Le Devoir Éditorial | La vraie nature de Zuckerberg

2025/01/14 Leave a comment

Well stated:

Pendant que le comté de Los Angeles compte les morts causés par d’effroyables incendies, le président des États-Unis désigné, Donald Trump, répand ses faussetés à la même vitesse que les flammes. Sur son réseau Truth Social, le 8 janvier, il a accusé le gouverneur de la Californie, le démocrate Gavin Newsom, d’être responsable des difficultés d’approvisionnement en eau en raison de son refus « de signer la déclaration de restauration de l’eau qui lui a été présentée et qui aurait permis l’accès à des millions de litres d’eau, provenant des pluies excédentaires et de la fonte des neiges du Nord ».

Une simple mais rigoureuse vérification des faits menée par l’équipe du Poynter Institute, PolitiFact, a montré que la « déclaration de restauration de l’eau » n’existe tout simplement pas. Et que ce sont les structures de stockage des eaux, et non ses méthodes de collecte à la source, qui ont entraîné des problèmes d’approvisionnement. Pour le président désigné, proférer des mensonges de manière consciente et calculée dans le but de discréditer l’adversaire est devenu aussi naturel que respirer. Il est donc profondément troublant d’apprendre que le p.-d.g. de Meta Platforms inc. (Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Threads), Mark Zuckerberg, s’incline devant le règne de la désinformation et proscrit l’ère de la vérification des faits.

Dans une vidéo diffusée le 7 janvier dernier sur son réseau, l’ex-étudiant de Harvard âgé de 40 ans, et dont la fortune est évaluée à plus de 200 milliards de dollars américains, a affirmé qu’il souhaitait « revenir à la source » de Facebook, créé en 2004, et redonner la voix au peuple. Concrètement, il annonce la fin de la vérification des faits par une équipe de vérificateurs au profit des notes de la communauté, à la manière du réseau X, où les citoyens réagissent au gré de leurs connaissances,a priori et intentions partisanes. Ironiquement, le programme de vérification des faits lancé par Facebook en 2016, et salué dans le monde entier, visait à contrer le flot de fake news né de la campagne du candidat républicain Donald Trump. Zuckerberg n’en est pas à son premier revirement, mais celui-ci pourrait être dévastateur.

Dans une longue entrevue-confession accordée vendredi au polémiste et partisan de Trump Joe Rogan (l’un des animateurs de podcast les plus écoutés dans le monde), Zuckerberg explique qu’il a erré en confiant à des vérificateurs « idéologiquement partiaux » le mandat de valider la véracité des idées publiées par les utilisateurs de Facebook — il y en aurait 3,2 milliards chaque mois dans le monde, une quantité non négligeable. « On va se débarrasser d’une série de restrictions portant sur l’immigration et les questions de genre », dit-il, ne cachant pas son exaspération pour des courants wokes, qui lui semblent occuper trop d’espace.

Le p.-d.g poursuit son délire : fortement mal à l’aise avec le fait d’être « un de ceux qui décident de ce qui est vrai ou faux dans le monde », il préfère mettre fin à la « censure » et milite pour une saine autorégulation. Or, la désastreuse expérience du réseau X, sous la houlette d’un autre despote de la désinformation, Elon Musk, a montré les errements vers lesquels menait un réseau gangrené par les trolls et les manipulateurs. Avec les notes de la communauté, la vérité n’est pas vainqueure.

Zuckerberg parle de censure, mais ce que les vérificateurs de faits faisaient n’avait rien à voir avec une exclusion complète de propos s’éloignant de la vérité, mais relevait plutôt d’une diminution de leur portée. Facebook est une bête qui se nourrit à l’engagement, source de ses profits mirobolants. La décision a choqué partout dans le monde, et un groupe comme l’IFCN (Réseau international de vérification des faits) a immédiatement dénoncé la prémisse de Zuckerberg, selon laquelle les vérificateurs sont idéologiquement partiaux, ce qui en fait des censeurs.

La nouvelle ne concerne pour l’heure que les États-Unis, mais Mark Zuckerberg a promis d’étendre cette mesure ailleurs. L’heure est grave : a-t-on oublié un faux pas tragique comme celui survenu en 2017 au Myanmar ? Un rapport dévastateur publié en 2022 par Amnesty International a démontré que « les systèmes d’algorithmes de Facebook amplifiaient la propagation de contenus nocifs anti-Rohingyas au Myanmar ». Des milliers de Rohingyas ont ainsi été « tués, torturés, violés et déplacés ». Avec Facebook comme caisse de résonance, la violence virtuelle s’est transposée sur le terrain.

Les nouvelles règles sur la conduite haineuse édictées par Facebook interdisent de cibler des caractéristiques mentales pour insulter des personnes, mais, de manière tout à fait outrancière, elles passeront outre auxdites allégations de maladie mentale ou d’anormalité si elles sont fondées sur le genre ou l’orientation sexuelle, et cela, « compte tenu du discours politique et religieux sur le transgenrisme et l’homosexualité ». La communauté LGBTQ+ fulmine et s’inquiète, avec raison. Voilà donc la vraie nature de Zuckerberg, qui, sous le couvert fourre-tout de la libre expression, pourrait stimuler des vagues de haine et d’intolérance sur ses réseaux sociaux.

Source: Éditorial | La vraie nature de Zuckerberg

Filed under Multiculturalism, Social Media Tagged with , ,

Klein: ‘Now Is the Time of Monsters’

2025/01/13 Leave a comment

Good summary of four macro issues that will affect our lives for years to come. Makes for depressing reading but cannot be ignored.

Donald Trump is returning, artificial intelligence is maturing, the planet is warming, and the global fertility rate is collapsing.

To look at any of these stories in isolation is to miss what they collectively represent: the unsteady, unpredictable emergence of a different world. Much that we took for granted over the last 50 years — from the climate to birthrates to political institutions — is breaking down; movements and technologies that seek to upend the next 50 years are breaking through….

Source: ‘Now Is the Time of Monsters’

Filed under Other Tagged with , , , ,

Keller: The MAGA fight over the future of American immigration, and the Canadian connection

2025/01/06 Leave a comment

More on the internal MAGA debates:

…However, as is par for the course with Mr. Trump, his words and his actions tend to work different sides of the street. According to an analysis by The New York Times, his businesses have rarely used the high-wage H1-B program. Instead, over the last 20 years, he has employed more than 1,000 foreign workers through the low-wage H-2 program, which brings temporary workers such as gardeners and housekeepers.

Mr. Trump’s business practices may be the opposite of what most voters want, but his words, and those of Mr. Musk, are closer to what Americans of all stripes say they would prefer.

Democratic and Republican voters are far apart on immigration, except on two crucial questions. A Pew Research Center poll released during the election found that 96 per cent of Trump voters were in favour of “improving security along the country’s borders,” but so were a whopping 80 per cent of Kamala Harris voters. The poll also found that 87 per cent of Harris voters favoured “admitting more high-skilled immigrants” – as did 71 per cent of Trump voters.

The Musk position – less illegal immigration, less immigration by people with high-school educations, but more immigration by the world’s brightest engineers, computer scientists and other skilled workers – is popular with voters. It also makes a lot of economic sense.

Source: The MAGA fight over the future of American immigration, and the Canadian connection


Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

Snyder: The Mump Oligarchy — A Glossary

2025/01/02 Leave a comment

Snyder is providing some of the best macro-level analysis of the incoming administration and its acolytes. The recent infighting over H1-B visas being a recent example:

  1. Mump regime. Musk plus Trump. Mu…mp. The real centibillionaire and the fake rich person in the proper order.
  2. Mump oligarchy. The regime is an oligarchy, rule by the wealthy few. Trump is the oligarchs’ spokesman. He might stay or go. The oligarchs will remain.
  3. Mump as illness. Physical illness: we are made sick and scammed blind (think of RFK Jr and Ramaswamy). Mumps is one of the diseases that will return without vaccines. Mental illness: Musk’s idea of prosperity is that he hurts you and you thank him. See my work on sadopopulism. 
  4. In Mumptopia, Americans spend our time in front of screens, instructed whom to hate and worship by algorithms curated by immigrant software engineers. We die pointlessly young on an overheated Earth with the word “Mars” on our lips. The Mump mage performs a ritual rocket dance, leaping a few inches over our graves. 
  5. Mump not MAGA. The MAGA folks somehow did not realize that they were giving power to a an illegal immigrant South African centibillionaire. This is not their regime.
  6. Mumpers. South Africans, Russians, and others close to power. Musk, Putin, Thiel, Sacks, Trump (today), Vance (tomorrow) and their closest circles.
  7. Mumpery. Behavior typical of the Mump regime. Gaslighting, theft, scams, tax avoidance, disinformation, Putinism, dictator worship, threatening U.S. allies, submitting to U.S. enemies, persecuting Americans, suppressing speech with threats of violence and lawsuits, promoting pollution and global warming, ending public services.
  8. Mumpets. Those who choose to submit to Musk. For example, senators who ignore their constitutional responsibilities and vote for Trump’s Cabinet nominees, whose buffoonery and fascism are meant to weaken the state so Musk can profit. Compare: puppet, pet.
  9. To mumpify. To become a mumpet. Nouns can be formed from this verb. For example: “Senator Fetterman is pretty far along in his mumpification.” Or adjectives: “Yep, I’d say he’s mumpified by now.” Compare: zombify, zombification.
  10. Mumpy, or mumpish. People influenced by the Mump regime, or actions that tend towards a mumpified world. “That’s mumpier than I would have expected.” “She’s gone all mumpy on me.” Supercedes: trumpy.

Source: The Mump Oligarchy — A Glossary

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Experts pour cold water on Trump’s plan to end birthright citizenship — but issue a stark warning

2024/12/12 Leave a comment

Think this assessment largely correct. More performative but not without consequences and distracts from what the administration can and will do:

…”President-elect Trump is trying to send a message to people all over the world and also to unauthorized immigrants in the United States that he’s going to be tough on immigration,” argued Julia Gelatt, the associate director of the U.S. Immigration Policy Program at the Migration Policy Institute (MPI), a nonpartisan think tank.

“He hopes that people will choose not to make the trip to the United States and not try to enter,” she told Salon in a phone interview. “I think he also hopes that people who are living in the United States without status might opt to leave the country on their own.”

Trump has signaled an interest in repealing birthright citizenship since his first run for president, including the change in his immigration policy proposal in 2015, according to CNN. Trump insisted to Axios in 2018 that it was possible to do so through an executive order and last May, Trump released a campaign video proclaiming he would sign an executive order to roll back the right on day one of his presidency, according to NBC News.

The impact of repealing the right would be immense. A 2020 MPI and Pennsylvania State University analysis found that ending birthright citizenship for U.S. babies with two undocumented immigrant parents would lead to a 4.7 million-person increase in the population of unauthorized people by 2050, including one million children born to two parents who had been born in the U.S. themselves.

That population would skyrocket to 24 million by 2050 from 11 million at the time of the analysis’ publishing if U.S. babies with only one undocumented parent were also denied citizenship, the researchers found.

Gelatt said that such an action from the Trump administration would create a “multigenerational class of people who are excluded from full rights” and citizenship, which would restrain their ability to achieve higher earnings, support their families and contribute to the country through taxes.

“Denying people that legal status, even if they’re born in the United States, would put people in a much more legally vulnerable, economically vulnerable position,” she said.

Depending on the exact language of Trump’s proposed executive order, ending birthright citizenship could also impact U.S.-born children’s parents, added Stephen Yale-Loehr, a professor of immigration law practice at Cornell Law School. Such an order could potentially prevent officials from issuing passports, Social Security numbers or providing welfare benefits to family members of those children.

But Trump has no viable legal pathway to repealing birthright citizenship, Yale-Loehr told Salon in an email. An executive order can’t repeal an amendment, and any executive action Trump took attempting to do so would “trigger immediate litigation.”

Birthright citizenship was enshrined in the U.S. Constitution in 1868 with the ratification of the 14th Amendment, which was intended to grant citizenship and civil liberties to formerly enslaved African Americans. Contrary to what Trump told Welker, more than 30 nations, largely in the western hemisphere, provide birthright citizenship.

Amending the Constitution to upend the 14th Amendment would require a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate as well as ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures. Even with slim Republican majorities in both chambers during Trump’s next term, such a proposal would be unlikely to get past either chamber.

His proposed executive order is also unlikely to withstand any legal challenges as the likelihood of the Supreme Court, despite its conservative majority, striking birthright citizenship from the Constitution is slim to none, added Hiroshi Motomura, a UCLA School of Law professor and faculty co-director of the Center for Immigration Law and policy.

“Even though people say that the court has become more conservative, this would be even further in the direction of trying to overturn the past than we’ve seen,” he told Salon in a phone interview.

Ending birthright citizenship would upend the foundation of how the nation has historically seen itself — as a country of immigrants — flying in the face of the purpose of the American Civil War and much of the United States immigration history since its founding, Motomura said. He pointed to the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim ArkSupreme Court decision that held that U.S.-born children of Chinese immigrants were U.S. citizens under the 14th Amendment even though their parents were, at the time, legally barred from obtaining citizenship under the Chinese Exclusion Acts.

“This is all part of the racial history of the United States. This is why this is so bedrock compared to other things that the Supreme Court is sometimes characterized for doing as being quite radical,” he explained. “This goes way beyond overruling Roe v. Wade. I think that was a radical move, but this is no comparison. This is quite a bit more of a rethinking of what the country is even about.”

Given how unlikely it is that Trump would succeed at repealing birthright citizenship, what purpose, then, could Trump’s focus on ending the right serve? Generating political value, Gelatt and Motomura argued, the former pointing to the importance of illegal immigration and the border to voters during the 2024 election.

Source: Experts pour cold water on Trump’s plan to end birthright citizenship — but issue a stark warning

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with , , ,

Trump Prepares for Legal Fight Over His ‘Birthright Citizenship’ Curbs

2024/12/10 Leave a comment

Unlikely to succeed is the general consensus but we are seeing signs of those interested in becoming a member of the Supreme Court changing their position:

President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team is drafting several versions of his long-promised executive order to curtail automatic citizenship for anyone born in the U.S., according to people familiar with the matter, as his aides prepare for an expanded legal fight.

Trump, who has railed against so-called birthright citizenship for years, said during his first term that he was planning an executive order that would outright ban it. Such an order was never signed, but the issue remained a focus of Trump’s immigration proposals during his re-election campaign. He has said he would tackle the issue in an executive order on day one of his second term.

Weeks before he takes office, Trump’s transition team is now considering how far to push the scope of such an order, knowing it would almost immediately be challenged in court, according to a transition official and others familiar with the matter. The eventual order is expected to focus on changing the requirements for documents issued by federal agencies that verify citizenship, such as a passport.

Through an executive order or the agency rule-making process, Trump is also expected to take steps to deter what Trump allies call “birth tourism,” in which pregnant women travel to the U.S. to have children, who receive the benefit of citizenship. One option on the table is to tighten the criteria to qualify for a tourist visa, according to people familiar with the Trump team’s thinking. Tourist visas are most often issued for a period of 10 years, though the tourist can’t stay in the U.S. on each visit for longer than six months.

Karoline Leavitt, a spokeswoman for the Trump transition, said the president-elect “will use every lever of power to deliver on his promises, and fix our broken immigration system once and for all.”

Some on the right have backed Trump’s plans and argued that birthright citizenship is a misinterpretation of the 14th amendment, which dates back to the 19th century and in part granted full citizenship to former slaves. They have also criticized birth tourism. Companies in China have attracted attention in recent years for advertising such services, and airlines in Asia even started turning away some pregnant passengers they suspected of traveling to give birth.

“Because you happen to be in this country when your child is born, is not a reason for that child to be a U.S. citizen. It’s just silly, and the reliance on it in law is utterly misplaced,” said Ken Cuccinelli, a senior fellow at the Center for Renewing America, a pro-Trump think tank, who previously served as deputy secretary of Homeland Security.

Many constitutional scholars and civil-rights groups have said a change to birthright citizenship can’t be done through executive action and would require amending the Constitution—a rare and difficult process. The most recent amendment was ratified in 1992, more than 200 years after it was first proposed.

T rump on the campaign trail this year offered more details on what executive action related to birthright citizenship could include compared with his first term, a change that some backers took as an indication that he is more willing to act on the issue.

Trump said he would sign a “day one” executive order directing federal agencies to require a child to have at least one parent be either a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident to automatically become a U.S. citizen. It would also stop agencies from issuing passports, Social Security numbers and other welfare benefits to children who don’t meet the new requirement for citizenship, the president-elect’s campaign had said.

“My policy will choke off a major incentive for continued illegal immigration, deter more migrants from coming, and encourage many of the aliens Joe Biden has unlawfully let into our country to go back to their home countries,” Trump said in a campaign video.

But the requirement that at least one parent be a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident would also affect children born to parents who immigrated legally through visas, excluding them from automatic citizenship. 

“The new piece of it is them talking publicly about the mechanism they might try to use to operationalize this unconstitutional plan,” said Omar Jadwat, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Immigrants’ Rights Project. “They just can’t do that consistent with the constitution.” 

“ Litigation is definitely going to follow,” he added. 

The Supreme Court affirmed birthright citizenship in its 1898 ruling in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. But critics of automatic citizenship argue Trump’s proposed citizenship restrictions would be different from that case, which involved a child born to Chinese parents who were legal permanent residents in the U.S.

Trump’s allies say a legal fight that makes its way to the Supreme Court is the point of the executive order. 

“Force the issue and see what happens,” said Mark Krikorian, executive director for the Center for Immigration Studies, a group favoring immigration restrictions that was close to Trump’s first administration. Even with the court’s conservative majority, Krikorian isn’t optimistic about Trump’s chances.

“ I think they’ll probably uphold the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment,” he said. “They’re going to want to start that court fight as soon as possible to see if they can see it through to the end before the administration ends,” he said.

Source: Trump Prepares for Legal Fight Over His ‘Birthright Citizenship’ Curbs

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with

Criminals in cribs: The crazy attempt to ban birthright citizenship

2024/12/05 Leave a comment

Never heard birth tourism described in this manner:

There have been some interesting discussions about birthright citizenship, intensified by Donald Trump’s election a few weeks ago.

A number of people who are angry at the chaos at the border have jumped right over the normal processes and procedures which would guarantee illegal border crossings are limited, and hit right at one of the core principles of our nation, one embedded in the 14th Amendment – if you are born here, regardless of the status of your parents, you are a U.S. citizen.

The actual wording of the amendment is as follows: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

Those who don’t like the idea that birth on American territory automatically grants you the gift of American citizenship have started to parse the words of the amendment. They are doing what gun reform activists tried to do with the 2nd Amendment, making the “right to bear arms” a collective right held by “militias,” not an individual and a personal right for each and every American citizen. That parsing, which would make every Catholic school English teacher who ever diagrammed a sentence on a blackboard proud, was roundly rejected by the Supreme Court in the Heller decision, which recognized an individual right to own a gun. That being the case, conservative attempts to dismantle well over a century of constitutional precedent is dishonest, and untenable.

Some argue the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction of” means parents of the child born in this country must be legally here in order to confer citizenship. The point they are missing, or actually one of several points, is that it is not the parents who are conveying anything but life to the child.

It is the Constitution itself that is conveying citizenship. More importantly, virtually everyone physically present in the U.S., regardless of legal status, is subject to the jurisdiction of our government. If this were not the case, we can imagine a Batman style Gotham city environment, where illegal aliens could just commit crimes and the only thing we could do if we catch them is deport them. No arrests, no jail terms, no trials and no life sentences.

Imagine if that were the case with Laken Riley’s murderer, an illegal alien who is now going to spend the rest of his life behind bars. This writer would have been happier had he been sentenced to death, but that’s another column altogether.

The idea we can simply strip people of their citizenship and thereby erase a constitutional right, merely to solve a problematic but temporary problem at the border, is anathema. I know legal scholars have differed on the integrity of birthright citizenship, but they are going to need better arguments than those proffered by anti-immigration activists in order to be able to convince even this conservative Supreme Court of their legitimacy.

I am an immigration lawyer and my bias is incorporated into my viewpoint. Thirty years of doing this work will color anyone’s perspective on the laws governing immigration policy. I understand extremely well the importance of maintaining order at the border, but stripping people born here of their birthright, one over a century old in its recognition, on specious political grounds is not going to advance that goal.

People do not come here to “have” U.S. citizen children, who frankly can only be of benefit from an immigration perspective after the child turns 21 or in a few other very limited circumstances. The immigration laws already eliminate U.S. citizen children as the basis of most waivers of inadmissibility and against deportation/removal, so this is simply an appeal to the lowest common denominator, the basest instincts of the xenophobic.

Where will we draw the line? Is being born to a citizen the only way to ensure the citizenship of the child? Is being born to a visitor who has the right to live here for a few months enough? Do you need your green card? And is this what we want, a world where your value is based on your parents’ status in the country? I don’t think that Americans are that sort of people.

So even if you do support Trump’s more draconian policies on immigration, you are not as patriotic as you think if you are in favor of making newborns criminals in their cribs.

Source: Criminals in cribs: The crazy attempt to ban birthright citizenship

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with , ,

Why the House GOP’s big immigration crackdown may be doomed

2024/12/03 Leave a comment

Setting up expectations, dealing with the reality. We shall see:

Republican lawmakers are plotting a major revamp of immigration law and border restrictions, in a bid to deliver on one of President-elect Donald Trump’s signature issues. So far, their odds of going as big as conservatives want are looking bleak.

Despite controlling the House and Senate, the GOP faces major political hurdles down every possible path for enacting the illegal immigration crackdown that was one of their big election promises.

Immigration hardliners and those Republicans who have raised concerns about far-reaching restrictions on asylum or deportations are at odds over just how far to go on border security issues. The GOP will likely have a slim House majority — potentially with no room for error — to pull off immigration changes and will struggle to win over Senate Democrats who could filibuster legislation from the minority. Republicans have a potential procedural tool for sidestepping the filibuster — a process known as budget reconciliation — but it appears that rules governing the maneuver may prevent them from including a big revamp of immigration policy.

“We’re going to need a little time to figure out what shakes out,” said Rep. Tony Gonzales, a Texas Republican who has clashed with more hard-line conservatives over the issue. “What does a conference in the House want? What does the conference in the Senate want? What does President Trump want? And then that’s when we have a short window to be able to jam that all through.”

The looming struggle over immigration underscores the huge challenges Republicans face in delivering on their policy promises next year with a narrow margin in the House, the chaotic influence of Trump and internal divides even on issues that otherwise appear to unite the party….

Source: Why the House GOP’s big immigration crackdown may be doomed

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

Watt | The border wake-up call is ringing — bring on the drones, helicopters and patrols

2024/12/02 Leave a comment

Just as there is a risk in understating the expected income, there is a similar risk in overstating, as some premiers and commentators have done. But the times provide an opportunity to fix some of the things that need fixing from a Canadian perspective, recognizing that some is substantive and some performative:

…Because for all the supposed people or illicit goods that might flow between our borders, America can handle our “problem,” our traffic — we, on the other hand, cannot even begin to dream of sufficiently handling a mass influx of migrants across our border and into our cities.

We don’t have the resources, space, or public appetite. Moreover, right now, we don’t have clear and focused public discourse on this issue.

We don’t need a sober “reality check” when it comes to this debate. What should be — but evidently is not — abundantly clear to our political class is that Donald Trump will say anything — fact or fiction — to improve his bargaining position and get his way. What we need is a strong plan to reinforce our border. Because that is the only way to prepare and do what we need to do — kill two birds with one stone.

First, to show Trump we’re making progress on a critical political priority for his administration: border security. Second, to prepare for the potential influx of migrants that will look to head to Canada the minute he takes office.

That plan should consist of more drones, helicopters and patrols as the RCMP and our border agency has asked for — but it also must include stricter punishments for the phoney, unauthorized immigration consultants and human traffickers that prey on people’s lives and livelihoods.

Borders are lines in the sand. Symbolic by nature. That’s precisely why they’re such fertile ground for politicians to grandstand, to deceive, to promise then, let down.

It’s also why reinforcing them with action, not words, is what the Canadian public must demand.

Source: Opinion | The border wake-up call is ringing — bring on the drones, helicopters and patrols

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

The undefended Canada-U.S. border gets renewed scrutiny as Trump’s win revives historic anxieties

2024/12/02 Leave a comment

Good long read and overview. Excerpt some of the most interesting comments:

…In the rush to find ways of taming Mr. Trump’s sudden fury about the Canadian border, experts are now calling for the revival of obscure and long-dormant bilateral bodies. Former public safety minister Marco Mendicino said one way to “send a very strong signal to the president-elect” is to immediately reconvene a meeting of the Canada-U.S. Cross-Border Crime Forum, which was revived after several years in abeyance last year.

The forum, composed of Canada’s public safety and justice ministers, and the U.S. secretary of homeland security and attorney-general, is a ready-made platform for sharing intelligence and addressing concerns about human and drug smuggling across the border.

“Being pro-active is crucial, because we want to transmit that we are in total alignment when it comes to shoring up the integrity of the border,” Mr. Mendicino said.

If Canadians often thought of their border with the U.S. as a kind of decorative ticker tape, the Trump administration appears to believe the border is more like a fishing net that is full of holes. And some of the numbers do suggest that our shared border is becoming more porous to migrants and drugs, as Mr. Trump alleged in his social media post.

Statistics from U.S. Customs and Border Protection show that roughly twice as many suspected terrorists have tried to cross from Canada into the U.S. as have from Mexico in recent years.

The data are deeply concerning for Americans in the post-9/11 era and should be taken seriously and investigated by Canadian officials, said Michael Barutciski, a York University professor of international affairs.

As recently as September, he pointed out, a Pakistani man living in the Toronto area was arrested near the border in Ormstown, Que., in September on allegations he was plotting an Islamic State-inspired mass shooting on a Jewish centre in New York. The man entered Canada on a student visa last year.

“It doesn’t look good,” said Prof. Barutciski. “It’s a very sensitive issue and they often turn to Canada as sort of a weak point and they’re paranoid about that and we can’t deny that once in a while we do give them reasons to be afraid.”

Former Conservative public safety minister Peter Van Loan thinks the fear of Canadian terror strikes in the U.S. is overblown and that the perception is worth combatting while the issue is front and centre. After all, the data on terrorists reflect those who tried to enter the country and were prevented from doing so.

“It has been a long running misunderstanding among Americans that Canada has been a source of terrorists,” he said. “None of the 9/11 terrorists came from Canada. I continually ran into American politicians who believe they did come in through Canada, and the fact is, they did not. So Canada has a bit of a public relations issue there.”

The border is certainly under growing strain from irregular migrants – although the perception that they are more likely to be criminals has been harshly scrutinized. A recent U.S. study found that undocumented immigrants in Texas, at least, had lower rates of violent crime than U.S.-born citizens….

Source: The undefended Canada-U.S. border gets renewed scrutiny as Trump’s win revives historic anxieties

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , , , , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →