Karas: Canada must tackle rising antisemitism and security risks:Karas:

Illustration of fears of some regarding the possible security risks, not totally unfounded:

The federal government’s plan to allow Palestinians from Gaza to come to Canada presents serious security risks.

Despite the screening protocols associated with the temporary measures for Gazans who have relatives in Canada, the prospect of a significant influx of Gazans raises legitimate concerns about the exacerbation of rising antisemitism, the incitement of violence against Jewish Canadians, and the escalation of social unrest.

Recent anti-Israel and antisemitic organized protests, such as unauthorized campus encampments at universities countrywide, highlight the pressing need for immediate government action and strict security measures.

It is no secret that the Canadian government has faced critical challenges in facilitating the relocation of Palestinians from Gaza. Despite processing close to a thousand applications, as of now, not a single individual has been granted admission under the program.

A primary hurdle arises from the difficulties faced by many visa applicants when attempting to enter Egypt for mandatory biometric screening. According to the former Canadian ambassador to Israel, Jon Allen, individuals from Gaza have used alternative routes, arranging costly departures through private Egyptian firms that allegedly engage in bribery involving Egyptian border guards and possibly Hamas operatives.

Concerns regarding the unofficial methods employed by Gazans at the Rafah border crossing into Egypt have led to visa cancellations on security grounds by Australia and other countries.

Controversy also surrounds the document requirements for Gazans seeking visas. Applicants must have up-to-date passports and provide thorough disclosure of personal backgrounds, encompassing employment records and social media activity. Critics argue that these measures are overly invasive and hard to comply with, and have pushed for more lenient criteria.

However, robust screening procedures are essential for safeguarding national security. If anything, the program’s inability to admit even a single Gazan who passes all security screenings and is allowed entry through legitimate channels emphasizes the immense challenge of vetting individuals from this region. It also highlights the considerable security risks tied to this temporary program initiative….

Source: Canada must tackle rising antisemitism and security risks

Invasive or not enough? Lawyers raise concerns over screening of Gaza visa applicants

Understandable that the government is being extremely cautious, both for domestic reasons and possibly coordination reasons with Egypt and Israel given their role in authorizing travel out of Gaza, but likely first time social media posts have been part of the formal vetting process (let me know if any other cases):
The security screening the federal government has brought in for people applying to flee the Gaza Strip is facing criticism from both lawyers who feel its questions are too invasive and others who think it should dig even deeper.
A special program that would allow up to 1,000 people in Gaza with relatives in Canada to apply for visas opened for applications last week, with the federal government seeking an extraordinary level of detail.
People are being asked to supply their social media accounts, details about scars and other marks on their bodies, information on everyone they are related to — including through marriage — and every passport they have ever hadThe questions are creating anxiety for families who worry their loved ones might have trouble answering after three months largely without internet access, electricity, or even adequate food or drinking water, said Calgary immigration lawyer Yameena Ansari. She lobbied for the program as a member of the Gaza Family Reunification Project.

“It’s almost impossible to get these answers when you’re talking about people that are running away from their homes,” she said in an interview.The questions are also extremely painful because they suggest that families desperate to flee the violence in Gaza are suspected terrorists, she said.

“This is not a list that we would ask somebody who was coming to Canada on a humanitarian basis,” Ansari said.

“To me, these are the questions I would ask somebody if I thought that they were terrorists or a combatant.”

Meanwhile, Lawyers for Secure Immigration, a group that formed at the outset of the latest Israel-Hamas war, urged the government in a letter last week to ask more pointed questions related to Hamas and terrorist activities to ensure none of the armed militant group’s supporters are allowed into Canada.

Richard Kurland, a Vancouver-based immigration lawyer and member of the newly formed group, called the background questions “grossly insufficient” because they don’t probe for possible connections with Hamas and the events of Oct. 7.Kurland said he understands it’s important for Palestinian Canadians to get their family to Canada safely, but said it’s not something that can be done “blindly.”

Once a bad actor gets into Canada, it is a very long and difficult process to remove them, he said.

This past weekend marked the 100th day of the war, which broke out on Oct. 7 when Hamas launched a surprise attack on southern Israel, killing 1,200 people and taking 240 others as hostages.

The military response from Israel was almost immediate as it lay siege to the territory, restricting access to clean water, food, internet and electricity, and subjecting the strip to a near-constant barrage of bombs in its pursuit of Hamas.

The humanitarian catastrophe has displaced most of Gaza’s population of 2.3 million people. The Health Ministry in the Hamas-run territory says 23,000 Palestinians have been killed, though it does not differentiate between civilians and combatants.Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada said Palestinians are not considered a greater threat to Canada’s security than people from elsewhere in the world, but the “enhanced biographic information” is part of a standard practice in cases where IRCC is not able to do initial screening on the ground.

The background questions are similar to the ones asked of Afghans who were still in Afghanistan when they applied to come to Canada after the fall of Kabul in 2021, the department said.

“As we did with Afghanistan, we will collect enhanced biographic information and conduct security screening while the applicant is still in Gaza. Provided no inadmissibility concerns are flagged, people who are able to leave Gaza will have their biometrics collected in a third country,” the Immigration Department said in a statement.

Shortly after the Gaza family reunification program was first announced, Liberal Mental Health Minister Ya’ara Saks said members of the Israeli community in Canada had expressed concerns about the program.The conflict in Gaza has coincided with a massive rise in antisemitism across Canada, and police have reported an increase in hate crimes directed at the Jewish community.

“This is a limited program, the security concerns are well understood and the security requirements are strict and follow reviews from Israeli authorities,” Saks assured her constituents in an Instagram post on Dec. 22, the day after the immigration program was first announced.“I understand the concerns I’ve heard from community members. Security is always the number one priority and we will be vigilant.”

Saks declined to elaborate on her comments when contacted by The Canadian Press last week.

The background questions are only the first of a multi-step screening process.

If no concerns are flagged, basic personal details like name, date of birth, sex, and passport information of the applicant will be passed on to Israeli and Egyptian governments, which will do their own vetting and determine whether or not the individual can leave Gaza. After that, applicants will still have to undergo fingerprinting and other biometrics before they can board a plane to Canada.

The Immigration Department has promised to be flexible if applicants don’t have access to all the background information that has been asked of them, but Jewish Toronto immigration lawyer Debbie Rachlis said that flexibility is not enshrined in the policy.“That’s not written down anywhere and to me it’s not worth anything,” said Rachlis, who is also a member of the Gaza Family Reunification Project.

The penalties for putting incomplete or inaccurate information in the application can be significant, she said, including getting banned from Canada for up to five years.

Rachlis said she wouldn’t be able to answer some of the questions about herself, especially without written records. She said there is no real recourse for people who get refused because they can’t remember details, like all of their past work supervisors’ names.

The government is still accepting applications, and hasn’t given any estimate of when visas could be issued. The department said the application process could take longer than it otherwise would if IRCC has to wait for additional information to complete background checks.

Source: Invasive or not enough? Lawyers raise concerns over screening of Gaza visa applicants

Aaron Wudrick: It’s time for a grown-up conversation on immigration

Wudrick weighs into the question of values even if to date, most critics have focussed on the practicalities (housing, healthcare, infrastructure etc) with little substantiation. However, the influx of 1,000 or so Gaza’s, fleeing the destruction, combined with the range of anti-semitic language and actions, provides a high profile example. Doesn’t appear to be an accident that applicants have to provide their social media links:

Canada has been shaped by large-scale immigration. With the exception of Indigenous Peoples, the vast majority of Canadians today are either immigrants or descendants thereof. Our nation has thrived as a pluralistic and multiethnic society, built through the gradual integration of people from around the world. 

While this is largely a good news story it should not obscure a hard truth: in the 21st century, the challenges associated with immigration are vastly different from those of 50 or 100 years ago, and until recently policymakers have been unwilling to discuss immigration policy accordingly. These challenges can be broadly categorized into three areas: economic impact; infrastructure capacity; and cultural friction.

When it comes to economic impact, immigration has historically, on balance, been beneficial to Canada’s economy and standard of living. But in recent years the evidence has become more mixed. In particular, the sheer number of new arrivals—over one million in 2022 alone—especially in the form of temporary and lower-skilled migrants, is increasingly being used as a substitute for Canadian labour, driving down wages. This downward pressure, while good news for employers trying to contain costs, has the dual effect of dragging down per-capita GDP, while disincentivizing business investment in labour-productivity-enhancing innovations. 

The cause of the jump in total migrants per year is also no secret: there has been an explosion in the number of international postsecondary students studying in Canada over the last decade—jumping from 248,000 in 2012 to 807,000 in 2022—largely as a result of postsecondary institutions seeking a more lucrative income stream since they are able to charge international students much higher fees. With no annual cap on foreign student visas, this has effectively become a massive back-door entry loophole to get into the country. Many of these students arrive with the hope of becoming permanent residents, which also entitles them to sponsor family members to come to Canada, further boosting migration levels.

Equally concerning has been the effect of this population growth on housing prices, which is a straightforward arithmetic function of supply and demand. Canada has some of the most expensive housing in the world, overwhelmingly a result of insufficient housing supply, especially in major cities. High levels of immigration, also concentrated in these cities, exacerbate the problem from the demand side. Both Canadians and newcomers suffer if they cannot afford a place to live. Similarly, many Canadians are unable to find a family doctor and face crowded schools, transit, hospitals, or other crumbling infrastructure. Rapid population growth makes these challenges harder to manage.

But, while concerns about immigration’s impact on our economy and infrastructure have slowly begun to attract more attention and public discussion, the issue of cultural friction remains largely taboo. 

It should be said that historically, Canada has been fairly successful at integrating people from diverse religious, linguistic, and racial backgrounds, and even today there is a strong case that Canada manages these challenges better than most other countries. What was once a fairly organic process that allowed for integration over years, if not generations, has been supplanted by activist government policy that preaches an official doctrine of big-M Multiculturalism, which fetishizes and subsidizes cultural differences while simultaneously erasing and downplaying Canadian history. In effect, the implicit social contract between Canada and newcomers has become unbalanced. Canada is and should remain a place where newcomers are free to retain their religion, language, and culture. But we must also actively invite all Canadians, new and old, to join a shared national project to ensure we are working towards living together rather than simply side by side.

In addition to counterproductive government policies, few have noted that the integration process has been dramatically changed by technological advance which now allows for immigrants to retain permanent, real-time cultural ties to their native countries. This phenomenon—where people can be physically present in one place but maintain daily cultural and social ties to their homeland—presents a special challenge to a country with a relatively weak national identity. This is particularly true of Canada’s large diaspora communities, including those from China, India, and Iran, which have increasingly impacted Canada’s international relationships and given rise to interference (alleged or proven) by these countries on Canadian soil.

Canada has historically enjoyed strong support for immigration across the political spectrum, a consensus that is not common in other countries. Recent opinion polling suggests that this consensus is rapidly eroding, if not already gone. We are long overdue for an honest, constructive, and robust debate about the way forward on immigration. We owe it to Canadians—both present and future.

Aaron Wudrick is the domestic policy director at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.

Source: Aaron Wudrick: It’s time for a grown-up conversation on immigration