the number of deportations, including on where people came from and their age and gender, despite objections from a senior border official who argued that quarterly or annual reports would paint a clearer picture.

The amendment, proposed by the Conservatives, follows a report earlier this year that hundreds of convicted criminals facing deportation have gone missing. …

Source: Deportations to be reported to Parliament each month under Conservative changes to border bill

Thomas King: All my life, I believed I was Indigenous. Now, I must reckon with the inconvenient truth

Does raise the question whether a fixation on “bloodline” to identify “pretensions” rather than considering their work, perspective and perceived identity would not be a more comprehensive approach given that many of us have mixed ancestry and identity:

…And then there will be the harder question, the question that will be on many people’s lips as they read this: Did you know that you weren’t Cherokee all along and simply perpetrate and maintain a fraud throughout your professional life for fame and profit? 

While the answers to the other questions are problematic, the answer to this last one is a simple, hard, no. 

Not that this will keep people from believing what they will. Human nature loves blood in the water.

TAAF suggested that I might want to offer up an apology for my life, but an apology assumes a crime, an offence, a misdeed. And I don’t think that’s appropriate. Throughout my career – activist, academic, administrator, writer – I’ve conducted myself in the belief that I was mixed-blood Cherokee. 

However, having seen the genealogical evidence, should I choose to continue on in that vein from this point forward, then an accusation of fraud would have merit.

Mind you, going forward is going to be difficult, if not impossible. Will I try to step sideways into the sphere of the Tony Hillermans, the Evan S. Connells, the William Eastlakes, non-Natives who wrote about Natives? The Helen Hunt Jacksons and the Dee Browns of the world?

Or will I just pack my tent and slip away?

First, I have to survive the firestorm that’s coming. The anger. The disbelief. The feelings of betrayal. The media that will reduce a painful and complex matter to a series of misleading chyrons and simplistic sound bites. Individuals who will retell the story ad nauseam until all the tones have been washed away….

I’d like to think that, at the very least, I will be able to find a way to continue to support Indigenous causes and Indigenous artists, though I’m not sure the causes and artists will want to stand too close to such a smouldering wreck. 

Most likely I’ll do what I’ve always done. Tell stories. Write stories. I’ve always found sanctuary in the spoken word, safe haven in a well-turned paragraph. Or maybe I’ll heed my own counsel, try channelling the sign-off for the old Dead Dog Café radio show. 

Stay calm, be brave, wait for the signs.

All things considered, it’s probably as good a piece of advice as I’m going to find.

Source: Thomas King: All my life, I believed I was Indigenous. Now, I must reckon with the inconvenient truth

Globe editorial: Crime and punishment, and deportation

Agreed, important to public support of immigration:

…It is a deeply Canadian impulse to emphasize second chances, rehabilitation, and mercy. Yet does anyone ask whether Canadians would want these offenders as citizens? Hasn’t Parliament already pronounced on that issue?

We would not remove all discretion at this point. It would be harsh treatment in certain cases for permanent residents who have been here decades, or young special-needs people deserving of empathy. But judges need to abide by and enforce the rules Parliament has set out for newcomers and permanent residents, and stop skewing the results.

Source: Crime and punishment, and deportation

Opinion | Carney’s Bill C-12 brings back a dark chapter in Canada’s immigration policy

Representative sample of immigration lawyers’ perspective, overly alarmist IMO in its use of historical examples which have largely been overtaken starting in the 1960s:

…Disturbingly, this aspect of C-12 mirrors historic forms of immigration legislation which systemically violated the human rights of immigrants and refugees on both sides of the border. It is a return to an era of immigration legislation, when, in Canada, highly discretionary powers were used by the Governor-in-Council to impose discriminatory immigration restrictions — also framed as being in the “public interest.” These orders were used to prohibit specific “races,” nationalities, and classes of immigrants, often without parliamentary debate or without having to introduce any amendment to the Immigration Act in place at that time. Some examples of prohibited classes by orders include the 1908 Continuous Journey Regulation — intended to restrict immigration from India and Japan — orders in council restricting Chinese immigration, and the prohibition of immigrants involved in labour strikes, members of the Communist Party, or unemployed persons in 1931.

This dark chapter of Canadian immigration history is generally discussed as a vestige of a bygone era, replaced by an ostensibly modern, merit-based system that protects human rights. But the images of the MV Sun Sea (2010) or the Adriana (2023) boats, filled with migrants abandoned to their fate, are eerily reminiscent of those of the Komagata Maru (1914) and the St-Louis (1939).

The framing of migration as a “border security” issue in Bill C-12 and the broader scapegoating rhetoric targeting immigrants remind us of these past “none is too many” directives, highlighting the fact that immigration policy was of course never simply a bureaucratic process — it has also always been about deciding who, ultimately, is allowed to be recognized as fully human. 

Ironically, it is the very security of those who have found safety in Canada which will be undermined by this bill, allowing for the routine violation of rights protected under the Charter and international law for anyone who is not a citizen. This should concern us all, as it will pave the way for the flagrant rights abuses that we see in the U.S. to take place here: indefinite family separation, skyrocketing deportations and mass violations of due process. In this context, Prime Minister Carney is right to invoke “old relationships.” Except they are far from “over.”

Gwendolyn Muir, Jared Will and Anne-Cécile Khouri-Raphael are lawyers. 

Source: Opinion | Carney’s Bill C-12 brings back a dark chapter in Canada’s immigration policy

UK: Windrush tsar fears repeat of citizenship scandal

Understandable concern:

The new Windrush commissioner has warned of the danger of “unintended consequences” from tougher UK asylum laws.

In a wide-ranging BBC interview about his government-appointed role, the Reverend Clive Foster said he wanted discussions with ministers about how to prevent a repeat of the Windrush scandal.

Government proposals designed to tackle illegal migration would give people granted asylum only a temporary refugee status, subject to review every 30 months.

Mr Foster is concerned about potential mistakes and said lessons needed to be learned from Windrush, when thousands of Commonwealth citizens were wrongly classed as illegal immigrants.

The scandal involved people from the Caribbean who responded to an invitation to rebuild the UK after World War Two, but the commissioner said it also affected Commonwealth citizens from Africa and South Asia, particularly Bangladesh.

Many were later denied jobs, housing and NHS treatment and some were wrongly deported because the Home Office failed to keep records or issue paperwork confirming their indefinite leave to remain.

Mr Foster, a senior pastor at the Pilgrim Church in Nottingham, was appointed in Juneto oversee the government’s response to the Windrush scandal and represent its victims.

He has met more than 700 people on a UK-wide Windrush Listening Event tour, where he said some victims wore military medals to show how proud they were to be British.

“I’m hearing the pain, I’m hearing the trauma, and my responsibility is about looking at how we can build relationships, build back trust,” he said….

Source: Windrush tsar fears repeat of citizenship scandal

StatsCan – Source country matters: Citizenship trends among recent immigrants in Australia and Canada

Another informative study, highlighting common patterns and flagging divergence with respect to source countries. As I had noted earlier in work with the Institute for Canadian Citizenship, the prohibition of dual citizenship in source countries does not affect naturalization rates, whereas comparative growth rates do, as countries with more rapid growth lower the “value proposition” of Canadian citizenship:

…In both countries, the declines in immigrant citizenship rates were most pronounced among those from countries with substantial living-standard gains (e.g., China, with 82% growth in GDP per capita PPP, and India, Vietnam and the Philippines, with 39% to 56% growth) or enhanced passport strength (e.g., Colombia and China). These reductions contrast with minimal changes from nations showing slower growth (e.g., source countries with less than 15% GDPgains). Notably, source-country economic expansion (China’s 82% vs. Canada’s 6% and Australia’s 10%) appears strongly correlated with falling naturalization rates, suggesting that improved economic conditions in the source country reduce immigrant incentives for citizenship acquisition in the destination country.

Dual citizenship recognition had minimal influence on naturalization patterns. Source countries with similar living standards but differing dual citizenship policies showed similar citizenship rates. Declines in citizenship rates occurred across major origin countries despite stable dual citizenship policies during the study period. This consistency means that dual citizenship regulations in source countries were not a driver for the reduced naturalization rates in both Australia and Canada. Furthermore, some countries have made acquiring foreign citizenship less prohibitive, even while dual citizenship is not allowed. For instance, China has introduced reforms granting residency and certain rights to skilled overseas Chinese people since 2010. Likewise, India’s Overseas Citizenship of India program, established in 2005, offers eligible people of Indian origin various socioeconomic benefits, residency rights and long-term visas (Tan & Liu, 2024).

While source-country developments influenced citizenship trends, divergent declines between Australia and Canada suggest additional factors. Chinese, Colombian, Vietnamese and Pakistani immigrants showed steeper drops in Australia, while Filipinos, South Koreans, Britons, Americans, Sri Lankans, Malaysians, Iranians and Iraqis declined more in Canada. Notably, living standards changed very little in South Africa, Iran and Iraq, yet South African immigrants experienced about 12 percentage point decreases in both nations, whereas the rates for Iranian and Iraqi immigrants declined significantly in Canada but remained stable in Australia. 

These differences between the two countries in naturalization trends among immigrants from the same source nation indicate that other explanations are at play. These might include differences between the two countries in the modification of their policies and regulations regarding citizenship acquisition, differences in the characteristics of immigrants from the same source nation, and other unknown factors. 

In summary, this study analyzed changes in citizenship rates among recent immigrants from major source nations to Australia and Canada. By focusing on immigrants who have met residency requirements for naturalization, the analysis examined observed and adjusted citizenship rates—controlling for sociodemographic characteristics—across 14 major source-country groups. The findings revealed marked declines in citizenship uptake among recent immigrants in both countries over the 2011-to-2021 period. These declines were most pronounced among immigrants from countries that have seen significant improvements in living standards or passport strength, particularly China, India, Vietnam, the Philippines and Colombia. Dual citizenship policies in the source country appear to have little effect on naturalization trends. The magnitude of declines varied by country of destination and source country. 

This study demonstrates that immigrant naturalization patterns must be understood transnationally. Improvements in source-country economies, expanded global mobility options and enhanced passport values collectively reduce immigrant incentives for citizenship acquisition in destination countries. The observed declines suggest a partial decoupling of permanent residency from citizenship. Notably, while destination-country integration and citizenship policies can clearly affect naturalization patterns, they appear to be increasingly contingent on immigrants’ evolving motivations and source-country conditions. These findings challenge conventional integration models and underscore how dynamic global hierarchies and transnational migrant strategies can shape migration outcomes—in this case, the naturalization rate.

Source: Source country matters: Citizenship trends among recent immigrants in Australia and Canada

A Model Evaluation Framework for Industrial Policy in Canada 

Most of the recommendations apply more broadly than industrial policy:

The author recommends that governments:

  1. Show leadership from senior decision-makers, with an explicit commitment at the highest possible level to evaluate industrial policy, backed by sufficient resources.
  2. Incentivize industrial policy evaluation by elevating its status in budget and funding decisions.
  3. Create a dedicated, centralized industrial policy evaluation unit, resourced over and above the budgets of existing departmental/ministerial evaluation units.
  4. Spell out clear guidelines for evaluation of industrial policy through mechanisms such as a Cabinet Directive, and mandate the publication of all evaluations.
  5. Develop an industrial policy evaluation schedule that is synchronized with key funding decisions, such as budget cycles.
  6. Devise a system of fast-track evaluations for industrial policy decisions to provide sufficient insights to inform evidence-based decision-making;
  7. Develop a general logic model template to help frame industrial policy evaluations and translate outcomes and impacts into measurable performance indicators.
  8. Adopt a consistent approach to industrial policy evaluation reporting and dissemination to allow for comparison across policies, including tax expenditures.
  9. Invest in advanced digital technologies, such as big data analytics, artificial intelligence and machine learning, to improve the design of industrial policies and lower the cost of evaluations.

The renewed interest in Canadian industrial policy should be accompanied by a renewed focus on sound evaluation practices. Governments need to break the cycle of disinterest in evaluation, given the scale of industrial policies and the risks involved. Robust evaluation practices are critical to the successful use of industrial policy to address Canada’s most pressing challenges.

Douglas Nevison is an economist and a former senior public servant at Environment and Climate Change Canada, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the Privy Council Office and the Department of Finance Canada. Throughout his career, he has been a strong advocate for policy and program evaluation and evidence-informed decision-making.

Source: A Model Evaluation Framework for Industrial Policy in Canada

Labeaume: Le Québec qui se métisse

Thoughtful and realistic commentary by former mayor of Quebec city:

…Il nous faudra faire la paix avec ce Québec d’aujourd’hui, accepter qu’il ait changé, irrémédiablement. Il est certes différent, voire déstabilisant pour beaucoup de Québécois, mais pas nécessairement pour nos enfants, et les leurs, pour qui cette mixité devient la normalité acquise.

Et je le répète, cette posture mentale ne veut pas dire abandonner ce combat de résistance pour conserver notre culture francophone, la faire partager, la faire grandir et continuer à célébrer les traditions qui nous sont chères. Comme elle ne traduit aucune naïveté.

Mais nous ne convaincrons pas ces enfants issus de l’immigration de se joindre à notre lutte culturelle en remettant en question leur appartenance, ou celle de leurs parents, à un statut de membre de plein droit de ce que nous estimons être la nation québécoise.

Toute manifestation d’intolérance envers ceux-là deviendra créatrice de métastases sociales et nous magasinera des lendemains problématiques en termes de cohésion sociale.

Source: Le Québec qui se métisse

… We will have to make peace with this Quebec of today, accept that it has changed, irremediably. It is certainly different, even destabilizing for many Quebecers, but not necessarily for our children, and theirs, for whom this mix becomes acquired normality.

And I repeat, this mental posture does not mean abandoning this struggle of resistance to preserve our French-speaking culture, share it, make it grow and continue to celebrate the traditions that are dear to us. As it does not translate any naivety.

But we will not convince these children from immigration to join our cultural struggle by questioning their belonging, or that of their parents, to a full member status of what we believe to be the Quebec nation.

Any manifestation of intolerance towards them will become the creator of social metastases and will give us problematic tomorrows in terms of social cohesion.