Theo Argitis: Canada’s great immigration experiment is ending 

2025/06/20 Leave a comment

Good take:

For nearly the first time in our history, Canada’s population growth has come to a near standstill. Remarkably, the state of things is such that we are celebrating this as a policy success and long-overdue correction.

Statistics Canada released its quarterly population estimates, showing the country grew by 20,000 people in the first three months of this year. That’s the third weakest quarterly increase in data going back to 1946—and less than one-tenth the average quarterly gain over the past three years.

Four provinces and one territory—Newfoundland and Labrador, Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia, and Yukon—actually posted population declines.

The numbers reflect the dramatic reversal of policy late last year by the former Trudeau government, when it abruptly tightened permit approvals for international students and foreign workers after overseeing record immigration levels since 2021.

Under the plan, the intake of new permanent residents, or what the government calls immigrants, would be lowered from 485,000 in 2024 to 365,000 by 2027.

The number of non-permanent residents living in Canada—which had increased five-fold since 2015 to more than 3 million—would be cut by about one million over two years.

That post-pandemic rush of newcomers exacerbated housing shortages, strained public services, and disrupted the job market. It was perhaps the worst policy error of the past two decades, and in need of correction.

But, ironically, the sharp reversal in policy is now creating its own problems, impacting everything from demand for cell phones and banking services to funding for universities and colleges.

The whole episode has been a mass social experiment that will be studied for years.

“You’re going to see a ton of research on this, no question, because it’s like this little experiment here in Canada that no other country has done to this extent,’’ said Mikal Skuterud, a labour economist at the University of Waterloo and director of the Canadian Labour Economics Forum. “And there’s all kinds of dimensions to how this impacted the economy.”

The latest numbers suggest the government’s curbs are beginning to work. While still elevated, the number of non-permanent residents has started to decline—down almost 90,000 from its peak in September. The number of permanent residents, or immigrants, is now running at an annual pace closer to 400,000, down from nearly half a million.

Prime Minister Mark Carney has essentially adopted the Trudeau plan, which if successful will keep the current population steady at about the current 41.5 million level over the next two years. It would mark the first time since Confederation in 1867 that the country saw zero population growth.

Yet when viewed over the full horizon, the curbs will simply bring the average population growth rate for the decade back to about 1.3 percent, which is much closer to historical norms. We’re simply correcting a major policy anomaly.

Looking back, it’s too early to know for certain what effect the population surge had on wages and joblessness, according to Skuterud, who notes that younger Canadians, in particular, may have borne the brunt of it, given they tend to compete with newcomers for entry-level jobs.

What’s less in dispute is how the immigration surge lowered average living standards.

The evidence suggests that looser entry requirements over recent years brought in lower quality workers. Because of this, the economy failed to grow in line with population. The size of the pie didn’t grow fast enough to keep up with the number of people trying to take a slice.

The end result was the erosion of public confidence in immigration, which could linger in Canadian politics for years.

This is particularly true among younger Canadians, who now appear more open to curbing immigration levels. For many, tighter labour markets and more affordable housing—not higher population numbers—are the priority. Slower immigration supports those goals.

So, how did the government misjudge the situation so badly? And is there a lesson here for the Carney government?

Part of the problem stemmed from the unique distortions of the pandemic. The government overestimated labour shortages and then overcompensated by opening the immigration floodgates.

But there was also a broader miscalculation. Trudeau emerged from the pandemic with renewed ambitions and a belief that he had an expanded mandate to pursue transformative change, including on the immigration front.

Ambition, however, has a way of outpacing reality. And overshooting is always a risk when leaders grow too confident in their ability to enact change.

Carney is now putting forward an ambitious agenda of his own. Whether he’ll draw any lessons from Canada’s great immigration experiment remains to be seen.

Source: Theo Argitis: Canada’s great immigration experiment is ending

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

Inside Trump’s Extraordinary Turnaround on Immigration Raids

2025/06/16 Leave a comment

Another TACO moment, forced by reality and resulting political pressure by the base:

On Wednesday morning, President Trump took a call from Brooke Rollins, his secretary of agriculture, who relayed a growing sense of alarm from the heartland.

Farmers and agriculture groups, she said, were increasingly uneasy about his immigration crackdown. Federal agents had begun to aggressively target work sites in recent weeks, with the goal of sharply bolstering the number of arrests and deportations of undocumented immigrants.

Farmers rely on immigrants to work long hours, Ms. Rollins said. She told the president that farm groups had been warning her that their employees would stop showing up to work out of fear, potentially crippling the agricultural industry.

She wasn’t the first person to try to get this message through to the president, nor was it the first time she had spoken to him about it. But the president was persuaded.

The next morning, he posted a message on his social media platform, Truth Social, that took an uncharacteristically softer tone toward the very immigrants he has spent much of his political career demonizing. Immigrants in the farming and hospitality industries are “very good, long time workers,” he said. “Changes are coming.”

Some influential Trump donors who learned about the post began reaching out to people in the White House, urging Mr. Trump to include the restaurant sector in any directive to spare undocumented workers from enforcement.

Inside the West Wing, top White House officials were caught off guard — and furious at Ms. Rollins. Many of Mr. Trump’s top aides, particularly Stephen Miller, his deputy chief of staff, have urged a hard-line approach, targeting all immigrants without legal status to fulfill the president’s promise of the biggest deportation campaign in American history.

But the decision had been made. Later on Thursday, a senior official with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Tatum King, sent an email to regional leaders at the agency informing them of new guidance. Agents were to “hold on all work site enforcement investigations/operations on agriculture (including aquaculture and meat packing plants), restaurants and operating hotels.”…

Source: Inside Trump’s Extraordinary Turnaround on Immigration Raids

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Lalande | Here is a two-step plan to rebuild Canada’s economy and it isn’t centred on our natural resources

2025/06/13 Leave a comment

Step One repeats the previous tired messages, Step Two looks more sensibly looks forward on how to capitalize on the Trump administrations attacks on universities, scientists and researchers:

Canada’s premiers and prime minister want the world to know that they are ready to build: pipelines, a revitalized military, new high-speed transit, an energy corridor.

But if Canada is to build a truly national economy and to effectively respond to the Trump administration’s economic instability and isolation, it needs a larger, more skilled, and more adaptive workforce.

And there is a clear, achievable two-step strategy we must take to get there.

Step One

The first strategy is to reverse course on the government’s immigration cuts and to build a smart, long-term population strategy.

Last fall, the federal government announced a 20 per cent reduction in immigration levels in its 2025—2027 levels plan. It was a short-term political decision that will leave long-term economic scarring. Research from the Parliamentary Budget Officer shows this policy will reduce Canada’s nominal GDP by $37 billion over just three years. As detailed in Century Initiative’s latest report, cutting immigration accelerates economic decline by constricting labour supply and choking growth.

This contraction is unfolding against the backdrop of a demographic “perfect storm”: a rapidly aging population, a declining fertility rate, and severe labour shortages across critical sectors.

We can’t build the strongest economy in the G7 if our workforce is shrinking, particularly in high-growth sectors.

Canada cannot navigate this storm without a serious plan. We need strategic, well-managed immigration designed not only to meet immediate gaps but to build the long-term foundation for shared prosperity.

Realizing this vision will require purposeful collaboration between different levels of government, including building on intergovernmental successes like the provincial nominee program. Further, business, academia, and civil society all have a role to play leveraging their respective reach, resources, and networks.

This is the plan that enables every other plan. Infrastructure. National defence. Clean tech. Housing. None of it is possible without a strong tax base and a skilled, growing talent pool.

Step Two

The second strategy is to launch a targeted U.S. talent attraction strategy.

Flagrant and damaging threats from the Trump administration against Harvard and other academic institutions, the defunding of research institutions like the National Science Foundation, the gutting of visa programs, and the political targeting of international students have all weakened America’s standing as a magnet for innovation.

Taken together, these actions have opened the door in the global war for talent. As the saying goes, “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.”

But we ought to capitalize on that mistake. As the U.S. turns inward, we should position ourselves as a global safe haven for scientists, entrepreneurs, and students who no longer feel welcome — or funded — south of the border.

This means being strategic about research opportunities, targeting U.S. universities with visa programs and recruitment campaigns for high-performing graduates. 

While appropriately managing international student capacity, we should simplify employment pathways for international students and postdocs in tech, AI, clean energy, and health sciences.

Settlement services should be rolled out in partnership with cross-border companies who are willing to relocate here. And regional accelerator hubs should bolster our fastest-growing sectors — connecting immigration, innovation, and talent with opportunity.

Canada’s greatest asset isn’t just our natural resources or trade deals — it’s our ability to build a fair, open, future-ready society. That takes people. And in this moment, when the U.S. is retreating from talent, science, and global leadership, we have the opportunity — and responsibility — to step up.

Source: Opinion | Here is a two-step plan to rebuild Canada’s economy and it isn’t centred on our natural resources

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , , , ,

Bonner: Repairing the fray: Improving immigration and citizenship policy in Canada

2025/05/28 Leave a comment

Hard to understand why a former staffer with exposure to immigration issues, could advance such naive, politically and in some cases, judicially unrealistic proposals in response to some of the legitimate policy concerns and failures that he points out.

Some examples. Government reorganization into a super ministry would result in significant transition processes and distract from substantive issues. Would any international campaign focussed on values discourage those with other values? No country has had success with pro-birth strategies. Differential time requirements for citizenship would be Charter non-compliant:

….Immigration has been a good thing in the past. It should be in the present and future, too.

This study has three main parts: (1) an exposition of the economic and cultural challenges of mass immigration (including a short history of immigration policy in Canada), (2) a comparative analysis of other immigration systems that we can learn from, and (3) a series of policy options for improving the Canadian system.

To repair Canada’s frayed immigration system, this study makes the case for the following recommendations:

1. Lower the annual permanent residency target to a more manageable level (e.g. 200,000).

2. Strengthen the process of deportation for any non-citizen found guilty of violent crime, supporting terrorism, or expressing hatred for Canada.

3. Execute an international campaign to discourage immigration by anyone unwilling or unable to respect our founding cultures and unwilling or unable to integrate.

4. Prioritize international students pursuing courses of study of high importance to our labour market and supply chains.

5. Re-engineer the points system to emphasize language, age, and domestic education.

6. Consolidate all “population” ministries to create the Ministry of Human Resources Canada (MHRC).

7. Make the main mandate of MHRC to ensure that economic immigration serves the national interest.

8. Require MHRC to implement a pro-birth strategy.

9. Lengthen the time requirement for citizenship, except for immigrants from peer English- and French-speaking countries.

10. Phase down and abolish the Temporary Foreign Worker Program permanently.

11. Establish a uniform standard of credential recognition in self-regulating professions and skilled trades.

We have the right and the obligation to raise the value of Canadian citizenship, and to demand more of our citizens. Above all, however, efforts at integration should proceed not from a dislike of other places, but from a love for Canada….

Source: Repairing the fray: Improving immigration and citizenship policy in Canada

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , , , , ,

Geoff Russ: Mark Carney can’t be trusted to get immigration under control

2025/03/31 Leave a comment

Example of any number of articles and commentary by Postmedia columnists warning that the appointment of Mark Wiseman, and to a lessor extent, Marco Mendocino, mean that PM Carney will continue the same high immigration policies of Trudeau. IMO, too early to tell, whether he would continue or expand the restrictions of former Minister Miller, or not. But certainly Wiseman’s appointment could be interpreted as such:

Donald Trump and his tariffs will not be the only key issue that determines who will be prime minister after April, 28. Canada has been plagued by a diverse set of problems for years, all of which will be remembered by voters on election day, including immigration.

Prior to Trump’s election and his decision to threaten Canada, one of the biggest controversies in Canada was the abrupt end of an uncontested pillar in Canadian political culture — immigration. It crumbled as if struck by a sledgehammer after just a few years of the Trudeau government’s careless mass-immigration policies.

The numbers laid bare illustrate Canada’s resulting issues of scarcity. Simply put, Canada is not built to sustain half a million newcomers per year.

Stephen Harper’s government admitted roughly 250,000 permanent residents per year between 2006 and 2015. The Trudeau wave saw those numbers increasing from Harper’s pre-2015 levels, to an average around 334,000, with four years (2019, 2021, 2022, and 2023) exceeding 341,000, at a time when Century Initiative, lobby group that advocates for dramatically higher immigration levels, was at the height of its influence in Ottawa.

In 2018, representatives of the Initiative lamented that Canada’s annual intake of about 310,000 people per year would only increase the population to 53 million by 2100, and called for an increase to 450,000 to reach the goal of 100 million.

Created by former McKinsey executive, Dominic Barton and former BlackRock executive Mark Wiseman, Century Initiative publicly endorsed the Trudeau government’s moves to take in 500,000 new immigrants per year by 2025.

However, the scheme rapidly lost all political currency as the population influx rocked Canada. Immigration-driven demand for housing and services vastly outstripped the supply of both, resulting in a palpable decline in affordability and access to health care, schooling and social services.

Between 2015 and 2024, Canada’s ranking in the Human Development Index plummeted from 9th to 18th, while the country fell behind Italy in the average growth of real GDP per capita.

Western governments since the Great Recession have tried to claim that large-scale immigration is an unambiguous economic benefit. Given the state of the economies of Canada, Germany, and others that embraced mass immigration, immigration has not been a silver bullet to remedy slow growth and stagnation.

Immigrants themselves are not at the root of Canada’s long-standing problems. However, it is also clear that increasing their numbers in such a deliberate fashion failed to make Canada more competitive or improve the lives of its citizens.

There has not been a meaningful increase in the numbers of engineers, physicians, and software developers. In essential services like health care, the ratio of family doctors in relation to the general population has actually worsened. Rather, Canada has imported hundreds of thousands of unskilled international students who stock shelves, deliver food, and flip hamburgers for minimum-wage.

On the other hand, academic institutions have become dependent on this new class of economic immigrant, who often enters the country on a student visa to attend suspect career colleges while paying exorbitant international student fees.

This is not an economic climate that breeds dynamism or healthy growth. Canada needs to be a top choice for highly-skilled immigrants, which means having attractively affordable housing and quality services, neither of which have been rapidly deteriorating.

Even if the restrictions on foreign credentials are loosened in Canada, few trained doctors or dentists from India or South Africa will pick Toronto over Dallas as long as the latter offers substantially higher paycheques and cheaper housing.

In-fact, just 46 per cent of immigrants are now choosing to receive Canadian citizenship, compared to 72 per cent in 1996. Last fall, Ipsos found that just over one quarter of all newcomers plan on leaving Canada within two years, with many citing the lack of affordability. This they have in-common with younger Canadians, many of whom are resigned to bleak and leaner lives than those enjoyed by their parents.

It is therefore concerning that Mark Carney has brought on Century Initiative co-founder Mark Wiseman as an advisor, whose name is ironic considering the results of his lobby group’s ideology. Canadians do not want Century Initiative-inspired ideas anymore, with nearly 60 per cent of residents polled last summer wanting substantially less immigration.

Unlike Europe, where mass-immigration has resulted in a slew of cultural and social clashes between asylum seekers and the established population, the pushback to immigration in Canada still mostly stems from economic factors, particularly housing.

Nonetheless, Wiseman’s presence on the prime minister’s team is political poison. He once even publicly endorsed pushing the Century Initiative’s agenda, even if it caused outrage in Quebec.

For many Québécois, their future is a major source of concern as their demographic place in North America shrinks. The prospect of more mass immigration could be the landmine that blows up Carney’s current run of goodwill in Quebec.

Without Quebec, Carney has little hope of winning a majority government, and even a parliamentary plurality is uncertain. Within hours of Wiseman’s involvement being announced, both the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois went on the attack, in both official languages.

Pierre Poilievre himself attacked the Century Initiative as striving to “bring in people from poor countries in large numbers, to take away Canadian jobs, drive wages down and profits up,” and that Canada should only admit people who can be actually housed and employed

Wiseman’s role will harden the perception that Carney is merely feigning a Liberal shift back to the centre under his leadership. It was a misstep that undercuts Carney’s credibility on immigration caps, which he has nominally pledged to maintain until housing is expanded.

To their credit, the Liberal government significantly scaled back the annual immigration numbers in Trudeau’s final months as PM, if only due to public backlash. A new leader, and Trump’s blustering, has gifted the Liberals a huge opportunity to reinvent themselves as the defenders of the country, while sidestepping hard questions about their thus far poor record in government.

Mark Carney is saying and promising all the right things to pull the Liberals back towards the centre and a genuine pro-growth agenda, earning him plaudits across the political spectrum, even from conservatives. However, if he continues to surround himself with the same crew of advisors and cabinet ministers who sailed Canada into a lost decade, can Carney truly be the captain to right the ship, least of all on immigration?

Source: Geoff Russ: Mark Carney can’t be trusted to get immigration under control

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Canada Curbed Illegal Migration to the U.S. Now People Are Heading to Canada.

2025/03/03 Leave a comment

Sort of inevitable that increased security patrols mean further persons found. No major uptick to date, February data should be out shortly:

…Canada has directed 1.3 billion Canadian dollars ($900 million) to enhance border security, adding two Black Hawk helicopters and 60 drones equipped with thermal cameras.

It also tightened requirements for temporary visas that some visitors used to arrive in Canada legally but then enter the United States illegally.

The Canadian government says its recent measures have driven down the number of unauthorized crossings into the United States: About 600 migrants were intercepted at the border in January, down from about 900 in January 2024, according to U.S. data.

“Whether or not some of the allegations about what is going on at the border are accurate or not, or credible or not, I don’t have the luxury not to take it seriously,” Marc Miller, Canada’s immigration minister, said in an interview on Thursday.

…The Opposite Direction

Canada’s focus on the border, against the backdrop of Mr. Trump’s domestic crackdown on migrants, is why the nine people walking into Alberta on Feb. 3 raised alarms: It was unusual to see a group this large crossing on foot in the heart of winter. The presence of young children made it all the more troubling.

The Canadian authorities say they have been intercepting more people arriving from the United States, but because of the schedule Canada follows in releasing data, no numbers are yet available for the weeks since Mr. Trump’s inauguration in January. But government news releases suggest the numbers are rising….

“This is the latest sign that Canada is sending people and families with children back to the U.S. with the full knowledge that they are at great risk of being detained and then returned to danger,” said Ketty Nivyabandi, a leader of Amnesty International’s Canada chapter, referring to the nine migrants Canada returned to the United States. 

“The Canadian government must not wait a minute longer to withdraw from the Safe Third Country Agreement,” she added.

But such a move would likely encourage more people to seek refuge in Canada, creating new pressures on the country’s already strained immigration system.

“It would almost certainly lead to a surge in unauthorized border crossings,” said Phil Triadafilopoulos, a political science professor at the University of Toronto.

Still, he added, by continuing to return asylum seekers to the United States, Canada is signaling that “it isn’t going to receive people who have lost their temporary protected status in the U.S. as hospitably as it did in the past.”

And as illustrated by the migrants who crossed in Alberta, those groups, he said, can “include small children in really dire conditions, with the full knowledge that the fate of those children and their families is highly uncertain.”

Mr. Miller, the immigration minister, insisted that Canada believes that the United States remains a safe country for asylum seekers.

“We need to have a proper, managed system at the border,” he said. “But it doesn’t mean that we’re naïve, or we’re not watching events that are currently happening in the U.S.”…

Source: Canada Curbed Illegal Migration to the U.S. Now People Are Heading to Canada.

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , , , , ,

Immigration department received intelligence about huge rise in clandestine U.S.-Canada border crossings last year

2024/12/07 Leave a comment

Good questions regarding senior official and minister awareness:

Intelligence experts within Canada’s border agency informed the federal immigration department last December about a big rise in illegal crossings of the Canada-U.S. border, including into the States, which raises questions about why action to curb it was not taken earlier.

An intelligence document sent to senior Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada officials, says smugglers were moving people across the border in both directions, with some foreign nationals flying into Canada at major airports and swiftly slipping across the border into the United States.

The Canada Border Services Agency’s intelligence analysis says clandestine entries have led to thousands of refugee claims, mostly in the Greater Toronto Area.

The document says “the Southbound movement into the United States (US) has grown significantly since 2022″ adding that “the majority of individuals who attempt to cross southbound illegally arrive by air, mainly at Montreal Trudeau International Airport and Toronto Pearson International Airport and move quickly.”

It found that “the vast majority were very likely in Canada for less than 6 months of which a large portion were in Canada for less than 3 weeks.”

Ministers have insisted in recent weeks, amid heightened tensions between U.S. president-elect Donald Trump and Ottawa over illegal immigration into the U.S., that Canada’s borders are secure.

But the emergence of the detailed analysis by the CBSA’s Intelligence and Investigations Directorate raises questions about whether ministers were ignorant of the extent of people smuggling into the U.S. from Canada, and in the other direction….

Source: Immigration department received intelligence about huge rise in clandestine U.S.-Canada border crossings last year

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Misleading Canadians: The Flawed Assumption Behind the Government’s Planned Reduction in Temporary Residents

2024/11/22 Leave a comment

This analysis was prompted by questions regarding the projected numbers of departures with no methodology mentioned, and the suspicion, subsequently confirmed, that it was based on the false assumption that all temporary residents would leave upon expiry of their visa

—

When IRCC released its annual immigration plan last month, eyebrows were raised over the plan’s prediction of large outflows of temporary residents upon expiry of their visas. The Parliamentary Budget Office noted that “there is significant risk to the demographic projection presented in the Government’s new immigration plan—particularly to the projected outflow of non-permanent residents.” The plan included a table covering projected outflows without indicating the methodology and assumptions behind the table. Subsequently, IRCC has confirmed that the calculations assumed that all temporary residents would leave when their visa expired, save for those who transitioned to permanent residency.

This assumption is just wrong as many temporary residents may well remain in Canada and appears aimed at misleading the public. For illustrative purposes, I revised the plan table to include four assumptions: 100 percent of temporary residents leave (the plan’s assumption), and three alternatives where 80, 75 and 70 percent leave. Should 60 percent or less leave, there would not be any net reduction in the temporary resident population.

The overly precise nature of the numbers—down to individual persons—highlights that the government adapted a purely mathematical approach in its estimates. In the case of permanent resident levels, the government more sensibly uses ranges rather than precise numbers which reflect more accurately operational realities. While politically difficult to admit that some non permanent residents will remain, by not doing so the government attracts more scepticism regarding its plans.

Moreover, as Canada does not track outflows systematically, we will not have accurate data on how many actually leave. The government should explore coordination of flight and CBSA data to obtain better anonymized information on outflows and those who overstay their visa.

The Prime Minister has stated that “Between the amount of people coming and going, we’ll effectively pause population growth for the next two years, then from 2027 onwards, it will balance out and slowly start increasing again at a sustainable pace.” However, this is based on the false assumption that all temporary residents will leave when their visa expires. Unfortunately, as we will not know how many people will stay versus how many people will leave, it will not be possible to verify the extent of errors and estimates.

In short, while inclusion of temporary residents in the annual immigration plan is both overdue and welcome, a more serious approach is needed that better reflects the reality and challenges.

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Immigrants Didn’t Steal the Election After All

2024/11/07 Leave a comment

Yet another myth questioned:

Among the rampant absurdities about immigration that spread from both the obscure and prominent corners of the Internet, the idea that the Biden administration was “importing” voters from abroad to help Kamala Harris win was simultaneously the silliest and the most common. Setting aside the conspiracy theories, the 2024 election provides the best evidence to date that Republicans can compete when immigration is high.

For reasons I can’t appreciate, many Republicans act as if they cannot do well if there are many immigrants in the electorate. Vice President-elect JD Vance saidrecently that immigration would permanently tilt the balance of power in favor of the Democrats. He said this even as his running mate was poised to make historic gains among Hispanic voters, many of whom are immigrants or children of immigrants. Regardless, the historical evidence shows that GOP performance improves with more immigration, so there are no data behind Vance’s fears.

The immigrant share isn’t associated with a stronger performance of either party in presidential elections. But there is a relationship between stronger Republican performance and a larger immigrant share of the US population. The Democrats controlled both houses of Congress for 83 percent of the years from 1935 to 1994 when the immigrant share of the US population was below 10 percent. Since 1995, Democrats have not controlled either house of Congress 53 percent of the time.

https://e.infogram.com/3b1be832-bfdb-442b-976a-d354eccf75b2?src=embed&wmode=transparent&auto=1

Republicans have performed much better during the high immigration periods of US history. Why? Not only do new populations assimilate, but the more Democrats compete and cater to the votes of naturalized citizens, the more US-born voters drift toward Republicans. An additional factor is that the immigrant share has been high when the unionized share of the labor force has been low, possibly because immigrants undermine unionization. 

Unions were historically the base of the Democratic Party until recently. Any benefit from naturalized citizens did not outweigh losses among the unionized population.

Does this mean that Democrats needed to be even more anti-immigrant to win? That was Kamala Harris’s assessment of the situation. But my view is that her (and Biden’s) immigration gambit backfired. Polls show that from 2019 to 2023 the share of voters saying immigration should be decreased grew just 6 points. Even though illegal immigration fell sharply in 2024, the share of Americans saying that immigration should be restricted suddenly jumped 14 points in June 2024.

Here’s what happened: Harris and Biden endorsed a bill to “shut the border” in 2024, which they reiterated as their position repeatedly before finally acting unilaterally to ban asylum in June 2024. It’s no surprise that when the heads of both parties endorse immigration restrictions, more people move toward that position. We have seen similar swings on other issues, like trade, when the head of a party (Trump) suddenly endorses a different view. Rather than neutralizing Trump’s immigration attacks, Harris’s flip validated them.

Source: Immigrants Didn’t Steal the Election After All

Filed under Immigration, Politics Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Selected commentary on Government’s reversal of immigration policies

2024/10/26 Leave a comment

The plan, apart from the numbers and the addition of targets for temporary residents, also had high level discussion of impacts on housing, healthcare and education, as I argued for in my December 2022 article Has immigration become a third rail in Canadian politics?

Major and overdue reversal, one that allows for a more serious discussion regarding immigration policies and priorities without accusations of xenophobia or racism (although see that some activists have already gone there).

Some selected commentary, mix of serious and agenda driven, no doubt more will follow.

Advocates:

A Dark Day for Canada: CILA Condemns Immigration Levels Plan 2025-2027: As an example of this, the federal government’s decision to aggressively increase permanent resident levels in 2021 during a challenging pandemic operating environment created a cascading effect on permanent and temporary resident programs which are still placing immense pressure on the immigration system today and will continue to do so over the foreseeable future. Another example was to allow international students to work full-time while class was in session. This change added to the growing number of foreign students coming to Canada, primarily to seek employment opportunities rather than academic pursuits. Consulting widely with stakeholders would give IRCC the information it needs to plan for the long-term and make policy decisions that are sustainable.  

While we are unable to change the past, it is incumbent on IRCC to learn from its recent shortcomings and ensure it hosts genuine stakeholder consultations moving forward so that immigration levels planning and other major policy decisions consider various viewpoints and we can proactively and effectively manage a healthier immigration system. 

OCASI: Immigration Levels Plan leaves behind refugees, families and people without status: We are deeply concerned that the government continues to incorrectly tie immigration numbers to housing pressures. Scapegoating immigrants for the lack of affordable housing is disgraceful, and will only increase anti-immigrant sentiment from politicians and the public. We expect better from the government and leaders of all political parties. 

These cuts also contradict the government’s acknowledgement that immigration is essential to Canada’s economic success and growth, and that 100% of Canada’s labour market growth comes from immigration. We call on the government to provide greater clarity on how the new levels plan is expected to resolve the public concerns it claims to address.

Canada betrays refugees – CCR Statement on 2025 Levels Announcement: In a shameful abdication of responsibility, the Canadian government has massively reduced its commitment to offer protection to those fleeing persecution and danger in the world, and all but ensured that refugees in Canada will remain separated from their spouses and children for years to come. The CCR condemns today’s announcement and calls on the government to reverse this dangerous course.

Media commentary

Clark: The day Justin Trudeau (sort of) admitted a mistake on immigration: The U-turn is unusual for governments, and out of character for this one. But it had become a political necessity to tell Canadians the Liberals are changing course. Mr. Trudeau even admitted he made a mistake. Or sort of.

Keller: The Trudeau government wants to restore the immigration consensus that it broke: Good news: Canada’s immigration consensus is back. Better news: It’s being restored by the people who broke it.

That means immigration is not going to become a divisive, polarizing and potentially explosive issue in the next federal election. Unlike our peers in Europe and the United States, we’re not going to have a radical left versus radical right brawl over the issue.

Why not? Because Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government has come to its senses on this issue. It’s been moving in that direction for the last year and a half, and as of this week, it’s close to fully there.

Phillips | Don’t be fooled into thinking Canadians have soured on immigration — the truth is remarkable
Canadians, by a significant majority, still believe in the value of immigration and they aren’t scapegoating immigrants for their problems, which compared to what’s happening in other countries is quite remarkable. Apparently, not even massive screw-ups in the immigration system can change that. Be grateful.

John Ivison: Red flags all over Trudeau’s flawed plan to curb runaway immigration: The new immigration plan says that 62 per cent of permanent resident admissions will come from the economic class next year, up from 58 per cent in 2024.

But that might simply reflect the adoption of a proposal circulating in the Immigration Department that would create a new economic class of permanent residents for people with high-school education or less, who would otherwise not pass the Comprehensive Ranking point-system that has served Canada so well when it comes to selecting the best and brightest.

The fear among some economists is that this might apply the brakes to a situation that is out of control but risk derailing the whole locomotive by undermining the skills-based system and lowering the standard of permanent resident that Canada accepts.

SUN EDITORIAL: Reducing immigration necessary, not racist: We aren’t going to fault Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for admitting his high immigration policies were a mistake that contributed to today’s affordability crisis, including high housing costs.

We do fault him for his government’s false depiction of Canadians who were raising these concerns long before he did, as racists.

Jesse Kline: Toronto Star paints a skewed picture of Trudeau’s immigration cuts: The bigger problem is that Keung’s story ran in the news section, where reporters have traditionally been expected to provide unbiased accounts of the day’s events. Although Keung is a veteran of the Star’s newsroom, the issue of reporters blurring the line between news and opinion is becoming increasingly common — particularly among young journalists fresh out of university, where many professors now see it as their duty to train activists, rather than extol the virtues of objective journalism.

This influx of woke young journalists has fundamentally changed the culture of many newsrooms, even ones as storied as the New York Times, as its former opinion editor, James Bennet, lamented in a lengthy feature published in The Economist last December. Bennet noted that when he began working at the paper as a reporter in 1991, he started from the bottom and was taught to aspire to “journalistic neutrality and open-mindedness.” In 2006, he left to become editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, where he started to “see some effects of the new campus politics.” [Ironically, the NP increasingly resorts to anti-woke younger columnists.]

Academic

Worswick: As Canada cuts immigration numbers, we must also better select immigrants
The reduction in the immigration and temporary-resident targets can be seen as sound economic policy so long as we as a country maintain our historical focus on selecting economic immigrants who are likely to have high earnings in the Canadian labour market. This focus has played no small part in maintaining our pro-immigration consensus, which can continue under a properly designed set of immigration policies.

Various (Star selection)

Canada’s major changes to immigration targets met with widespread criticism: Diana Palmerin-Velasco, a director of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, said the business community understands the need for a sustainable immigration system but is concerned about the plan’s implications on the labour market.

“It seems that the government might be overreacting,” she said. “It’s not just 100,000 fewer permanent residents. We are also expecting to see 400,000 fewer temporary residents. We are talking about 500,000 people.”

Scotiabank economist Rebekah Young said the drastic cuts to both permanent and temporary immigration are going to have a near-term macro impact on the economy, and there will be trade-offs.

“They are a source of labour supply and they provide economic activity through the workforce, but they also consume,” said Young. “We’re likely left with lower GDP, but not necessarily a stronger trajectory for the growth outlook.”

Dan Kelly, president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, said the cuts are troubling to employers and small businesses.

“A restaurant owner who can’t find a cook ready and willing to work in their community will not have work for the Canadians who may work in the front of the house,” he said. “We need to rethink many of these recent changes and be ready to turn the dial back up.” 

The cuts mean migrants will be forced to remain temporary or become undocumented, and pushed further into exploitative jobs and conditions, said Syed Hussan of the Migrant Rights Network.

The Canadian Immigration Lawyers Association called the pullback a “dark day” for Canada, warning of economic, fiscal and social damage.

“We still have an aging population, low birth rate, and pressing economic and fiscal pressures,” said Barbara Jo Caruso, its co-president. “Canada’s fundamental need for immigration has not changed.”

Diana Gallego, president of the Canadian Council for Refugees, said behind the numbers slashed from the humanitarian component of the levels are 14,000 real people struggling under persecution or in conflict zones around the world.

Business

Statement by Century Initiative in Response to Federal Government’s 2025-2027 Immigration Levels Plan: “Cutting immigration targets is the ultimate hammer solution to a problem far more complex than a few loose nails. This decision projects panic and instability at a time when the country needs clarity and foresight. Canada’s reputation as a stable, welcoming environment for business and talent is now at risk.” — Lisa Lalande, CEO, Century Initiative 

CFIB statement on the latest immigration cuts: These decisions hold huge implications for small business owners, Canadian workers as well as permanent immigrants and temporary workers. A restaurant owner who can’t find a cook ready and willing to work in their community will not have work for the Canadians who may work in the front of the house. We need to rethink many of these recent changes and be ready to turn the dial back up whenever and wherever needed.

Size of Ottawa’s cuts to immigration targets takes business by surprise: Since the reduction is likely to take place when the economy is becoming less inflationary and interest rates decline, this could inspire “existing Canadians to ramp up their spending,” said James Orlando, director of economics at Toronto-Dominion Bank, instead of depending upon newcomers.

Bank of Montreal economist Robert Kavcic in a note on Thursday said that while the government’s decision will reduce demand, the narrative that slower population growth is bad for the economy needs to be dispelled.

He said gross domestic product per capita, which measures the total production of goods and services during a certain period divided by the total population, has fallen in seven of the eight quarters since the second quarter of 2022.

Canada’s immigration pullback may impact economic growth, BoC governor says: “If population growth comes down faster than we have assumed, headline GDP growth will be lower,” Macklem said in response to a question on how the immigration curbs would impact the bank’s forecasts.

If household spending recovers more quickly due to continued cut in interest rates, economic growth could also be higher, he said, while addressing reporters virtually from Washington.

Other

Peter Csillag: Bigger numbers, fewer safeguards, and no accountability—How to fix Canada’s foreign worker program woes: The government’s signal this week that it is willing to not only entertain but actually implement restrictions on its broader immigration agenda is welcome, but far too little, too late. While the high-profile announcement of cuts to the number of permanent residents allowed into Canada is much needed, broader problems persist, particularly with the TFW program. It will be up to the next government to solve them.

Liberals to reduce immigration levels by 135K over two-year period: Sergio Karas, a specialist in immigration law agrees, he told True North that while this reduction is necessary given the housing crisis and the current state of the economy, he still believes that number should be further reduced. 

“As usual, the Trudeau government is doing it wrong,” said Karas. 

“The total number should be reduced to the 2015 levels of approximately 300,000 because the federal government inflated the number exponentially in the last nine years, but more important are the categories where the reduction should be applied. Not all applicants have the same ability to adapt, job security, language skills, and expertise required to ensure economic growth.”

Government announcement

The 2025–2027 Immigration Levels Plan is expected to result in a marginal population decline of 0.2% in both 2025 and 2026 before returning to a population growth of 0.8% in 2027. These forecasts account for today’s announcement of reduced targets across multiple immigration streams over the next two years, as well as expected temporary resident outflows resulting from the 5% target, natural population loss and other factors.

With this year’s levels plan, we have listened to Canadians. We are reducing our permanent resident targets. Compared to last year’s plan, we are:

  • reducing from 500,000 permanent residents to 395,000 in 2025
  • reducing from 500,000 permanent residents to 380,000 in 2026
  • setting a target of 365,000 permanent residents in 2027

The Levels Plan also supports efforts to reduce temporary resident volumes to 5% of Canada’s population by the end of 2026. Given temporary resident reduction measures announced in September and this past year, Canada’s temporary population will decrease over the next few years as significantly more temporary residents will transition to being permanent residents or leave Canada compared to new ones arriving.

Specifically, compared to each previous year, we will see Canada’s temporary population decline by

  • 445,901 in 2025
  • 445,662 in 2026
  • a modest increase of 17,439 in 2027

These reductions are the result of a series of changes over the past year, including a cap on international students and tightened eligibility requirements for temporary foreign workers, implemented to decrease volumes and strengthen the integrity and quality of our temporary resident programs. The changes are designed with long-term economic goals in mind to make sure that we continue to attract the best and the brightest.

These changes will help provinces, territories and stakeholders align their capacities and allow the population to grow at a sustainable pace as we encourage institutions to do their part in better welcoming newcomers.

Other measures from the 2025-2027 Immigration Levels Plan include the following:

  • Transitioning more temporary residents who are already in Canada as students and workers to permanent residents
    Representing more than 40% of overall permanent resident admissions in 2025, these residents are skilled, educated and integrated into Canadian society. They will continue to support the workforce and economy without placing additional demands on our social services because they are already established, with housing and employment.
  • Focusing on long-term economic growth and key labour market sectors, such as health and trades
    Permanent resident admissions in the economic class will reach 61.7% of total admissions by 2027.
  • Strengthening Francophone communities outside Quebec and supporting their economic prosperity
    Of the overall permanent resident admission targets, Francophone immigration will represent
    • 8.5% in 2025
    • 9.5% in 2026
    • 10% in 2027

Through this plan, we are using our existing programs so that everyone—including newcomers—has access to the well-paying jobs, affordable homes and social services they need to thrive in our beautiful country.

Source: Government of Canada reduces immigration


















Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , , , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →