Australia to halve immigration intake, toughen English test for students – BBC.com

2023/12/12 Leave a comment

Given that the Canadian immigration system is similarly broken – lack of integrated planning bt levels and impacts, ongoing service delivery issues, focus on pop growth rather than per capita GDP etc – Canada might wish to consider a more dramatic fundamental review and changes than announced to date:

The Australian government says it will halve the migration intake within two years in an attempt to fix the country’s “broken” immigration system.

It aims to slash the annual intake to 250,000 – roughly in line with pre-pandemic levels – by June 2025.

Visa rules for international students and low-skilled workers will also be tightened under the new plan.

Migration has climbed to record levels in Australia, adding pressure to housing and infrastructure woes.

But there remains a shortage of skilled workers, and the country struggles to attract them.

Unveiling a new 10-year immigration strategy at a media briefing on Monday, Home Affairs Minister Clare O’Neil said the migration system had been left “in tatters” by the previous government.

A review earlier this year found the system was “badly broken” – unnecessarily complex, slow and inefficient – and in need of “major reform”.

A record 510,000 people came to Australia in the year to June 2023, but the minister said her government would “bring numbers back under control” and reduce the annual migration intake by around 50%.

Among the new measures are tougher minimum English-language requirements for international students, and more scrutiny of those applying for a second visa – they must prove that any further study would advance their academic aspirations or their careers. There are some 650,000 foreign students in Australia, with many of them on their second visa, according to official data.

The visa pathways for migrants with “specialist” or “essential” skills – like highly-skilled tech workers or care workers – have also been improved to offer better prospects of permanent residency.

The new policies will attract more of the workers Australia needs and help reduce the risk of exploitation for those who live, work and study in the country, Ms O’Neil said.

Opposition migration spokesman Dan Tehan has said that the government was too slow to adjust migration policies designed to help Australia recover from the pandemic.

“The horse has bolted when it comes to migration and the government not only cannot catch it but cannot find it,” he said at the weekend.

The Labor government’s popularity has dwindled since its election last year, and in recent weeks it has been under pressure from some quarters to temporarily reduce migration to help ease Australia’s housing crisis.

However others, like the Business Council of Australia, have said migrants are being used as a scapegoat for a lack of investment in affordable housing and decades of poor housing policy.

Source: Australia to halve immigration intake, toughen English test for students – BBC.com

For a more in-depth but more gentle take:

The government says these changes are the “biggest reforms in a generation”. It’s been reported the reforms will “dramatically cut”“ the immigration intake. But don’t be fooled by the hyperbole.

Instead of thinking of the strategy as a complete overhaul, the reforms are a number of long overdue remedies dealing with migrant worker exploitation, misuse of international student visas and an overly complex and inefficient bureaucracy.

The intake cuts are overstated and will largely be the result of a natural evening out of migration patterns in the post-pandemic world. Even the Department of Immigration acknowledges the spike in arrivals is “temporary”, a phenomenon labelled as “the catch-up effect” by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. If the current circumstances are only transitory, one wonders why the government is so keen to cut numbers.

It is important to look at how the department plans to reform immigration policy.

The policy document is 100 pages with much detail on the minutiae of immigration procedures. The broad areas covered are revising temporary skilled migration, cracking down on alleged rorting of the international education system, replacing annual migration plans with longer-term forecasting and getting the states and territories, which bear most of the resettling costs, more involved.

Source: The government is bringing immigration back to ‘normal levels’ but cuts are not as dramatic as they seem – The Conversation

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , ,

HESA: Canada’s Internationalization Strategy [spoiler, not a strategy]

2023/10/12 Leave a comment

Another insightful analysis by HESA that applies to other areas of government than Global Affairs:

A couple of months ago, I was invited to participate in a Global Affairs Canada (GAC) stakeholder roundtable on its Strategic Plan for the next five years.  It was very kind of them to invite me and a few others to be part of the consultation.  It was an interesting window into how the federal government thinks about policy and – especially – strategy.

It seems to me that GAC is in the education business for three reasons.

  1. It has a commercial function in that it exists to make things easier within the limits of existing provincial and federal legislation to assist in increasing educational imports. 
  2. It has a diplomatic/soft power function in that it is, in conjunction with institutions, meant to generate ongoing goodwill towards Canada with current and future world leaders through programs of educational and cultural exchange. 
  3. It has an immigration function is there to promote immigration via education.  That’s been the policy of the Government of Canada for a decade and a half now. 

But instead of talking about goals and the role of GAC in these three areas, the department chose to jump straight into talking about four “pillars”: digital marketing, diversification (in the sense of widening the international student base beyond India and China), scholarships and education agents. The background papers for those four pillars are available here (there are also another 9 or so background papers here, and kudos to the folks at GAC for making all of this public…it would be normal in other countries, but in Canada, this counts as a major act of transparency).

I don’t want to dismiss these pillars – they are all important – but they don’t really amount to a strategy.  They are more like issue management.  And as a result, what pervaded the discussion was a mixture of presentism and mission confusion.  By presentism, I mean that the conversation tended to focus on “how do we make minor changes to things we do now” rather than “what should we be trying to achieve in this area”?  This was most evident in the discussion about the small suite of scholarships that that GAC runs such as the Canada-ASEAN Scholarships, the Canadian International Development Scholarships Program, and the CARICOM Faculty Leadership Program.  All the questions were about “how can we make these work better?”, where “better” means “in line with educational objectives with respect to student recruitment diversification.  This was disappointing.   The possibility of aligning these with actual foreign policy objectives, like, say, our vaunted turn to the Indo-Pacific?  Not on the table.

Similarly on the question of digital marketing – the Government of Canada spends $5 million year, spread across 25 countries (not India and China), on “promoting the benefits of studying in Canada as they relate to the primary drivers influencing international students’ choice of study destination” (which,  apparently do notinclude immigration – more on that below).  What was at issue was not “is spending this money a good idea?” either in the sense of “is there any evidence that this advertising is working” or “is there any evidence that there is a market failure here given how much institutions themselves spend on marketing?”.  Just, again, “how could we do it better” in the sense of more “efficiency”, not “should we be doing this at all”?

The issue of agents was a bit more intriguing.  As a host of recent news stories have suggested, there are some serious cases of study permit fraud in Canada and we could certainly stand to gain from being more pro-active and adopting stricter controls on agents as other countries have done through the London Statement (which is a good policy in theory, though I suspect over-rigorous enforcement of such policies are a potential nightmare).  But tucked into the paper is a sentence which suggest that from GAC’s perspective the problem is not fraud per se, but “the wrong kind” of students, to wit:

This advising fee model [among student agents] has led to a lack of quality control with respect to study permit applications, resulting in a huge increase in applications from students who have no chance of being approved for a Study Permit, increasing IRCC workloads and contributing to the backlogs in the system, negatively impacting genuine, high-quality prospective students. [emphasis added]

The sharp-eyed will see links here back to the whole “trusted provider” approach that IRCC is taking, only for some reason it’s taking aim at agents rather than institutions.  In any event, we see here that a group of Ottawa officials have a very clear idea in their heads with respect to “genuine” students vs. fake ones, “high-quality” students vs low-quality ones, etc.   And I’m guessing once again it has something to do with the use of the immigration tack.

Why do I think this?  Well, one very intriguing moment in the consultation happened when a fairly senior GAC employee recounted an event he had recently witnessed in Dubai.  At this event, an unnamed university President said something to the effect “come study at my university and you’ll be on a path to Canadian citizenship”.  This was deeply distressing to the GAC employee.  “That’s not what this program is for”, he huffed (he presumably meant both the PGWP program and pathway to Permanent Residency that follows). 

It was on Zoom and most everyone was muted, but I could still hear a lot of jaws dropping at this.  This is of course exactly what IRCC policy is meant to be for.  GAC might not like the policy that IRCC developed, but since it is responsible for selling the policy overseas, you’d think GAC would understand it.  The fact that not everyone there does, combined with the fact that – as noted above – GAC seems determined to ignore the evidence that immigration is a major factor in student choice, suggests some major communications gaps between Ottawa departments.  Maybe not the most auspicious conditions under which to launch a new strategy.

In short, I found this whole exercise to be well-meaning but not particularly strategic.  The strategy focuses on scholarships for students from other countries but refuse to link these scholarships to broader diplomatic or soft power goals.  The strategy wants to attract students from other countries using digital marketing and so forth but refuses to look at the link to immigration, because GAC and IRCC appear to be at cross-purposes on the subject.  It’s the kind of process that might lead to some tiny little improvements but never seems to have even considered the possibility of a strategy that was genuinely transformative.  I don’t feel that’s GAC’s fault, particularly: rather, boldness and ambition just aren’t in a lot of governments’ DNA these days.  Too bad.

Source: Canada’s Internationalization Strategy

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , ,

Globe editorial – Immigration: Canada needs a strategy, not a numbers game [the penny drops…]

2023/06/12 Leave a comment

The Globe completes its shift from earlier “cheerleading” the Century Initiative, business leaders, governments and others in favour of high and higher levels of immigration to recognizing the realities of housing, healthcare and infrastructure deficiencies and raises the need for considering lower immigration levels. Fitting culmination to a good series of editorials and analysis by their journalists.

An “I told you so” moment for me (Increasing immigration to boost population? Not so fast.) and others. Better late than never…

There have been many waves of immigration that have transformed Canada in decades past. Eastern European migrants headed to the Prairies at the start of the 20th century, forever altering the heart of the country. Canada welcomed Hungarians in the 1950s, opened its doors to non-European immigrants in the 1960s, embraced Vietnamese refugees in the 1970s and, more recently, gave a new home to those fleeing the chaos of Syria.

…

Source: Immigration: Canada needs a strategy, not a numbers game

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , ,

Shielding Israel from criticism is not part of US strategy for combating anti-Semitism

2023/05/30 Leave a comment

Of note (on the IHRA and other definitions):

Supporters of Israel advocating for the controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism have suffered a major blow in their ongoing effort to shield the apartheid state from criticism, following the release of a strategy document by the White House detailing its plan to combat the rise of anti-Jewish racism. Since at least 2016, anti-Palestinian groups have been clamouring to place the IHRA at the heart and centre of regulatory frameworks, which critics say is designed to police free speech on Israel and Palestine.

Yesterday, the US President Joe Biden had his say on the issue and the outcome is far from what advocates of the IHRA had been calling for. Instead of adopting the IHRA as the only definition of anti-Semitism, which hundreds of pro-Israel groups had been advocating for during consultation, its status has been demoted as one of the definitions of anti-Jewish racism alongside others that “serve as valuable tools to raise awareness and increase understanding of anti-Semitism.”

The White House’s strategy for combatting anti-Semitism refers to IHRA as “most prominent” but also “non-legally binding working definition” alongside other definitions it “welcomes and appreciates”. The US Administration also cites the non-controversial “Nexus Document” as a valid definition of anti-Semitism. Unlike the IHRA, the Nexus Document does not conflate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. Interestingly, the IHRA is only mentioned once in the report, alongside other less controversial definitions of anti-Semitism, that do not mention Israel.

Noticeably, the White House did offer its own definition of anti-Semitism: “Anti-Semitism is a stereotypical and negative perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred of Jews” said the strategy document, without mentioning Israel once. “It is prejudice, bias, hostility, discrimination or violence against Jews for being Jews or Jewish institutions or property for being Jewish or perceived as Jewish. Anti-Semitism can manifest as a form of racial, religious, national origin, and/or ethnic discrimination, bias, or hatred; or, a combination thereof. However, anti-Semitism is not simply a form of prejudice or hate. It is also a pernicious conspiracy theory that often features myths about Jewish power and control.”

To the disappointed of pro-Israel groups, the White House’s definition does not mention the apartheid state once. Seven of the eleven examples of anti-Semitism in the IHRA conflate criticism of Israel with ant-Jewish racism. Because of this fact, opponents of the IHRA have warned that instead of focusing on how to keep Jews safe, the so called “working definition” is fixated on shielding Israel from accountability. The Biden administration seems to be implicitly sympathetic to this view. With no mention of Israel in the White House’s own definition of anti-Semitism, there is no other way to interpret the position of the Biden administration other than to view it as a snub to advocates of the IHRA. Having campaigned hard and long to make sure that the IHRA was at the heart and centre of the White House’s strategy to combat anti-Semitism, it was mentioned once and only in passing.

The Biden administration’s strategy represents “the most comprehensive and ambitious US government effort to counter anti-Semitism in American history”. To develop this strategy, the White House held listening sessions with more than 1,000 diverse stakeholders across the Jewish community and beyond. These sessions have included Jews from diverse backgrounds and all denominations. The White House also met with Special Envoys who combat anti-Semitism around the globe to learn from their best practices. Bipartisan leaders in Congress and from across civil society, the private sector, technology companies, civil rights leaders, Muslim, Christian and other faith groups, students and educators and countless others were engaged during “listening sessions”.

A bitter row had ensued during the consultation period over the status of the IHRA. Though there is said to have existed a broad consensus that anti-Semitism in America is a crucial problem and must be addressed, some Jewish organisations tried to undermine this effort, according to Hadar Susskind, the President and CEO of Americans for Peace Now. By insisting on the prioritisation of the IHRA above all other issues, Susskind claimed that a number of American Jewish organisations had prioritised shielding Israel from criticism over combatting anti-Semitism.

“Rather than support this far-reaching  plan to truly combat anti-Semitism, there are those in our community who, instead, insist that this plan should be about the IHRA definition, and only the IHRA definition,” said Susskind on twitter, while revealing details of the polarisation in the Jewish community over the IHRA. “Why are some insisting that the IHRA definition is so unique that it alone is worthy of inclusion in this effort?” Susskind asked. “Why do those same people insist that the Nexus definition and the Jerusalem Declaration on Anti-Semitism are so unacceptable as tools to combat anti-Semitism?”

Explaining the difference, Susskind said that “the IHRA definition and only the IHRA definition has been weaponised by the Israeli government and those who defend its worst policies and actions”. He mentioned how the IHRA definition has been used repeatedly to define anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism and “honed into a weapon to shut down criticism of Israeli policy and discourse on Israel-Palestine.”

J Street, another liberal pro-Israel advocacy group, which had urged the Biden administration not to incorporate the IHRA in its strategy, also welcomed the report. “Importantly, the strategy avoids exclusively codifying any one specific, sweeping definition of anti-Semitism as the sole standard for use in enforcing domestic law and policy, recognising that such an approach could do more harm than good” said J Street. “While some voices have pushed the White House to give the full force of US law to the IHRA Working Definition of Anti-Semitism and its accompanying examples, the Biden Administration rightly cites this definition as just one of a range of illustrative and useful tools in understanding and combating anti-Semitism.”

J Street went on to add that it was supported by many other advocates in the Jewish community – including the definition’s original author, Kenneth Stern – in warning that the IHRA and examples of anti-Jewish racism cited in the definition have been used to focus attention disproportionately on criticism of Israel and advocacy of Palestinian rights.

In refusing to endorse the IHRA as the only definition of anti-Semitism, President Biden has shown that a genuine effort to combat the rise of anti-Jewish racism cannot have a document shielding Israel from accountability at the heart and centre of its strategy.

Source: Shielding Israel from criticism is not part of US strategy for combating anti-Semitism

Filed under Antisemitism Tagged with , , ,

Horgan calls for national anti-racism program; will pitch idea to PM, premiers

2020/06/06 Leave a comment

The challenge lies in the specifics, and better information in terms of what works, is more effective and is scaleable.

My experience when running the multiculturalism program, rather dated now, was that small projects, while worthwhile in many ways, had little long lasting impact and that previous strategies have had little impact on the communities most affected:

Saying Canada’s diversity and multiculturalism mean we need a national strategy to combat racism, Premier John Horgan will make his case to the Premiers and federal government today.

Each Thursday Horgan attends a weekly conference call with other provincial and territorial leaders and the Prime Minister. Today he says he will push for a “coast-to-coast-to-coast” strategy to tackle racism.

“I think that lifts up all Canadians and we can identify and recognize that it’s a diverse, multicultural country; better to have a national approach to these issues and having provinces fully supporting those.”

He also took a moment to express his horror at the death of George Floyd in the U.S., and understands the need to protest and have your voice heard right now, despite the pandemic.

“Be responsible to yourself and more importantly, to the people around you,” he asked of British Columbian’s planning to attend protests.

Horgan acknowledged a series of well-known historically racist events and policies, including the Chinese Head Tax, the Komagata Maru incident, aimed at South Asian migrants and ongoing racism towards Indigenous people.

The premier also spoke out recently against alleged racially-motivated attacks against Chinese-Canadians during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Source: Horgan calls for national anti-racism program; will pitch idea to PM, premiers

Filed under Multiculturalism, Racism Tagged with ,