The U.S. and Canada quietly agreed to share personal data on permanent residents crossing the border

Understandable given some recent examples of security risks. Dated pre pre-Trump. But government should have been more transparent:

Top immigration lawyers say it’s “shocking” that the federal government quietly signed a new deal with the U.S. government that automatically trades troves of personal data of millions of permanent residents in either country when they try to cross the U.S.-Canada border.

In July, the U.S. and Canadian government quietly made a major change to a 2012 agreement that authorized the automatic sharing of personal information between both countries of non-residents who applied for visas.

The original deal deliberately excluded permanent residents and citizens of both countries from the information sharing regime. But an updated agreement quietly tabled in Parliament in October added permanent residents to the list of individuals whose personal information would automatically be sent to either government if they tried to cross the U.S.-Canada border.

The updated agreement, which was signed in July but came into force this month, impacts potentially millions of permanent residents in Canada and even more in the U.S. if they decide to apply for a visa to visit either country.

In a statement, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) spokesperson Jeffrey MacDonald said that information sharing between the U.S. and Canada “strengthens visitor screening and supports managed migration.”

“The Government of Canada will be authorized to use biographic or biometric information of U.S. permanent residents (PR) making an immigration application to Canada to query and obtain information concerning their immigration history with the U.S,” MacDonald wrote.

“Likewise, the U.S. will be authorized to use biographic or biometric information of Canadian PRs making an immigration application to the U.S. to query and obtain information concerning their immigration history with Canada,” he added.

According to a government website, the information being shared ranges from a visa applicant’s personal information, picture, fingerprint and immigration history.

In an interview, immigration lawyer Mario Bellissimo said that automatically sending the U.S. government data about Canadian permanent residents wanting to cross the southern border is akin to a “devaluation” of permanent resident status.

“On what basis did the government determine that permanent residence needed to be surveilled in this way?,” wondered the chair of the Canadian Bar Association’ national immigration law section.

But the changes were kept quiet by the Canadian government until a brief mention by Immigration Minister Marc Miller during a press conference Wednesday, raising significant concerns among immigration lawyers as to why the major change was kept quiet for so long.

Source: The U.S. and Canada quietly agreed to share personal data on permanent residents crossing the border

Legal Pathways and Enforcement: What the U.S. Safe Mobility Strategy Can Teach Europe about Migration Management

Usual solid analysis from MPI, with approach and results undercover by media and not discussed by Harris campaign:

As the Biden administration comes to an end on January 20, so does one of the most ambitious migration management policy agendas in recent memory. Over the last four years, the administration initiated an innovative strategy mixing increased regional cooperation on immigration enforcement and a more orderly system for border arrivals with a significant expansion of lawful pathways and efforts to push humanitarian protection decisions away from the border. Based on the notion of “safe mobility,” this strategy eventually saw irregular migration to the U.S.-Mexico border drop to its lowest level in almost five years after a period of record arrivals. But it took a long time to implement the various elements—a period during which the U.S. public became increasingly restive over perceived chaos at the border and large numbers of irregular arrivals. Even as some key aspects of the strategy have yet to be fully implemented, the incoming Trump administration will assert its own, differing vision for migration management at U.S. borders and relations with neighboring countries.

Still, the Biden-era innovations have been watched with interest across the Atlantic, where many European governments are struggling to find an effective answer to similar mixed movements of asylum seekers and irregular migrants. While some of the U.S. measures were more developed than others, together they provide the seeds of an approach that ensures greater border control while advancing pathways for humanitarian protection.

The Biden experience makes clear, though, that sequencing matters. Many of the elements promoting protection pathways preceded the efforts for greater regional enforcement and heightened U.S. requirements to seek asylum at borders. It was not until June 2024 that many enforcement measures, including greater cooperation with the Mexican and Panamanian governments and narrowing of asylum eligibility at borders, were fully implemented, with irregular arrivals then dropping precipitously. As a result, the administration will likely be remembered more for the several million migrants who were allowed across the U.S.-Mexico border, rather than the combination of measures that finally brought irregular migration under control.

The incoming Trump administration will undoubtedly pursue a strategy based primarily on enforcement, not lawful pathways, and further reduce access to humanitarian protection. That does not mean, however, that a balanced approach that includes robust enforcement and lawful pathways is dead. Instead, for countries that want to pursue this, it points to the need for a more pragmatic approach that achieves early reductions in arrivals while also preserving pathways for protection, not delaying the enforcement-focused elements of the strategy….

Finally, the Biden administration initiatives offer a crucial lesson about managing public trust and messaging. First, it has become almost gospel that the orderliness of migration (in a planned, legal way) matters almost as much or more than the absolute numbers arriving. The CHNV and SMO programs would seem to have fulfilled this criteria—migrants arrived with authorization at airports and with a sponsor or local agency ready to receive them and support their initial reception costs. Yet there was little messaging to U.S. publics by the government about either program, leaving the door open for critics to exploit the narrative, accusing the administration of paying to fly in future voters. It also seems that numbers may, in fact, matter after all. While more than 860,000 migrants came in through CBP One appointments and another 800,000-plus through the CHNV process and similar parole processes for Ukrainians and Afghans, nearly 4.2 million other migrants were allowed in after crossing a border without authorization, in addition to others who managed to cross the border undetected. For many local communities and service providers, who received minimal support from the federal government for the costs incurred in addressing the needs of these new arrivals, the pace of change and demands placed upon them were great….

Source: Legal Pathways and Enforcement: What the U.S. Safe Mobility Strategy Can Teach Europe about Migration Management


Report: Disparate swings in asylum outcomes by US immigration judges

Sean Rehaag has been showing similar discrepancies in Canada. Kahneman argues persuasively that automated systems are the preferred approach to deliver consistent rulings, albeit great care is needed to ensure that no unfortunate biases get coded into the system.

Wide swings in judicial outcomes for immigration asylum cases nationwide since 2019 are noted in a recent report.

Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse reports individual asylum decisions for over 800 immigration judges that finds some have denied asylum in 100% of their cases, while another judge has denied just 1% of cases.

But, on average, more than half of all asylum cases in the United States over the past five years have been denied, a sentiment that has repeatedly been said by at least one South Texas congressman.

The nationwide asylum denial rate from 2019 through 2024 was 57.7%, according to the TRAC report released in November.

“To grant or deny an asylum application is among the most consequential decisions an immigration judge makes. For this reason, understanding how asylum decisions vary across time, across courts, and across judges warrants more attention — particularly in current public policy debates on immigration enforcement policies to reduce the court’s backlog of cases. The lessons that are evident from past decades should not be ignored. For many asylum seekers our current system has not delivered a fast and fair resolution of their cases. Often it has delivered neither,” the TRAC report found.
(TRAC Graphic)
Some of the reasons for wide variations in outcome of asylum cases could be that fewer valid claims came before certain courts. Asylum applicants typically submit their claims to the court nearest their residency. Immigrants from the same country also tend to live in the same communities and their claims and outcomes can be correlated, the report found.

Other significant factors that can influence asylum outcomes includes the availability of skilled immigration attorneys in various communities, as well as court and docket size for number of immigration cases assigned to each judge, according to TRAC.

Two immigration judges in Houston — Monique Harris and Bruce Imbacuan, were cited in the report as having denied 100% of asylum cases in their courts. Harris has adjudicated 108 cases, Imbacuan has heard 105 cases with no cases granted asylum and no cases granted some type of relief, according to TRAC.

Bios on these judges show Harris previously worked as legal counsel for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Her case denials all fell within 2019, according to TRAC. Imbacuan was appointed in 2020 and all of his denial cases occurred in 2020. He previously worked for ICE in Cleveland, Ohio, TRAC reports.

That’s contrary to other judges within the very same court who have denial rates of 70% and 79% but who also have heard many ore cases, 430 and 235, respectively.

In South Texas, the nine immigration judges deciding cases in Harlingen, vary in denial rates from 57.8% to 84.3%. The 11 judges in the Laredo immigration courts vary with denial rates from 24.5% to 90.2%. And the five judges in Los Fresnos, Texas, have had denial rates from 77.5% to 90.6%, the report finds.
In West Texas, the El Paso immigration court judges have issued denial rates ranging from 14.7% to 85.5%.

Judge Lorely Ramirez Fernandez, in El Paso, heard 129 cases since 2019 and has granted asylum to 70.5% of cases and some type of relief to 14.7% of other asylum cases, TRAC says. Her bio lists her as having served as a staff attorney with Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center in El Paso in 2007.
San Francisco immigration Judge Elisa Brasil has denied just 1.3% of cases since 2023, since she has been on the bench, according to TRAC. She previously represented clients before the Executive Office of Immigration Review, which are immigration courts, TRAC found.

“Although denial rates are shaped by each judge’s judicial philosophy, denial rates are also shaped by other factors, such as the types of cases on the judge’s docket, the detained status of immigrant respondents, current immigration policies, and other factors beyond an individual judge’s control,” the report found.

TRAC reports that, to date, there are over 3.7 million immigration cases pending.

Source: Report: Disparate swings in asylum outcomes by US immigration judges



Criminals in cribs: The crazy attempt to ban birthright citizenship

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

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

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

Canada can’t support influx of migrants fleeing Trump, must prevent border crossings, says former top aide

Clearly the case, for domestic as well as USA reasons:

Canada needs to significantly strengthen its border, says a former chief of staff to Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly, because it can’t absorb large numbers of migrants who could flee here to evade U.S. president-elect Donald Trump’s pledge of mass deportations.

Peter Wilkinson, who recently spent 21 months as Ms. Joly’s top lieutenant and previously served as chief of staff to former Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty, said Canadians should be deeply concerned about Mr. Trump’s plan to deport up to 11 million undocumented migrants after he takes office in January.

While Mr. Trump has vowed to impose 25-per-cent tariffs on Canada and Mexico in a bid to stop illegal crossings and the flow of fentanyl into the U.S., Mr. Wilkinson worries about the threat of mass deportations.

“We just can’t take 11 million people. We can’t even take one million people or 500,000 people,” he said in an interview. “We have to stop people from coming in. We will be faced with something that as Canadians, that we never really faced before.”

Mr. Wilkinson said the country’s health care and social-welfare systems can’t handle potentially huge numbers of people crossing into Canada. While many groups will argue that this country should accept these migrants, he warned that this issue could fracture the Canadian consensus on immigration.

“Lots of groups in society will be saying ‘no, we can’t do that, it is inhumane,’ and I understand that,” he said. “We are straining a bit now on the consensus in the country in regard to immigration and refugees. This will blow it up.”…

Source: Canada can’t support influx of migrants fleeing Trump, must prevent border crossings, says former top aide

Why Indians are risking it all to chase the American Dream

Good analysis and reminder how the Northern border is of increasing concern to the USA:

…Since October 2020, US Customs and Border Protection (CPB) officials have detained nearly 170,000 Indian migrants attempting unauthorised crossings at both the northern and southern land borders.

“Though smaller than the numbers from Latin America and the Caribbean, Indian nationals represent the largest group of migrants from outside the Western Hemisphere encountered by the CPB in the past four years,” say Gil Guerra and Sneha Puri, immigration analysts at Niskanen Center, a Washington-based think tank.

As of 2022, an estimated 725,000 undocumented Indian immigrants were in the US, making them the third-largest group after those from Mexico and El Salvador, according to new data from the Pew Research Center. Unauthorised immigrants in all make up 3% of US’s total population and 22% of the foreign-born population.

Looking at the data, Mr Guerra and Ms Puri have identified notable trends in the spike in Indians attempting illegal border crossings. 

For one, the migrants are not from the lowest economic strata. But they cannot secure tourist or student visas to the US, often due to lower education or English proficiency.

Instead, they rely on agencies charging up to $100,000 (£79,000), sometimes using long and arduous routes designed to dodge border controls. To afford this, many sell farms or take out loans. Not surprisingly, data from the US immigration courts in 2024 reveals that the majority of Indian migrants were male, aged 18-34.

Second, Canada on the northern border has become a more accessible entry point for Indians, with a visitor visa processing time of 76 days (compared to up to a year for a US visa in India).

The Swanton Sector – covering the states of Vermont and counties in New York and New Hampshire – has experienced a sudden surge in encounters with Indian nationals since early this year, peaking at 2,715 in June, the researchers found.

Earlier, most irregular Indian migrants entered the Americas through the busier southern border with Mexico via El Salvador or Nicaragua, both of which facilitated migration. Until November last year, Indian nationals enjoyed visa-free travel to El Salvador.

“The US-Canada border is also longer and less guarded than the US-Mexico border. And while it is not necessarily safer, criminal groups do not have the same presence there as they do along the route from South and Central America,” Mr Guerra and Ms Puri say.

Thirdly, much of the migration appears to originate from the Sikh-dominated Indian state of Punjab and neighbouring Haryana, which has traditionally seen people migrating overseas. The other source of origin is Gujarat, the home state of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Punjab, which accounts for a large share of irregular Indian migrants, is facing economic hardships, including high unemployment, farming distress and a looming drug crisis. 

Migration has also long been common among Punjabis, with rural youth still eager to move abroad. 

A recent study of 120 respondents in Punjab by Navjot Kaur, Gaganpreet Kaur and Lavjit Kaur found that 56% emigrated between ages 18-28, often after secondary education. Many funded their move through non-institutional loans, later sending remittances to their families. 

Then there has been a rise in tensions over the separatist Khalistan movement, which seeks to establish an independent homeland for Sikhs. “This has caused fear from some Sikhs in India about being unfairly targeted by authorities or politicians. These fears may also provide a credible basis for claims of persecution that allows them to seek asylum, whether or not true,” says Ms Puri.

But pinning down the exact triggers for migration is challenging. 

“While motivations vary, economic opportunity remains the primary driver, reinforced by social networks and a sense of pride in having family members ‘settled’ in the US,” says Ms Puri.

Fourth, researchers found a shift in the family demographics of Indian nationals at the borders.

More families are trying to cross the border. In 2021, single adults were overwhelmingly detained at both borders. Now, family units make up 16-18% of the detentions at both borders.

This has sometimes led to tragic consequences. In January 2022, an Indian family of four – part of a group of 11 people from Gujarat – froze to death just 12m (39ft) from the border in Canada while attempting to enter the US.

Pablo Bose, a migration and urban studies scholar at the University of Vermont, says Indians are trying to cross into the US in larger numbers because of more economic opportunities and “more ability to enter the informal economies in the US cities”, especially the large ones like New York or Boston.

“From everything I know and interviews I have conducted, most of the Indians are not staying in the more rural locations like Vermont or upstate New York but rather heading to the cities as soon as they can,” Mr Bose told the BBC. There, he says, they are entering mostly informal jobs like domestic labour and restaurant work.

Things are likely to become more difficult soon. Veteran immigration official Tom Homan, who will be in charge of the country’s borders following Trump’s inauguration in January, has said that the northern border with Canada is a priority because illegal migration in the area is a “huge national security issue”.

What happens next is unclear. “It remains to be seen if Canada would impose similar policies to prevent people migrating into the US from its borders. If that happens, we can expect a decline in detentions of Indians nationals at the border,” says Ms Puri. 

Whatever the case, the dreams driving thousands of desperate Indians to seek a better life in the US are unlikely to fade, even as the road ahead becomes more perilous.

Source: Why Indians are risking it all to chase the American Dream

Immigration Under the Trump Administration: Five Things to Expect in the First 90 Days

Good solid analysis:

The first Trump administration brought significant changes to U.S. immigration policies, which had profound impacts on businesses and individuals alike. Donald Trump has shared plans for closing the U.S. borders and enforcing mass deportations for undocumented immigrants almost immediately after taking office in January. Below are five major impacts to immigration policy we saw as a result of Trump’s first term, and what we can expect for his second term.

  1. Extreme Vetting: The administration introduced stringent vetting processes for visa applicants, with the stated aim of enhancing national security. This led to longer processing times and increased scrutiny of applicants’ backgrounds. The U.S. Department of State, whose Bureau of Consular Affairs oversees the issuance of U.S. visas, has yet to recover from staffing shortages resulting from the first Trump administration, while geopolitical conflicts continue to grow in size and severity, drawing limited resources away from visa processing. Like under the first Trump administration, visa applicants – and the U.S. companies that employ them – can expect extremely long wait times for visa interview appointments, more frequent administrative processing delays, and much higher visa refusal rates. Foreign workers may be less able to travel internationally for work due to the risk of being unable to return to the U.S.
     
  2. Hiring and Onboarding Delays: Slow adjudication and consular operations, coupled with heavy scrutiny, caused significant delays in hiring and onboarding international employees. Businesses faced challenges in maintaining their high-skilled workforces due to these prolonged processes since such (legal) foreign workers are the cohort most affected by delays and increased scrutiny of work visa applications. Only the H-2 visa category for seasonal and temporary workers seems to have been unaffected by these delays. In fact, the number of available H-2 visas doubled under Trump, and applications maintained an average approval rate of over 98 percent. Given this history, employers should plan for delays in onboarding high-skilled foreign workers as well as decreased ability to recruit such candidates to the U.S., though the ability to recruit short-term and seasonal labor should remain steady.
     
  3. Business Disruption: Border closures, visa bans, skyrocketing processing times, and denial rates under the first Trump administration exacerbated the staffing issues faced by companies during the pandemic and recovery. Year-plus processing times caused foreign nationals working legally in the U.S. to lose their work authorization and, in some cases, their jobs as employers struggled to navigate the changing adjudication standards. Employers in highly scrutinized industries like construction, manufacturing, food service, hospitality, and agriculture can expect increased immigration enforcement activity, including raids. Raids, in particular, have a chilling impact on recruitment and hiring even of authorized workers, including workers permanently authorized to work in the U.S. – like U.S. citizens, permanent residents, and asylees. In 2022, a federal court ordered ICE to pay more than $1 million to victims of the agency’s raid of a meatpacking plant in Tennessee, after determining ICE agents used racial profiling and excessive force to illegally detain workers without regard to their actual status – lawful or unlawful – in the U.S.
     
  4. Increased Costs: The cost of sponsoring employees for visas and green cards increased due to additional documentary requirements and higher denial rates. Businesses had to allocate more resources to manage immigration-related expenses. Under the incoming administration, employers can expect a return to those high immigration costs and then some. Since Biden took office, denial rates for H-1B visa applications have hovered between 2 – 3 percent; under Trump, H-1B denial rates were more than triple that, ranging from 8 – 15 percent.
     
  5. Uncertainty: In the first Trump administration, sudden policy changes, reduced service levels, and uncertain decisions created concern among employees and businesses. Companies had to adjust their expectations and factor in events that created disruptions impacting all levels of their business, including employee onboarding, production, and service delivery. We expect the impacts of the areas outlined above will lead to a significant number of additional uncertainties for both employers and employees that could impact workforce morale and productivity in anticipation of what could come….

Meredith C. Doll, of counsel in Baker Donelson’s Houston office, helps clients with business immigration matters, including strategy planning, worksite compliance and enforcement, and immigrant and nonimmigrant petitions.  Melanie C. Walker, a shareholder in the Baker Donelson’s Global Immigration Group in Chattanooga. Tennessee, provides strategic guidance and immigration counseling services to companies and their employees.

Source: Immigration Under the Trump Administration: Five Things to Expect in the First 90 Days

Keller: Donald Trump’s victory is about class, not race. And that’s a good thing

I would argue both but more discussion about class and less about identity is positive:

…A multiracial society is a lot more difficult to sustain if politics is fought over immutable characteristics, with skin colour or ethnicity dictating how I vote, and which party courts or targets me. Democrats have long accused the MAGA movement of being white supremacy on steroids, but more and more blue-collar voters of all races, particularly Hispanics, don’t see it that way. They see MAGA as a working-class movement.

It’s not a great thing for a society to have deep class divisions – but it’s a heck of a lot better than a deep racial divide. Class, in the U.S. and Canada, is not a fixed thing. It’s mutable, evolving and debatable. It’s about everything from lifestyle to mindset to culture, all which can and do change – unlike skin colour.

It’s notable that, while Ms. Harris and Democrats ran against the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision that ruled against a constitutional right to abortion, they never mentioned the monumental 2023 Supreme Court decision that declared affirmative action in college admission unconstitutional. Race-blind admission is a popular policy, even in Democratic-controlled California, where whites are a minority.

In the years to come, Democrats and Republicans alike will continue to appeal to voters on the basis of tribal identities – small town versus city, college versus blue collar, conservative versus progressive. But electoral appeals based on race have become a lot less salient in American politics. That’s progress.

Source: Donald Trump’s victory is about class, not race. And that’s a good thing

Ministers urged to explain how they will prevent a surge in asylum seekers from U.S. after Trump election

Suggests major increase in funding for the IRB along with some process re-engineering will be needed. Nothing reduces public support more than the perception that immigration is not being well managed as we have seen over the past two years:

Federal ministers came under pressure from MPs Thursday to explain how they plan to prevent an influx of asylum seekers from the United States after the election of Donald Trump, as a senior official at the Immigration and Refugee Board disclosed it now takes almost four years for asylum claims to be processed.

Roula Eatrides, deputy chairperson of IRB’s refugee protection division, told the Commons immigration committee Thursday that it now takes 44 months for a refugee claim to be dealt with after being referred to the board. She said the IRB has a record backlog of about 250,000 cases.

On Wednesday, immigration lawyer Richard Kurland told The Globe and Mail that because asylum claims take so long to process, undocumented migrants facing deportation from the U.S. may try to find a safe haven and “buy time” in Canada, though he said few are likely to have their claims approved.

During his campaign, Mr. Trump promised to conduct the largest deportation in American history of people living there illegally. On Thursday, Mr. Trump said he will move forward with that pledge. “Really, we have no choice,” he told NBC News. There are an estimated 11 million undocumented migrants in the U.S.

The RCMP’s national headquarters confirmed Thursday it has a plan to deal with a predicted influx of migrants, informed by its experience of a surge during the first Trump presidency…

Source: Ministers urged to explain how they will prevent a surge in asylum seekers from U.S. after Trump election