Democrats press McCarthy, Jeffries to save key naturalization grant – Yahoo News

Meanwhile, in Canada, few if any settlement funding goes to citizenship preparation:

A group of Democrats is appealing to party leaders in the House to restore funding to a grant program that helps immigrants prepare for naturalization.

In a letter led by Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.), 26 members called on Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and Minority Leader Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) to support funding for the Citizenship and Integration Grant Program (CIGP).

The program is a relatively tiny fraction of the Department of Homeland Security budget: It has awarded $132 million in grants since 2009.

But the lawmakers say its effects are substantial.

Through 579 competitive grants over that time, the program “has helped more than 300,000 lawful permanent residents prepare for U.S. citizenship,” they wrote.

Still, they noted, that number represents a fraction of a percent of the estimated 9 million permanent residents eligible to naturalize.

A key target population for grants under the program is immigrants who are poorer and who lack English skills; 32 percent of eligible immigrants targeted by the program have income below 150 percent of the poverty line and about 3 million “speak little to no English.”

“By providing increased assistance through the Grant Program, this eligible population could have greater access to naturalization and English-language classes,” wrote the lawmakers.

Yet all funding for the grant, originally proposed at $10 million for fiscal 2024, was scrapped entirely in the House Appropriations Committee in June.

On the Senate side, the Homeland Security Appropriations bill cleared the committee with $23.5 million for the CIGP.

Gomez, who has pushed to increase funding for the program, last month sent a dear colleague letter to Democrats and Republicans, asking them to join his appeal.

Though only Democrats answered, the co-signers include representatives from nearly every region of the country.

In their letter, the lawmakers made the case that more funding is required to support immigrants who wish to naturalize and who don’t live in cities with high immigrant concentrations.

“… [W]hile [United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)] reviewed and supported funding for only 66 organizations nationwide, recipient organizations served both traditional immigrant population centers and emerging immigrant population centers in only 35 states, out of 50 states and several territories,” they wrote.

“Increasing funding for the CIGP will both support immigrant-serving institutions, as well as increase the capacity for additional qualified legal service providers to assist with the naturalization application and process.”

That increased capacity, the lawmakers added, would ease pressure on the overburdened USCIS, “by reducing filing errors, likely contributing to the agency-wide effort towards reducing casework backlogs and improving processing times.”

Source: Democrats press McCarthy, Jeffries to save key naturalization grant – Yahoo News

Why Joe Biden should scrap US citizenship tests

While some have argued this for Canadian citizenship, they forget that this contributes to support for immigration and citizenship among those who are already citizens, whether born in Canada or elsewhere. But given the current government’s lack of understanding of the meaning of citizenship, seen in proposed self-affirmation of the oath and the lack of update to the citizenship guide, wondering whether the government will partly move in this direction:

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies…” 

Exactly 10 years ago, I joined 136 people from 43 countries at a naturalization ceremony in a courtroom in downtown New York to proclaim our allegiance to the country that had embraced us as its own. Overcome by the emotional charge of the occasion, we struggled to keep our voices steady — and our eyes dry. Even Janet Napolitano, administering her Enal oath as secretary of homeland security, teared up as she welcomed us as “my fellow citizens.” 

I was flanked by a young woman from Ukraine and a middle-aged man from Peru; she worked on Wall Street, and he was a cab driver. As we told each other of the journeys that had brought us to that magical moment, her English was heavily accented; his was liberally interspersed with Spanish. 

At one point, we talked about what had been the final hurdle on the path: The citizenship tests. She’d found the civics quiz quite stressful; he, like me, thought it had been easy-peasy. We didn’t talk about the other test — the one that judged our English skills. More than likely, the US Citizenship and Immigration Services officers who had interviewed us skipped over that part of the process in order to move things along. In my case, the examining oficer had said something along the lines of, “You’ve made it this far. There’s no need to waste our time on this.” 

The Biden administration, which is proposing to make the English test harder, apparently does not understand what my USCIS examiner had come to recognize, from some combination of intuition and experience: If you want to be an American and have lived in this country long enough to qualify, then a language test is entirely redundant. 

In the current format, the officer conducting the naturalization interview can evaluate the applicant’s speaking ability by asking questions she or he has already answered when Eling the paperwork. The new test, meant to go into effect next year, would include a speaking section in which applicants would be asked to describe scenes depicted in photographs, such as kinds of food or activities like commuting to work. 

It sounds simple enough, but it is no less superfluous for that. All applicants for citizenship are tested by the ultimate arbiter of American life: The free market. Before they can get to the naturalization test, their abilities are vetted by a system that requires immigrants to End work, shelter, food and access to education and healthcare, with little support from the state. 

And living the American way puts us all through a long and continuous examination, unlike the brief, one-of test at the USCIS. I had been fortunate to be fast-tracked for the Green Card that confers permanent residency in the US, and then waited Eve years, the minimum requirement, before applying for citizenship. It had taken the Ukrainian twice as long and the Peruvian three times as long to reach the test stage. By then, we were as duent as required by the nature of our livelihoods and, by extension, our lives. 

What’s more, we were in a country where the government — city, state and 

federal alike — was getting better and better at communicating in languages 

other than English. Multilingual forms are the norm rather than the 

exception, and even the USCIS website offers information in 33 languages, from Amharic to Vietnamese. 

If the language test is unnecessary, the civics test is just plain unfair. Applicants must correctly answer six out of 10 questions chosen from a published set of 100. Polls have shown most Americans would fail: Why should those who want to join their ranks be held to a higher standard? 

Joe Biden is not the Erst American president to try and raise the bar for naturalization. Donald Trump wanted to make the civics test longer and to introduce more politically loaded questions. Biden rightly scrapped that plan. This makes his administration’s proposal for a tougher English test even more inexplicable. 

Over 9 million Green Card holders are eligible for citizenship, but barely 10% of them apply for naturalization each year. The Biden administration has said it wants that proportion to grow. In typical Washington fashion, it has set up an interagency committee to come up with a strategy to encourage more people to take the path that brought me to that New York courthouse 10 years ago. 

Here’s a good place to start: Scrap the civics and language tests. 

Read more at:
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/nri/migrate/why-joe-biden-should-scrap-us-citizenship-tests/articleshow/103367059.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

New Report Reveals Immigrant Roots of Fortune 500 Companies 

Of note:

In an annual review of the most successful companies in the United States, the American Immigration Council unveiled today a report that sheds light on the contributions of immigrant entrepreneurs and their children to the U.S. economy. The report, “New American Fortune 500 in 2023: The Largest American Companies and Their Immigrant Roots,” reveals that an impressive 44.8% of Fortune 500 companies in 2023, equating to 224 companies, were founded by immigrants or their children.  

Since the inception of the New American Fortune 500 report in 2011, the American Immigration Council has consistently tracked the impact of immigrant founders and their descendants on corporate America. The report draws from Fortune Magazine’s annual ranking of the United States’ 500 largest corporations, ranked by revenue, to analyze the share of companies that were founded by immigrants or the children of immigrants and these firms’ contributions to the U.S. and global economy. 

These New American Fortune 500 companies collectively generated a staggering $8.1 trillion in revenue during fiscal year 2022, surpassing the GDP of several developed nations. Their significant contributions extend beyond revenue, as they employ over 14.8 million people, emphasizing their role as a crucial driver of job creation and economic prosperity. 

“These New American Fortune 500 companies stand as a testament to the extraordinary entrepreneurial spirit of immigrants. Immigrants have long been economic catalyzers, known for igniting innovation and growth across industries,” said Steven Hubbard, senior data scientist at the American Immigration Council. “This report underscores the pivotal role that immigrants and their descendants play in shaping the nation’s economic landscape. Their innovative contributions and dedication to entrepreneurship have contributed significantly to the United States’ standing as a global economic powerhouse as evident in this report.” 

Furthermore, the report showcases the state-level impact of these New American Fortune 500 companies. New York leads the states with the most companies (30), followed by California (24), Texas, Illinois, Florida, and Virginia. These companies collectively shape state economies, with revenues in some cases exceeding a significant portion of the state’s GDP. 

The full report and interactive tool can be accessed here.   

Source: New Report Reveals Immigrant Roots of Fortune 500 Companies

Canada is Recruiting H-1Bs. DACA Recipients Could Be Next.  

Of note:

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, is a program that provides legal protections and work authorization to immigrants who otherwise lack legal status but were brought to the U.S. as children through no fault of their own. In place since 2012, DACA currently protects over 570,000 Dreamers, the majority of whom have been productive members of the American economy for years.

Despite the well-documented contributions of DACA recipients, the program continues to hang in legal limbo. For two decades, Congress has failed to authorize permanent protection, and now, some Republican states are suing to terminate the program. While activists scramble for solutions ahead of an inauspicious Supreme Court decision, the door is open for Canada to poach yet another crucial group of U.S. residents.

In recent months, Canada has escalated its efforts to actively recruit immigrants with work experience in the U.S. or an American education. From creating a new visa for specialized foreign workers in the U.S. to running targeted ads for individuals frustrated with the American immigration system, Canada and its businesses have long since benefited from the dysfunction of our immigration laws. 

While Canada has not yet publicly attempted to entice DACA recipients to consider northern migration, it may be a matter of time before it does. DACA recipients would be competitive applicants for Canadian visa pathways like the points-based Express Entry program designed to attract the world’s best and brightest. 

Express Entry does not require employer sponsorship and instead awards points for qualifying factors like work experience, English language proficiency, and education. Points are also assigned according to age, with applicants between 18 and 35 receiving the highest possible age points

The average DACA recipient is 29 years old, and nearly half have college degrees. More than 80 percent of DACA recipients are working, and most have lived in the U.S. for over 20 years, receiving the majority, if not all, of their formal education here. Although many DACA recipients are bilingual, surveys indicate that “over 90 percent speak English well, or better.” By these standards, most DACA recipients would likely receive high scores that could result in invitations to migrate. 

Given the number of American corporations that have previously voiced supportfor their Dreamer employees, it is easy to imagine employers willing to sponsor employees who transfer to their Canadian offices through other visa pathwaysshould they lose work authorization here. 

If Canada poached these Dreamers, the United States would face significant economic losses as Canada reaps the benefits of highly productive U.S.-trained immigrants. 

For instance, Dreamers would pay their rent or mortgage in Canada, which, in the U.S., currently generates $272 billion in economic activity every month. They would spend money on groceries, clothes, transportation, and services in Canada. 

The U.S. would also lose teachers and essential workers while Canada filled its labor market gaps with our American-educated talent. The nearly $40 billion that Dreamers would contribute to Social Security and Medicare over the next ten years would instead bolster the Canadian social security system. 

Even after taxes, DACA-recipient households still hold over $25 billion in spending power, but if they go to Canada, their money will likely go with them. Under the Express Entry program, selected candidates receive permanent residence for themselves, their spouses or common-law partners, and their dependent children. Even temporary foreign worker programs in Canada permit immediate family members to accompany the beneficiary and work. 

With over 300,000 U.S. citizen children, the impacts of their departure would represent a significant loss for the U.S. economy and labor market when we are already struggling to fill the jobs we need. DACA recipients are, on average, more educated than the native-born U.S. population and have higher workforce participation rates. Yet, without action, we risk losing these productive individuals raised with American values, educated in the American school system, and trained in the American labor market. 

We have already witnessed Canada siphoning thousands of our valuable immigrant workers and taking advantage of our inability to create policies that retain the talent we attract and cultivate. If we do not act on DACA, Canada will also take advantage of this opportunity by becoming the haven that DACA recipients have been seeking in the U.S. for over a decade. Bipartisan solutions can protect Dreamers and allow them to stay and contribute to the only home they’ve ever truly known. Timely action is imperative. 

Source: Canada is Recruiting H-1Bs. DACA Recipients Could Be Next.

Corporate DEI initiatives are facing cutbacks and legal attacks

Of note:

Just three years after the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis set off a torrent of hiring of chief diversity officers and other such roles, companies are coming under attack from conservative legal activists who argue that their DEI policies and programs constitute racial discrimination.

The challenges come as companies, faced with an uncertain economy, have already been laying off large numbers of people, including many only recently hired to implement their diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) strategies.

The one-two punch has legal experts split on what’s ahead for these efforts, while longtime diversity advocates argue that companies should take these setbacks as an opportunity to reset.

“We cannot place the reasoning for it on something as subjective as the right thing to do. It has to be the smart thing to do,” says Janet Stovall, global head of diversity, equity and inclusion for the NeuroLeadership Institute, a consulting firm focused on culture and leadership.

A surge in hiring, followed by dramatic cuts

In the corporate DEI world, Catalina Colman’s story is a familiar one.

In 2020, she was working at a small tech company as a human resources generalist, handling tasks such as employee onboardings and exits.

She had already been thinking about how to help the company grow in a more diverse and equitable way, when in May of that year, George Floyd was murdered. Suddenly, everything accelerated.

“We recognized we just needed to move quickly, and we needed to start implementing things fast,” says Colman.

The racial reckoning unfolding across the country unleashed demands for change. Companies scrambled to respond to the moment. According to the jobs site Indeed, job postings with DEI in the title jumped 92% from July 2020 to July 2021.

But the deceleration has also come quickly. Economic pressures have led companies to pull back, cutting DEI jobs including Colman’s alongside other human resources roles. Since last July, Indeed has seen DEI job postings drop by 38%.

And then in June, in another blow to diversity advocates, the Supreme Court rejected the use of race-conscious admissions in higher education, setting off predictions that corporate policies around diversity will soon meet the same fate.

Predictions of what’s next for corporate DEI

To be clear, the court’s decision applies to affirmative action at colleges and universities, not employer efforts to foster diversity in the workplace.

In a statement issued after the ruling, Charlotte Burrows, chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, wrote, “It remains lawful for employers to implement diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility programs that seek to ensure workers of all backgrounds are afforded equal opportunity in the workplace.”

But in a Bloomberg opinion piece, Harvard Law professor Noah Feldman cited Justice Neil Gorsuch’s concurring opinion, in which “he made it crystal clear that in his view, the court’s rule that an educational institution ‘may never discriminate based on race’ now applies with equal force to employers.”

Feldman told NPR the writing is on the wall.

“There’s a high probability, a very high probability, that a majority of this current Supreme Court will say the exact same thing,” he said in an interview last month.

But other attorneys say such assumptions are premature. Bonnie Levine, founder of the law firm Verse Legal, points out that a day after the affirmative action decision, the Supreme Court ruled that a Christian wedding website designer could refuse to work with same-sex couples.

Source: Corporate DEI initiatives are facing cutbacks and legal attacks

USA: More teachers are quitting their jobs. Educators of color often are more likely to leave

Haven’t seen any comparable Canadian studies and grateful any readers who have to share:

Rhonda Hicks could have kept working into her 60s. She loved teaching and loved her students in Philadelphia’s public schools. As a Black woman, she took pride in being a role model for many children of color.

But other aspects of the job deteriorated, such as growing demands from administrators over what and how to teach. And when she retires in a few weeks, she will join a disproportionately high number of Black and Hispanic teachers in her state who are leaving the profession.

“I enjoy actually teaching, that part I’ve always enjoyed,” said Hicks, 59. “Sometimes it’s a little stressful. Sometimes the kids can be difficult. But it’s the higher-ups: ‘Do it this way or don’t do it at all.’”

Teachers are leaving jobs in growing numbers, state reports show. The turnover in some cases is highest among teachers of color. A major culprit: stress — from pandemic-era burnoutlow payand the intrusion of politics into classrooms. But the burdens can be heavier in schools serving high-poverty communities that also have higher numbers of teachers of color. 

In Philadelphia, a city with one of the highest concentrations of Black residents in the U.S., the proportion of Black teachers has been sliding. Two decades ago, it was about one-third. Last fall, it fell to below 23%, according to district figures.

In the school buildings where Hicks taught, most teachers were white. She said she and other teachers of color were expected to give more of themselves in a district where half the students are Black.

“A lot of times when you see teachers that are saving Black and brown kids on TV, it’s always the white ones,” Hicks said. “There are Black teachers and Hispanic teachers out there that do the same thing in real life, all the time.”

Nationally, about 80% of American public school teachers are white, even though white students no longer represent a majority in public schools. Having teachers who reflect the race of their students is important, researchers say, to provide students with role models who have insight into their culture and life experience.

The departures are undoing some recent success that schools have had in bringing on more Black and Hispanic teachers. Turnover is higher among newer teachers. And researchers have found that teachers of color, who tend to have less seniority, often are affected disproportionately by layoffs. 

In Pennsylvania, Black teachers were more than twice as likely to leave the profession as white teachers after the 2021-22 school year, according to a data analysis by Ed Fuller, an education professor at Penn State. Hispanic and multiracial teachers had a similar ratio, of around twice as likely.

Black and Hispanic teachers are more likely to be uncertified or teaching in an underfunded district, all of which is associated with someone leaving the profession at a higher rate, Fuller said.

“They’re in more precarious teaching positions, meaning you’re in a position with less resources and worse working conditions, so you’re more likely to quit no matter who you are,” Fuller said.

Sharif El-Mekki, a former Philadelphia teacher who leads the Center for Black Educator Development, said schools around the country come to him seeking help in recruiting teachers of color. But they don’t have plans to retain them, such as providing opportunities to help shape policies and curricula.

To address the problem, schools can start by ensuring students of color have better experiences in school themselves and offering them opportunities to consider teaching, El-Mekki said. Black teachers also are more likely stay on in school systems that have Black leaders, he said, as well as a culture and approaches to teaching that are anti-racist. 

“We need to think about, ‘How are they experiencing my school?’” he said. “If they are having a better experience with us, they are more likely to stay.”

Attrition by teachers of color can vary greatly by state or region. Overall, it has been higher compared with white teachers for two decades, since around the time federal policies began encouraging the closure of schools with low test scores, said Travis Bristol, a professor of teacher education and education policy at the University of California-Berkeley.

In underfunded schools with large populations of Black and Hispanic children, teachers say they can expect more responsibilities, fewer resources and more children troubled by poverty and violence.

“I’m still in the classroom because this is my version of resistance and pushing back on a system that was not designed for folks that look like me and kids that look like me,” said Sofia Gonzalez, a 14-year teacher of Puerto Rican heritage in Chicago-area public schools. “We as teachers of color have to find so much inner strength inside of us to sustain our careers in education.”

The last few years have been a trying stretch for teachers everywhere. They’ve had to navigate COVID-19, a pivot to distance learning and the struggles with misbehavior and mental health that accompanied students’ return to classrooms.

Then there’s the pay: Educators’ salaries have been falling behind their college-educated peers in other professions.

Teachers unions have warned of flagging morale, and there are signs lately that more educators are heading for the exits. Data from at least a handful of states — including Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Texas and Washington — is showing an increase in teacher attrition. 

Black teachers reported significantly higher rates of burnout and being significantly more likely to leave their job than white teachers, according to research sponsored by two national teachers unions and published in June by the Rand Corp. think tank.

Chantle Simpson, 36, taught her last day of school this spring in Frisco, Texas, ending her 11-year career as a teacher.

She described an exodus of her fellow teachers of color from the profession amid growing expectations from administrators, who put more work on teachers by repeatedly appeasing demands from parents.

Administrators — including those who are Black or Hispanic — put more pressure on Black and Hispanic teachers, she said.

“They believe we can handle more,” Simpson said. “Because we develop relationships better, the kids understand us more, so they’re more likely to behave for us or do what we ask them to. So we get fitted with the children who are more challenging or have more requirements. It’s crazy.”

That leaves those teachers with less time for the rest of their better-behaved students, Simpson said.

“I always was conflicted by it,” Simpson said. “It’s mixed with praise, but it’s a punishment. ‘Oh, you’re so great at building relationships, the kids really appreciate being with you, they respond to you.’ But at the same time, you’re increasing my workload, you’re increasing the amount of attention I have to give to one child versus my whole class.”

Source: More teachers are quitting their jobs. Educators of color often are more likely to leave

US restricts visa-free travel for Hungarian passport holders, citing security concerns

Of note. Canada requires an ETA:

The United States imposed new travel restrictions on citizens of Hungary on Tuesday over concerns that the identities of nearly 1 million foreigners granted Hungarian passports over nine years weren’t sufficiently verified, according to the U.S. Embassy and a government official.

The restrictions apply to the U.S. Visa Waiver Program, which allows passport holders from 40 countries to enter the United States for business or tourism without a visa for up to 90 days.

The validity period of travel for Hungarian passport holders under the Electronic System for Travel Authorization was reduced from two years to one year, and each traveler will be limited to a single entry into the United States. They are the only such restrictions among the 40 participating states in the Visa Waiver Program.

A senior U.S. government official said the change followed years of failed efforts by the U.S. to work with Hungary’s government to resolve the security concerns. The official spoke anonymously in order to candidly characterize diplomatic engagements.

Hundreds of thousands of Hungarian passports were issued without stringent identity verification requirements, some of them to criminals who pose a safety threat and have no connection to Hungary, the official said.

Hungary’s government, under the leadership of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, began offering a simplified naturalization procedure to those claiming Hungarian ancestry in 2011, even if they didn’t live or intend to live in Hungary.

Hundreds of thousands of the at least 2 million ethnic Hungarians living in neighboring countries — primarily in Romania, Serbia and Ukraine — acquired Hungarian citizenship through the simplified procedure.

Critics said the program allowed non-taxpaying ethnic Hungarians residing in other countries to vote in Hungarian elections, giving Orban’s ruling Fidesz party an electoral edge.

The United States earlier recategorized Hungary as a provisional member of the Visa Waiver Program because of the concerns.

Hungary’s government responded to the restrictions Tuesday in a statement from the Interior Ministry.

The statement said the United States had demanded the personal data of ethnic Hungarians abroad with dual citizenship, and that Hungary’s government was unwilling to provide that information in order to protect those citizens’ security.

“This is why President Joe Biden’s administration is now taking revenge on Hungarians,” the statement said.

Source: US restricts visa-free travel for Hungarian passport holders, citing security concerns

54% of African student visa applications denied by the US

Comparable differences to Canada and likely most OECD countries. Advocacy and interest based report:

African students who apply to study at universities and colleges in the United States experience the highest visa refusal rates of all international students applying to study in the US with more than half of all applicants rejected in 2022.

The refusal rate of 54% of student visas in 2022 is up from 44% in 2015, according to a report titled The Interview of a Lifetime: An analysis of visa denials and international student flows to the US, from the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, and Shorelight, two US advocacy groups that promote policies in support of immigrant students.

While the refusal rate for African students applying for visas is higher than for students belonging to other geographical categories of visa applicants, it is roughly in line with an across-the-board rise in refusal rates, which suggests that the United States is becoming a less welcoming place to foreign students.

By 2030, just seven years from now, young Africans are expected to constitute 42% of the world’s youth population, and by 2050 are expected to number 1.1 billion.

The trends outlined in The Interview of a Lifetime suggest that the United States is poised to lose out in the competition for students – just at the time that the American colleges and universities will be in the grips of what demographers call the ‘demographic cliff’, the drop each year of some 500,000 students from the cohort born following the 2008 financial crisis – note the report’s authors, Dr Rajika Bhandari and Jill Welch, both senior advisers to the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, and Shorelight’s leading managers, Shelley Landry, a senior director of government affairs, and Hilary O’Haire, the executive director of analytics.

Rejection rate on the rise

According to the report, since 2018, the total number of students from Africa enrolled in American colleges and universities has grown from 47,251 to 49,308. Over that same period, however, the rejection rate has grown six percentage points, from 48% to 54%. As a result some 92,051 potentially qualified African students were denied a visa. The authors of The Interview of a Lifetime describe them as 92,051 ‘Missed Opportunity Students’.

In technical terms, these prospective African students failed to qualify for the F-1 Visa. The F-1 Visa category allows foreign students to enter and study full-time in institutions that are certified by the US government and is mandatory for immigrant international students.

Negative public narrative towards immigrants

The report contains evidence that American immigration officials are becoming more apt to refuse student visas overall. Between 2021 and 2022, for example, the refusal rate for South Americans rose from 20% to 30%, while the rise in numbers of Australians and Pacific islanders being denied study visas rose even more starkly: from 8% to about 25%. Rejection rates from Europe and North America (which includes Mexico) have also risen but by only a few percentage points.

Although the report has not identified the specific African countries of origin whose students were heavily affected by the visa denials, the researchers found that since 2018 refusal rates have consistently been higher for Western and Central Africa than for Eastern and Southern Africa.

In 2021, for example, the refusal rate for Western and Central Africa was 57% and 64%, respectively, while for Eastern and Southern Africa the rates were 43% and 10%. Last year, the rates for Western and Central Africa were 71% and 61%; for Eastern and Southern Africa the rates were 48% and 16%, respectively.

“But when Southern Africa is removed from the equation, the visa denial rate jumps to 57%, suggesting that most of the denials were concentrated in other parts of Africa,” noted the report.

At least in terms of approving foreign student visas from Africa, as University World News reported last June, the situation in Canada is much the same. Refugees and Citizenship Canada rejected 59% of the visa applications from English-speaking Africans and 74% from French-speaking Africans seeking to study in Canada’s colleges and universities.

But the question remains as to the reasons behind African students being denied opportunities to study in the US universities compared to their peers from the rest of the world. The report, however, suggested that it might be a reflection of emerging US national policies that are fuelled by a negative public narrative toward immigrants.

While President Joe Biden’s administration is significantly more open to immigration than was that of former US president Donald J Trump, the tenor of the American debate over immigration has not moved much from when Trump described Haiti, El Salvador and African states as “shithole countries”.

Yesterday, for example, the Republican controlled House of Representatives passed the Visa Overstay Enforcement Act of 2023 which imposes new penalties, including fines and/or prison terms of six months on individuals who overstay their visas.

Last June, 31 Republican lawmakers in Washington backed a group of workers in the high-tech industry who are suing the Federal government over changes the administration made to the F-1 visa program that would allow foreign students to remain in the country and work for up to three years after they graduate.

The problem with interviews

Emmanuel Smadja, the chief executive officer and co-founder of MPOWER Financing, a Washington DC-based company that provides educational loans to international students, says the visa denial problem may be systemic.

First-hand accounts from African students suggest that they face challenges securing visa interviews and according to the report, some are having to jump through hoops just to travel to other countries at considerable expense. Outside South Africa, most US visa interviews for students in Sub-Saharan Africa are mainly held in Accra, Lagos and Nairobi.

In their analysis, the authors of the report faulted some of the grounds that are used by the US consular officials to deny African student visas.

The report cited lapses such as students being ill-prepared for the visa interview or failure to demonstrate a strong connection with the US. A few tense minutes of a visa interview should not be used to determine their academic future, as too often African students encounter challenges securing visa interview slots.

Doubts about funding

Drawing insights from MPOWER, Bhandari’s team noted that many African students, mostly from Sub-Saharan Africa, were denied visas even when they are qualified and have funding.

The report highlights the issue of 3,000 students from Sub-Saharan Africa that were accepted for graduate studies at a top US university last year but only 60% were granted visas despite being admitted and having secured the necessary funding.

Further, there are indicators that African students were denied visas for not demonstrating that they had sufficient funds to support their studies in the US. Concerns had also been raised about fraud but the Presidents’ Alliance, a coalition of 450 US university leaders, had been quoted pointing out that in most cases, African students are the victims, but not the perpetrators of the fraud.

In an interview with The PIE News, Farook Lalji of Kenya-based Koala Education Consultants said that “applying for a university abroad means paying visa fees, a deposit to the university, paying for a medical and other related costs” and that the “fear of being denied a visa after all that is a factor in people falling for fake schemes that come with an alleged guarantee of getting a visa”.

He advised students to make sure they were dealing with licensed agents. “If you must deal with a briefcase or suspicious agent, then do not pay until the job is done, just like it happens with other things in life. In this case do not pay until you have obtained all the information about the university and have obtained all necessary documents,” he warned prospective students.

On the issue of visa denial for lack of adequate funds, Bhandari and associates noted that discussion forums of groups that serve African international students are rife with worries about students who have met every admissions and financial requirement and are seemingly well-prepared for the high-stakes visa interviews but are nonetheless denied visas.

Presidents and vice-chancellors concerned

American university presidents and vice-chancellors are concerned by the high rates of visa denials and share perceptions that it is harder for students in certain countries to acquire a visa than in other countries.

“Some higher education officials reported that students from some African nations, for example, are more likely to receive a student visa when applying in a non-African country, such as Australia, to study in the US,” stated the report.

Is a shift in policy possible?

Unfortunately, whereas visa data and enrolment datasets point to current demands for a US education by students from African countries, the report says there are no indicators as to whether the US visa policy will shift in favour of such students in the near future.

Aware of Africa’s emerging demographic trends, some countries such as France and China, are aggressively recruiting African students, while the interest shown by US university presidents and vice-chancellors are being frustrated by visa denials.

In that context, Bhandari and associates raised the issue as to whether the US is missing out on top academic talent from Africa.

Quoting Rebecca Winthrop, the director of the Center for University Education at the Brookings Institution, the Washington-based think tank that conducts research analysis on education and public policy issues, the study team noted that the growth in the world’s labour market will in the years ahead be in Africa.

“As other parts of the world begin to age, Africa will grow its population and today’s children will be the talent tomorrow’s global companies will be recruiting,” stated the report.

In its vision of more recruitment of African students into US universities and colleges, the Presidents’ Alliance and Shorelight are urging the US authorities to issue new guidelines that would reduce visa denials for African students.

For instance, they are recommending that competency in English should not be a reason for refusing a visa to a foreign student who wants to attend for instance a low-level institution, or a community college in the US.

“Consular officers should leave questions of academic choice and qualifications to be decided between the student and the institution, instead focusing on evaluating whether the student meets entry requirements,” stated the report.

The argument is that denial of a visa should not occur based on English-language competency, as it is the purview of the universities and colleges to evaluate language proficiency and to provide English-language training programmes if necessary.

The report criticised visa denials based on the inability to provide proof of multiple years of funding, given that in the US many students and their families pay for their education as they go on with their studies.

“Proof of funding for the entire duration of the academic programme is not reasonable and should not be a requirement for a visa,” stated the report.

Consular officers should ‘stop speculating’

Further, the report recommends that post-graduation work interests should also not be grounds for visa denial. The issue is that, despite the updated US foreign affairs manual that makes it clear that consular officers should stop speculating about international students’ intentions in the future but instead evaluate their intent at the moment of the interview, many African students continue to be denied a visa because of that outdated clause.

The report says clear guidelines should be issued on how to evaluate international student visa applications for forcibly displaced students from their countries’ of origin, not only in the case of the African students, or their counterparts from the Global South, but throughout the world.

Amid efforts to get rid of perceptions of discrimination, the Presidents’ Alliance and Shorelight are urging the US government to provide transparent and clear information to students about visa denials.

“The issue is that when prospective students are denied visas, they are often left to guess what aspects of their application may have led to the denial,” stated the report.

The two bodies have also urged the US Congress to modernise immigration law and, more specifically, to expand the criteria on how to reduce visa denials, taking into account that the US domestic demographic trends and workforce shifts point to the need for an inclusive approach to attract diverse global talent.

But despite such robust appeals, it is not clear as to whether the negative public narrative toward immigrants is about to change in favour of students from Africa.

Source: 54% of African student visa applications denied by the US

Ragbag: Did I just become a citizen of a country [USA] that doesn’t want me? [power of citizenship ceremonies]

Reminder of the various paths people take and the questions they have when taking up citizenship (likely more of an issue for those on the left who tend more to over-think). But a nice vignette on the USA citizenship ceremony and what it signified to those taking the oath.

While DG Citizenship and Multiculturalism, had an opportunity to witness a US citizenship ceremony; while different from the Canadian ceremony in some details, the overall message of inclusion and belonging was the same. Hard to imagine the USA doing away with the in person oath unlike the unthinking politicians and officials in Canada:

When the news that the Supreme Court had ruled in favor of doing away with race-conscious college admissions, I was on a plane, traveling to Texas to be sworn in as an American citizen. By the time we landed, my texts and social media feeds were consumed by the ruling. While other passengers hopped out of their seats to grab overhead bags, I sat stunned. Was I really going to go through with raising my right hand to swear that, should the law require it, I would bear arms to protect a country that keeps telling me it’s not sure if it wants to protect me? 

Let me back up. For the last 29 years, I’ve resided in the U.S. — as a student, an arts administrator, a curator, a writer, and most recently, a business owner. I’ve lived in New York, Boston, Philadelphia and Austin. I have been a permanent resident of the U.S. since 1994, but Montreal has always felt like home to me.

Some of my life’s biggest changes have happened during this time. I became a parent. I got married. (In that order.) I was quite comfortable with my permanent resident status — much like the comfort that comes with a non-committal relationship, which I know a lot about. But after nearly three decades, I am no longer comfortable not having a vote in the country where I am raising a child and growing a business. I’m no longer comfortable not having a say in how my body, my child, the people I work with, my friends, neighbors and family are cared for.

Why has it taken me nearly 30 years to make this decision? The most honest answer is that I don’t know if I feel safe here. Because I am a Black queer woman. Because I have been detained by U.S. Border Control. Because an immigration officer once told me that Americans lynch Canadians. Because guns. Because a growing scarcity mindset has made it harder for people to be kind to each other. But the decision to become an American citizen moves beyond me— anchored to the belief that after nearly three decades, it is my responsibility and privilege to shape a country for the people who I care for, and for those who care for me. This belief let me begin the citizenship process.

Along the way, my resolve in this belief would continue to be tested, along with my fears about living in this country.

* * *

Six months after completing an online questionnaire that asked questions like Have you EVER been a habitual drunkard? I was invited to an in-person interview. When the officer, seemingly making small talk, asked, “Aren’t you moving the wrong way? Do you not like free Canadian health care?”

A trap! I thought, laughing nervously. “Well, these things are complicated,” I said, trying my hand at witty banter. But he stayed quiet.

I aced my verbal exam by answering six questions in a row correctly. Some were easy: What is the ocean on the West Coast of the United States? Others were a little trickier: What is the supreme law of the land? And after I was asked —  twice— “If the law requires it, are you willing to bear arms on behalf of the United States?” I was invited to return the following week for a swearing-in ceremony. 

I flew back east to my husband and child who were visiting family in New Jersey, before returning to Texas by myself. While still on the plane, I learned of the Supreme Court’s decision to ignore the far-reaching impacts of systemic racism. The announcement continued to test my fears and my resolve. But I got off the plane to pick up a rental car to make the hour-and-a-half drive to San Antonio, where I would be sworn in.

My drive in the rental — a red pickup truck — gave me plenty of time to think about how I got to this point. I drove with the windows down. From time to time, I checked my rearview mirror.

* * *

My parents emigrated from Trinidad to Montreal in the 1960s. Because Trinidad was still a crown colony at the time, my father actually entered Canada on a British passport. As a child, the fact that my parents left where they were from, for somewhere new, was such a non-thing — in line with the experiences of many of my friends’ parents, who’d come from Italy, China, Ukraine, Portugal. (And that was just on our block.) I simply believed that moving away was something you do when you grow up. Even my name is evidence of the role moving away plays in my family’s history. Lise is a common French-Canadian — not French — name. And Ragbir is a common Indo-Caribbean — not Indian — name. Both names allude to the far-reaching and ongoing impact of colonialism as we give power to borders and trust a fiction that has shaped histories and lives.

“Hello everyone! Are you all ready to become American citizens today?”

In the 1980s, as Quebec politics increasingly shaped the provincial economy, my parents applied for Permanent Resident status in the U.S., in an effort to keep their options open. Like many West Indians, their siblings had dispersed across the globe, with many ending up in the U.S. — New York, specifically. Throughout grade school, I can’t remember a summer, Easter, or Canadian Thanksgiving when we didn’t pack the car to make the seven-hour drive from Sherbrooke Street to Flatbush Avenue via I-87.

In high school, I started making the trip without my parents, to visit cousins and see shows by artists like The Pharcyde, De La Soul and KRS One. As such, New York became the backdrop to my coming of age. New York wasn’t like Montreal. At parties in Brooklyn, I wasn’t the only Black person. Standing in line at Gloria’s roti shop, I wasn’t the only kid with Trini parents. So when my parents were approved for permanent resident status after waiting nearly 15 years, I jumped at the chance to move south. Within months, my parents let their status wane. They never took up residency and remain in Canada to this day.

* * *

On the drive from Austin to San Antonio, I saw a range of bumper stickers that continued to test my fear and resolve: “Country girls don’t retreat, they reload.” “Dump Joe and the Hoe.” “I’ll keep my guns, freedom, and money. You keep the change.”

My seatbelt felt tight as I drove.

In a strip mall in the San Antonio suburbs, people meandered through the parking lot of an immigration office carrying official-looking envelopes and little American flags. The majority of us in attendance were people of color, as were the immigration officers who were patient, and I daresay, joyful.

After being herded through a metal detector, I was asked to hand over my green card. “You’re taking it? Like, for good?”

“That’s right. You don’t need it anymore,” the officer said with a smile. I didn’t tell him I’ve been carrying my green card with me every day since 2015. Without it, I felt vulnerable, even as I made my way to the ceremony room.

Inside, nervous-looking people were taking selfies, or reading the letter from the President that we each found on our seats. I did neither.

I walked into the Texas heat carrying my little American flag. People looked at me as though I’d just won a prize.

“Hello everyone! Are you all ready to become American citizens today?” asked a cheerful man from the podium. He looked to be my age. Dark hair. Olive skin. He identified himself as a supervisor. The room full of people nodded as if on cue, and I felt like I was the only one having mixed feelings.

He ran through a list of dos and don’ts. (Do raise your right hand when told. Don’t record anything.) He’d obviously done this about a million times and clearly loved it. His enthusiasm was infectious.

He led us in a rehearsal of the oath. Then, perhaps sensing the collective anxiety, he coaxed a room full of about-to-be Americans into doing the wave, like we were at a baseball game or a Beyoncé concert. We had to do it twice because the first time we messed up. You know, nerves. But by the time we were done, everyone was laughing and smiling at each other and we felt like we were in this wild thing together. He didn’t miss a beat — he launched straight into the ceremony.

“Can you all please raise your right hand?” The words were a blur, but I said “I do” at the right time and the woman next to me bounced up and down, her blonde bob swinging above the straps on her summer dress. She went to hug me, but my face said, That was nice and all, but please don’t.

One by one our names were called to receive our naturalization certificate. When the supervisor handed me mine I thanked him and said, “You were really good. You made that so pleasant and easy. And you were just so kind.”

“Well, thank you,” he said. “I try.”

I walked into the Texas heat carrying my little American flag. People looked at me as though I’d just won a prize. I didn’t have the urge to hug strangers out of sheer joy, so part of me felt like a fraud. Another part of me, however, was proud —I’d moved through my fear to stand on this side. I did this thing that people have died for. I did this thing that gave me an extra coat of armor — for better or worse.

Around me, families cheered and cried and hugged and laughed. I choked down the knot in my throat and made my way through the crowded lot. In my truck, I locked the doors, placed my certificate and flag on the passenger seat and took a snapshot to send to family and friends, most of whom knew about my mixed feelings. One friend suggested I listen to Jimi Hendrix’s version of “The Star-Spangled Banner,” which I did, on repeat. The rendition is perfect dissonance: a balance of hope and frustration and beauty and pain. The certificate and flag sat in the passenger seat while I drove back to Austin.

* * *

I have always believed that my parents’ choice to leave the island of Trinidad for the island of Montreal had a very matter-of-fact, straightforward quality to it. And maybe it was that way for them. In fact, for millions of people, leaving where you’re from is what you do. In 2020, it was estimated that more than 280 million around the world left their place of birth — because it was expected of them, or it was necessary, or they had no choice.

But officially leaving wasn’t straightforward for me. The decision to become a U.S. citizen wasn’t like the decision my parents made. Yes, the world is different now. For one, Trinidadians no longer have automatic British passports like my father did. But change doesn’t end there.

In addition to the blow to Affirmative Action, in the same week, the Supreme Court shot down President Biden’s proposal to forgive student debt and ruled that businesses are allowed to discriminate against members of the LGBTQ community. In one week, we saw how much this country is changing — and how far we need to go.

In a recent conversation with my parents, my mother said that while she understands why I did it, she struggles with the idea that I became a citizen of a country where some of the laws seem unjust. My father, on the other hand, said that if he could, he would do exactly what I did. “I think the U.S. is through a rough time—maybe like growing pains—but they will get back

This is not an argument for, or against, becoming an American citizen. I know this is a privilege that many have lost their lives trying to attain.

He added that when he left Trinidad in the ’60s, he had initially planned to go back some day. “I didn’t want to stay in Canada,” he said. “For decades, Trinidad was my home. But now Montreal feels more like home.”

I wonder if the same thing will happen to me. Maybe, like him, it will take time.

Before I’m told to go back to where I came from, let me be clear: This is not an argument for, or against, becoming an American citizen. I know this is a privilege that many have lost their lives trying to attain. I know that my citizenship lets me move about the world with an ease unknown to billions of people. I know that legally, my citizenship lets me voice my opinion without risk. But with the Supreme Court rulings that we’ve seen in the last year, for someone like me — even with all the privilege that comes with being an American — the decision to dig deeper into this country is complex, even as I stand on this side of my fear, equipped with all the privileges that come with being an American.

When I got home, I read the letter from President Biden. In addition to acknowledging the courage it takes to start a life in a new country, the letter declares that America is a nation of possibilitiesand that the country has flourished because of immigrants.But I was most struck by this line: “Thank you for choosing us and for believing that America is worthy of your aspirations.”

Maybe one day the world won’t have borders, education will be available to everyone, and regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, age or ability, we will all be treated equally. But until then, I raised my right hand and took an oath to protect this country because I want to believe that my voice will add to the chorus of change. Because I want to believe that as we move forward, we can all be protected. I don’t know how long this will take, or even if it’s possible. But as a new American citizen inspired by an immigration supervisor, I have to try.

Lise Ragbir writes about race, immigration, arts and culture, and relationships. She was born and raised in Montreal, Quebec, and now makes her home in Austin, Texas.

Source: Did I just become a citizen of a country that doesn’t want me?

USA: A political gap in excess deaths widened after COVID-19 vaccines arrived, study says

Of note:

The pandemic inflicted higher rates of excess deaths on both Republicans and Democrats. But after COVID-19 vaccines arrived, Republican voters in Florida and Ohio died at a higher rate than their counterparts, according to a new study.

Researchers from Yale University who studied the pandemic’s effects on those two states say that from the pandemic’s start in March 2020 through December 2021, “excess mortality was significantly higher for Republican voters than Democratic voters after COVID-19 vaccines were available to all adults, but not before.”

More specifically, the researchers say, their adjusted analysis found that “the excess death rate among Republican voters was 43% higher than the excess death rate among Democratic voters” after vaccine eligibility was opened.

The different rates “were concentrated in counties with lower vaccination rates, and primarily noted in voters residing in Ohio,” according to the study that was published in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine on Monday.

It’s the latest research to suggest the perils of mixing partisan politics with medical advice and health policy.

How was the study performed?

Researchers analyzed data related to 538,159 people who died between Jan. 1, 2018, and Dec. 31, 2021, at ages 25 and over, compiling their political party affiliations based on records from 2017.

The study collected weekly death counts, breaking down the deceased’s party ties along with their county and age cohort. It used May 1, 2021, as a key dividing line because the date marks a month after all U.S. adults became eligible to receive shots of the COVID-19 vaccines.

The researchers estimated excess mortality based on how the overall rate of deaths during the pandemic compared to what would have been expected from historical, pre-pandemic trends.

Researchers saw a divide suddenly emerge

As they calculated excess death rate data for Florida and Ohio, the researchers found only small differences between Republican and Democratic voters in the first year of the pandemic, with both groups suffering similarly sharp rises in excess deaths that winter.

Things changed as the summer of 2021 approached. When coronavirus vaccine access widened, so did the excess death gap. In the researchers’ adjusted analysis of the period after April 1, 2021, they calculated Democratic voters’ excess death rate at 18.1, and Republicans’ at 25.8 — a 7.7 percentage-point difference equating to a 43% gap.

After the gap was established in the summer of 2021, it widened further in the fall, according to the study’s authors.

The study doesn’t provide all the answers

The researchers note that their study has several limitations, including the chance that political party affiliation “is a proxy for other risk factors,” such as income, health insurance status and chronic medical conditions, along with race and ethnicity.

The study focused only on registered Republicans and Democrats; independents were excluded. And because the researchers drilled into data in Florida and Ohio, they warn that their findings might not translate to other states.

The researchers’ data also did not specify a cause of death, and it accounts for some 83.5% of U.S. deaths, rather than the entire number. And because data about the vaccination status of each of the 538,159 people who died in the two states wasn’t available, researchers could only go as granular as the county level in assessing excess deaths and vaccination rates.

The study was funded by the Tobin Center for Economic Policy at Yale University and the Yale School of Public Health COVID-19 Rapid Response Research Fund.

New findings join other reviews of politics and the pandemic

In late 2021, an NPR analysis found that after May of that year — a timeframe that overlaps the vaccine availability cited in the new study — people in counties that voted strongly for Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election were “nearly three times as likely to die from COVID-19” as people in pro-Biden counties.

“An unvaccinated person is three times as likely to lean Republican as they are to lean Democrat,” as Liz Hamel, vice president of public opinion and survey research at the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, told NPR.

Even before vaccines were widely accessible, researchers were working to quantify the effects of vastly divergent COVID-19 policies across U.S. states.

A widely cited study from early 2021 found that in the early months of the pandemic’s official start date in March 2020, states with Republican governors saw lower COVID-19 case numbers and death rates than Democratic-led states. But the trend reversed around the middle of 2020, as Republican governors were less likely to institute controls such as stay-at-home orders and face mask requirements.

“Future policy decisions should be guided by public health considerations rather than by political ideology,” said the authors of that study, which was selected as the article of the year by the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

Source: A political gap in excess deaths widened after COVID-19 vaccines arrived, study says