Keller: Trump wants to deport millions. What impact will that have on Canada?

Legitimate concern:

…Which brings us back to Canada. Over the last two weeks at the main border crossing south of Montreal, more than 1,500 people drove up and asked the Canada Border Services Agency for asylum. Under the STCA, most of those people will likely be quickly returned to the U.S. There are some narrow exemptions, but beyond them, the STCA is clear. It is designed to stop people coming from the U.S. to make an asylum claim. 

The foundation for the STCA is that the U.S. is a “safe” country for refugee claimants. It’s a rule-of-law country, just like Canada, that treats refugee claimants humanely and according to the rule of law, just like Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the STCA on that basis.

But things can change. Look who’s in the White House. Look what he’s doing.

A court challenge arguing that the STCA should be struck down because the U.S. is no longer safe might succeed some day, but not soon. It would take years to work its way through the courts, by which time who knows who will be in the White House, or what U.S. immigration policy will be.

But Mr. Trump has the power to rip up the agreement right now, or ignore it, if he wants to. So far, we’ve seen no evidence of any intent to do that. Nor have we seen signs of wanting to load up buses bound for the Canadian border. The administration is offering people $1,000 to self-deport, but it’s not sending them anywhere in particular.

By 2024, Texas had spent US$148-million busing migrants to blue states. That sounds like a lot of money, until you notice that in the new U.S. budget, there’s US$165-billion for immigration enforcement, including US$75-billion for ICE. 

The Trump administration is putting in place the conditions for a massive forced displacement of people. And we’re the next-door neighbours.

Source: Trump wants to deport millions. What impact will that have on Canada?

Trump has a welcome message for new citizens. It’s different from past presidents

Of note (relatively restrained for him):

Over the past two decades, it’s become a tradition for each president to craft their own speech to welcome new citizens.

These video messages, played at naturalization ceremonies nationwide, are brief but experts in presidential rhetoric say they are important — not only are they meaningful to newly naturalized citizens, but they provide insight on how each president values immigration and their broader vision for the country.

President Trump, whose second term has been marked by his hardline approach to immigration, released a new naturalization ceremony video last month.

“Today you receive one of the most priceless gifts ever granted by human hands. You become a citizen of the United States of America,” Trump said.

Trump went on to welcome new citizens into the “national family,” adding that they now have a responsibility to “fiercely guard” and preserve American culture, including the freedom of speech, religion and the right to bear arms. 

“ That fits into his larger narrative, but that’s not usually what you see at an American naturalization ceremony.  It’s much more of a celebration and I’m not saying that Trump doesn’t celebrate those ideas, but it’s less celebratory than his predecessors,” said Jason Edwards, a communications professor at  Bridgewater State University in Massachusetts who has studied presidential welcomes to new citizens. 

Departure from past presidents’ remarks

Only a handful of presidents have delivered remarks at naturalization ceremonies, either through video or in person. That includes Gerald Ford, George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Joe Biden. 

Edwards said most have centered their message on how immigrants enrich and renew the country whereas Trump’s remarks emphasized what the U.S. has to offer new citizens.

“No matter where you come from, you now share a home and a heritage with some of the most exceptional heroes, legends, and patriots to ever walk the face of the earth,” Trump said in his speech. 

“ There’s no heterogeneity, there’s no celebration of diversity, there’s no celebration of past immigrants,” Edwards said.

A spokesman for the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, or USCIS, which released Trump’s video, said his message is “an essential one” and would be part of naturalization ceremonies moving forward.

That message: “U.S. citizenship is a privilege and reserved for those who respect our laws, culture, and history,” USCIS spokesman Matthew Tragesser said in a press release about the video. 

In both his first and second term, Trump avoided using the word “immigrant” altogether in his video message congratulating new citizens. That also strayed from his predecessors, who often called the U.S. a nation of immigrants and acknowledged the journey that newcomers took to become American citizens. 

Biden, for example, spoke about immigrants’ sacrifices and courage, adding that his own ancestors immigrated to the U.S. from Ireland.

“I don’t wanna say it’s an erasure, but it’s wanting to kind of erase that idea — you’re no longer an immigrant, you are a citizen,” Edwards said, referring to Trump’s remarks.

Instead, Trump shifted the focus to the idea of a “national family,” which often implies loyalty and obligation, according to Matthew Eshbaugh-Soha, a political science professor at the University of North Texas. 

Eshbaugh-Soha added the emphasis on family and the explicit reference to the right to bear arms are consistent with traditional conservative values — which is also unusual for ceremonial speeches like naturalization events. 

“That idea of American family is very much in line with this idea of America first,” he said. 

Generally, Trump’s rhetoric on immigration has intensified during his second term, especially during his most recent presidential campaign, according to Jennifer Mercieca, a historian of American political rhetoric at Texas A&M University.

“ The metaphors that he used about immigration, whether it was an invasion, whether immigrants were poisoning the blood of the nation and things like that,” Mercieca said. “Those are very salient ways of talking about immigration and  very different from the ways that previous presidents have done.”

Source: Trump has a welcome message for new citizens. It’s different from past presidents

ICYMI – Chris Selley: Canada’s refugee system — and the world’s — is overdue for an overhaul

About 70 percent of refugees already live close to their country of origin but makes sense for Canada to support seeking refuge in neighbouring countries:

…The simple fact is, Canada is not equipped to handle as many refugee claims as we currently accept. If we were, there wouldn’t be African migrants sleeping on Toronto sidewalks. There wouldn’t have been 281,000 pending asylum cases as of March 31.

Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Liberal government is certainly aware of the issue. Bill C-2 proposes a one-year deadline after arriving in Canada for claiming asylum — so people with expired or revoked visas couldn’t apply, for example — and to eliminate a loophole in the Safe Third Country Agreement that allows illegal border-crossers who evade capture for two weeks to apply for asylum nevertheless.

Both are entirely reasonable. But the current issue of The Economist, cover headline “Scrap the refugee system,” suggests the sort of wholesale changes to the global refugee system that I have been arguing for forever. It’s interesting not so much as a piece of journalism as it is to know that liberal (and Liberal) policymakers very much tend to read The Economist.

“About 123 million people have been displaced by conflict, disaster or persecution. … All these people have a right to seek safety,” the magazine’s editorial observes. “But ‘safety’ does not mean access to a rich country’s labour market. Indeed, resettlement in rich countries will never be more than a tiny part of the solution.”

The goal, the august organ argues, should be for refugees to receive asylum closer to home — ideally in culturally and linguistically similar countries whose population will tend to be more sympathetic. For the money that rich countries spend processing everyone who manages to make it to their shores — who are generally by definition not the world’s most imperilled or downtrodden, else they wouldn’t be able to get here — they could help vastly more people to safety, even if not First World prosperity. (The latter was never the goal of the current system.)

This is an idea that would require multilateral co-operation to achieve full bloom, of course. But many First World countries are far more hostile to asylum-seekers, if not immigrants in general, than Canada is. If Canada significantly restricted refugee claims made on Canadian soil, and instead refocused its efforts on helping people find refuge closer to home, it would set a useful example — not least because we have been so welcoming, to a fault, in the past.

Source: Chris Selley: Canada’s refugee system — and the world’s — is overdue for an overhaul

Colby Cosh: The lifelike nature of artificial intelligence

Interesting test:

…Well, fast-forward a dozen centuries, and along come Copernicus asking “What if Earth isn’t at the centre after all?”; Kepler asking “What if the orbits aren’t circular, but elliptical?”; and Newton, who got to the bottom of the whole thing by introducing the higher-level abstraction of gravitational force. Bye-bye epicycles.

None of these intellectual steps, mind you, added anything to anyone’s practical ability to predict planetary motions. Copernicus’s model took generations to be accepted for this reason (along with the theological/metaphysical objections to the Earth not being at the centre of the universe): it wasn’t ostensibly as sophisticated or as powerful as the old reliable geocentric model. But you can’t get to Newton, who found that the planets and earthbound objects are governed by the same elegant and universal laws of motion, without Copernicus and Kepler.

Which, in 2025, raises the question: could a computer do what Newton did? Vafa’s research group fed orbital data to AIs and found that they could correctly behave like ancient astronomers: make dependable extrapolations about the future movements of real planets, including the Earth. This raises the question whether the algorithms in question generate their successful orbital forecasts by somehow inferring the existence of Newtonian force-abstractions. We know that “false,” overfitted models and heuristics can work for practical purposes, but we would like AIs to be automated Newtons if we are going to live with them. We would like AIs to discover new laws and scientific principles of very high generality and robustness that we filthy meatbags haven’t noticed yet.

When Vafa and his colleagues found is that the AIs remain in a comically pre-Copernican state. They can be trained to make accurate predictions by being presented with observational data, but it seems that they may do so on the basis of “wrong” implicit models, ones that depend on mystifying trigonometric clutter instead of the beautiful inverse-square force law that Newton gave us. The epicycles are back!

The paper goes on to do more wombat-dissecting, using the game of Othello to show how AI reasoning can produce impressive results from (apparently) incomplete or broken underlying models. It is all very unlike the clean, rigorous “computing science” of the past 100 years: whatever you think of the prospects of AI, it is clear that the complexity of what we can create from code, or just buy off the shelf, is now approaching the complexity of biological life.

Source: Colby Cosh: The lifelike nature of artificial intelligence

Khan: I’m not offended when people praise my spoken English

…These days, the people who most often compliment my spoken English are Uber drivers from the Middle East or South Asia. Go figure. When I tell them I’ve been in Canada for more than 50 years, they understand. And then we move on to other topics, learning a little about each other’s life experience.

I have been at the other end as well. Once in Petra, Jordan, I came across a local girl – no more than 10 or 11 years old – who was selling postcards and trinkets to tourists. Her English was impeccable; her diction divine. I couldn’t help but remark how well she spoke English, and asked her where she learned to speak so well. She pointed to a collection of buildings, beyond the surrounding hills. I could see satellite dishes. “BBC,” she said. I was amazed at her intelligence and ability to absorb linguistic skills. 

Language expectations can lead to comical situations. At one of my daughter’s soccer matches, the opposing coach was yelling instructions at his players in a thick Scottish brogue. I could barely understand a word. A fellow parent concurred. We both laughed at the imaginary scenario of a brown woman (me) yelling, “Speak English!” at a Caucasian male.

Not everyone sees these exchanges as innocuous. As Mr. Harris, the Liberian youth advocate, alluded, the main issue is the set of low expectations behind the compliment. Even though well-intentioned, it can be viewed as a “microaggression” – a term popularized by Columbia psychology professor Dr. Derald Wing Sue to describe “brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioural or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory or negative attitudes toward stigmatized or culturally marginalized groups.” 

To be honest – and I speak only for myself – I haven’t figured out how sincerely complimenting my language skills is hostile, derogatory or a reflection of negative attitudes. As for expectations, the most important are those that I place on myself – not those held by others. And if someone appreciates my language skills, why not simply accept a simple act of kindness?

I do know that in our attempts to avoid offending sensitivities, we sometimes close the door to simple, personal communication that can actually strengthen common human ties. And if there are misunderstandings, these can be cleared up without causing too much fuss. Let’s have a bit more faith in the better side of human nature. 

Source: I’m not offended when people praise my spoken English

Nationwide injunction blocking Trump’s birthright citizenship order goes into effect

Of note:

President Donald Trump’s plan to end birthright citizenship for the children of people who are in the U.S. illegally will remain blocked as an order from one judge went into effect Friday and another seemed inclined to follow suit.

U.S. District Judge Joseph LaPlante in New Hampshire had paused his own decision to allow for the Trump administration to appeal, but with no appeal filed in the last week his order went into effect.

“The judge’s order protects every single child whose citizenship was called into question by this illegal executive order,” Cody Wofsy, the ACLU attorney representing children who would be affected by Trump’s restrictions, said. “The government has not appealed and has not sought emergency relief so this injunction is now in effect everywhere in the country.”

The Trump administration could still appeal or even ask that LaPlante’s order be narrowed but the effort to end birthright citizenship for children of parents who are in the U.S. illegally or temporarily can’t take effect for now.

The Justice Department didn’t immediately return a message seeking comment.

Meanwhile, a judge in Boston heard arguments from more than a dozen states who say Trump’s birthright citizenship order is blatantly unconstitutional and threatens millions of dollars for essential services. The issue is expected to move quickly back to the nation’s highest court.

U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin was asked to consider either keeping in place the nationwide injunction he granted earlier or consider a request from the government either to narrow the scope of that order or stay it altogether. Sorokin, located in Boston, did not immediately rule but seemed to be receptive to arguments from states to keep the injunction in place….

Source: Nationwide injunction blocking Trump’s birthright citizenship order goes into effect

Judge halts non-binary person’s deportation to the U.S. as Trump dismantles trans rights

Conditions have changed and assessments need to be updated but with nuance:

A Federal Court judge halted a non-binary American’s deportation from Canada pending review. Advocates say the ruling sets “an important precedent” for 2SLGBTQ+ immigrants and refugees coming to Canada from, or through, the U.S.

…Jenkel was scheduled to be deported from Canada this month. But a Federal Court judge issued a stay of removal, arguing the immigration officer who examined their case failed to take into account their role in caring for their fiancé, or the “current conditions for LGBTQ, non-binary and transgender persons” in the U.S.

Advocates for 2SLGBTQ+ migrants say this could set a precedent for other cases like Jenkel’s, and help change the way Canada’s immigration system deals with applications from the U.S.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRRC) declined to comment on Jenkel’s case, citing privacy concerns.

…Deportation order ‘failed to reflect the current reality’

Jenkel was ordered to be deported on July 3 after an initial risk assessment determined they didn’t face a credible threat in the U.S.

But Justice Julie Blackhawk halted that deportation, pending review. In her ruling, she wrote Jenkel’s risk assessment was “flawed and unreasonable.”

That’s because the immigration officer conducting the review used outdated information — a government dossier on the United States that was last updated in January 2024, says Jenkel’s lawyer.

“It’s a marked recognition that the conditions have deteriorated … since the Biden administration has left office,” Sarah Mikhail, of Smith Immigration Law in Toronto, told As It Happens host Nil Kӧksal.

“These changes are significant enough that, when assessing trans and non-binary individuals’ circumstances in Canada, this is something that needs to be taken into consideration.”

Source: Judge halts non-binary person’s deportation to the U.S. as Trump dismantles trans rights

Immigration fuels Atlantic Canadian ‘economic renaissance,’ authors argue

Of note. In talking to friends who know Atlantic Canada, reasonably accurate picture although much of the growth is in the urban centres, not rural Atlantic Canada, who also note that governments and others have made considerable efforts to prepare the host population to understand the value of immigration:

Canada is struggling with the effects of an unprecedented immigration boom: Housing shortages, youth unemployment, overtaxed social programs and more.

But in Atlantic Canada, those irritants are largely overshadowed by a much different story: the transformation of moribund and stagnant economies that made the region Canada’s poor cousin.

The authors of a new book detail the dramatic improvements newcomers are bringing to the East Coast — and argue this is no time to swerve. They argue only for a more strategic immigration policy, one that reflects the region’s economic needs.

In Toward Prosperity, The Transformation of Atlantic Canada’s Economy, former pollster Don Mills and economist David Campbell highlight how increasing immigration in the past five years has boosted the economy of a stagnant region with the oldest population in the country.

“Provincial governments across Atlantic Canada have finally understood the implications for an aging population and the need for population growth: all four provinces in the region now have population growth strategies, with immigration as a core focus of those strategies,” they write.

Nova Scotia seeks to double its population to two million by 2060, and New Brunswick, where the population was pegged at 854,355 last year, is aiming for one million people within the decade, according to their 2025 book published by Halifax-based Nimbus.

“Most of the region’s largest municipalities now have their own population growth strategies as well,” Mills and Campbell write. “All these population strategies acknowledge the critical role of immigration to drive labour force and population growth.”

Last year, after three years of especially rapid growth in Canada’s immigration population, the Liberals under Justin Trudeau announced they were reducing the number of permanent residents admitted to the country by 21 per cent. Earlier this year, Prime Minister Mark Carney pledged to cap the total number of temporary workers and international students to less than five per cent of Canada’s population within two years.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre this month called for “very hard caps” on the number of newcomers allowed into the country. He told reporters the country has struggled to integrate newcomers and he wants to see more people leaving than coming in “while we catch up.”

“We have millions of people whose permits will expire over the next couple of years, and many of them will leave,” Poilievre said. “We need more people leaving than coming for the next couple years.”

In 2022, the Canadian population rose by over a million people for the first time in history — and then kept growing faster. According to Statistics Canada, the population reached 40,769,890 on Jan. 1, 2024. That was an increase of 1,271,872 people in a single year — a 3.2 per cent jump, marking the highest annual population growth rate in Canada since 1957.

In an interview, Mills said Atlantic Canada needs smarter and targeted immigration.

“I believe in growth under control,” Mills said. “It got a little out of hand under the Trudeau Liberals. They opened the gates too quickly and it really hurt the housing market and put strains on our health-care and education systems for sure.”…

Source: Immigration fuels Atlantic Canadian ‘economic renaissance,’ authors argue

McWhorter: Listen Up. Ketanji Brown Jackson Is Speaking to You.

Nice post on the use of language. Plain language vs legalese:

When Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote her ringing dissent in the case of Trump v. CASA, which severely curtailed the ability of lower courts to serve as a check on unlawful executive orders, she wanted to make abundantly clear the danger of what she regarded as a “seismic shock” to American legal norms. “Courts must have the power to order everyone (including the executive) to follow the law — full stop,” she wrote. She continued, in a voice dripping with sarcasm, “The majority sees a power grab — but not by a presumably lawless executive choosing to act in a manner that flouts the plain text of the Constitution. Instead, to the majority, the power-hungry actors are … (wait for it) … the district courts.”

Social media platforms exploded with outrage.

One user asked, in apparent disbelief, “Did Ketanji Brown Jackson actually pop that stupid little ‘wait for it’ gag in a SCOTUS opinion?” Another said the dissent “single-handedly degraded 235 years, four months, and 25 days of SCOTUS precedent.” The worst of them turned the justice’s language back on her as a weapon. “Ketanji Brown Jackson is … (wait for it) …” — well, I won’t repeat the insult here, but for good measure, commenter added, “full stop.”

Her critics were right to note that Justice Jackson was doing something unusual. And it wasn’t just those examples. She peppered the whole dissent with expressions like “Why all the fuss?” “Do not take my word for it,” “Here is what I mean,” and the assessment — again with unmistakable sarcasm — “That is some solicitation.”

You won’t find anything like that in Marbury v. Madison.

What’s striking about Justice Jackson’s turns of phrase is that they employ what we typically regard as oral language — spontaneous, spoken words — in an extremely serious written text. That choice and the blowback it encountered are a chance to consider the arbitrariness and narrowness of the conventions dictating how legal opinions should be written. The expectation that their language be timeless, faceless and Latinate is a matter of custom, not necessity. “Why all the fuss?” indeed.

Justice Jackson is, at 54, the second-youngest justice on the court. She was raised in the 1980s, a time when America’s writing culture was getting markedly less hidebound. Waving aside the hats and girdles and stuffy dance steps of old, the counterculture had shown America how to let its language hang out, too. A new, looser style of writing allowed a play between the oral and the written, and the result enriched the culture rather than impoverishing it.

I can’t speak for Justice Jackson, but that shift had a big impact on a great many people who grew up in that era’s wake. It definitely had a big impact on me. I write in what I hope is a conversational style. Like Justice Jackson, I have sometimes been scolded for it by people who would prefer that I write “with a tie on,” as it were.

Justice Jackson isn’t the only writer to experiment with mixing orality into rarefied texts. Saul Bellow reveled in the highflying lexicographic richness of the English language, but then every so often paused for a fillip of the colloquial. In “Seize the Day,” he describes a character in language so precise and vivid that it verges on poetry: “And in the dark tunnel, in the haste, heat, and darkness which disfigure and make freaks and fragments of nose and eyes and teeth, all of a sudden, unsought, a general love for all these imperfect and lurid-looking people burst out in Wilhelm’s breast. He loved them. One and all, he passionately loved them.” Just a bit later, Bellow renders the character’s thoughts, and he does so in the baggier structure of speech: “That’s the right clue and may do me the most good. Something very big. Truth, like.”

Key is the “Truth, like,” approximate and slangy, the way that the character would really talk and think. In its immediacy and urgency, oral language pulls us in, makes us listen once we have sat still. Weaving it together with a more formal written style is Bellovian jazz.

Back to Justice Jackson. Behind all the harrumphing is an assumption that language that is accessible cannot also be precise. But Justice Jackson’s own words show that this assumption is mistaken. “It is odd, to say the least,” she wrote, “that the court would grant the executive’s wish to be freed from the constraints of law by prohibiting district courts from ordering complete compliance with the Constitution. But the majority goes there.” The second-sentence shift to spoken language conveys fervor, urgency and concern, but it doesn’t lessen the scalpel-like precision of the first sentence. And its “Oh-no-you-didn’t!” informality heightens the sense that this is not a remote matter of merely academic interest.

And, as always, orality grabs your attention. Think about how much less powerful her point would be if she stuck to more traditional, formal language such as “the majority ventures this regardless.”

The evolution of language always encounters resistance, and sometimes outrage. When the word “ain’t” appeared in Webster’s Third New International Dictionary in 1961, purists freaked out — and The Times demanded its removal. That response didn’t age well, and neither does the hue and cry over Justice Jackson’s impassioned attempts to convey a sense of urgency. Call it Jacksonian jazz, if you like. But calling it stupid is just nastiness — full stop.

Source: Listen Up. Ketanji Brown Jackson Is Speaking to You.

Rempel Garner: 50K+ jobs to foreign workers in Q1. Why?

Interesting list of which companies and organizations, and for which occupations, had approved LMIAs (Rempel Garner neglects to mention Kenney’s earlier mistake and rhetoric regarding expanded access for Temporary Foreign Workers but his correction was both quick and efficient).

The chart below shows the overall shift to lower skilled occupations, particularly a greater shift to the lowest skill levels, with some correction in the latter half of 2024:

…The Q1 List of Shame

To illustrate the dysfunction, consider these (few) examples (there are many, many more, and I encourage you to look through the list yourself):

Companies and public sector entities that got approved to hire entry-level and food services labour:

Companies and public sector entities that got approved to hire white collar jobs with TFWs (my personal favourite here is the Grain Growers of Canada(a lobby group) receiving a positive LMIA decision for a communications position….come on guys, for real??):

Immigration consulting firms that often help companies get approved for TFWs got approved for TWFs too:

Companies that got approval to fill trades jobs with TFWs:

The arguments that many companies most commonly use to justify their use of the TFW program (particularly the low-skilled stream) are that:

  • Canadians don’t want to do the work
  • That only a foreigner could do the job, or
  • That government benefit programs often prevent people from taking jobs. 

In many cases, these arguments wouldn’t pass the smell test for an ordinary Canadian, so they shouldn’t for the Liberal government either.

In reality, outside of a very few regions where unemployment levels significantly defy the current national rate of 6.9%, and in certain segments of the seasonal agricultural industry, many of these jobs can and should go to available Canadians. And, there won’t be change unless the Liberals stop buying into bunk arguments for temporary foreign labour and find ways to reform the program, or, as the case may be, incent Canadians to work. Wages that aren’t suppressed by an open floodgate of low skilled temporary foreign labour would probably be a good place to start.

Ironically, on that front, all the Liberals had to do upon taking office in 2015 was not bend to the will of powerful corporate lobbyists clamouring for the reversals of program changes made by the former Harper Conservative government. I was in cabinet at the time and remember the gnashing of teeth and wailing from employers that were accused of seriously abusing the program.

Nonetheless and to his credit, Jason Kenney, as Minister of Employment and Social Development, introduced major reforms to the TFW program and LMIA process in 2013 and 2014. In 2013, key changes included requiring employers to pay temporary foreign workers at prevailing wages, introducing processing fees for LMIA applications, extending job advertising periods to recruit Canadians first, and adding scrutiny on outsourcing impacts. The 2014 overhaul was more comprehensive: it imposed a 10% cap on low-wage foreign workers per worksite (phased in from higher limits), barred low-wage hires in regions with unemployment above 6%, limited low-wage worker stays to two years, introduced moratoriums in sectors like food services, boosted inspections and fines for violations, and split the TFW program from the International Mobility Program to reduce overall reliance on foreign labor, leading to an 80% drop in low-skilled approvals.

Source: 50K+ jobs to foreign workers in Q1. Why?