Su | Canada’s immigration approach is becoming more exclusionary. It’s not the direction we should be heading

2025/08/20 Leave a comment

Classic example of activist academic arguments, conflating previous race-based criteria with more objective age, language and education criteria, assuming that refusals are all unjustified, that international students were the focus of anger rather than the Liberal government.

And any public conversation will of course need to address the very real pressures on housing, healthcare and infrastructure that immigration-based population growth has exacerbated.

It is striking that so many immigration researchers did not anticipate or warn about the impact of the excessive growth in temporary and permanent residents. Some reflection is in order, rather than making these weak, and in some cases, false arguments:

In 2023, Canada marked the 100th anniversary of the Chinese Exclusion Act, a law that explicitly banned nearly all Chinese immigrants for nearly a quarter century. Many see it as a black mark in Canadian history because it deliberately targeted and expelled the very Chinese labourers who had done the dangerous, back-breaking work of building the Canadian Pacific Railway, only to be cast aside once their labour was no longer needed.

The centenary was a moment of reflection. But since then, Canada has become more restrictive, not less. Rising immigration refusal rates, while not racially explicit, are carrying the pattern of exclusion forward.

Recent data shows that applicants across almost all permanent and temporary resident categories, skilled workers, international students, grandparents and refugees, are facing more rejections. Immigration officials and political leaders point to policy integrity, institutional capacity and shifting targets. But these procedural justifications obscure a more unsettling truth: our immigration system is shifting from openness toward restriction, prioritizing exclusion over welcome.

As a migration scholar as well as an immigrant myself, I know that exclusion doesn’t always arrive with bold legal declarations. It often hides in plain sight, through administrative hurdles, opaque rules, and decisions that are hard to explain but easy to feel.

One clear example we have all experienced collectively across Canada is the demonization of international students. In the past two years, federal policy changes dramatically capped their numbers, blamed them for historical housing and health care shortages and limited their ability to stay.

This framing fuelled hateful online commentary, targeted in-person violent hate crimes and attacks, and even anti-immigrant posters, such as one spotted near a college in Toronto’s Roncesvalles neighbourhood that used multiculturalism to justify xenophobia.

Another example is a spike in Express Entry rejections for permanent residency when applicants declare an “nonaccompanying” spouse. This tactic, once common and legal, is now treated by officers as a sign of dishonesty, triggering procedural fairness letters or outright refusal. This shift is not in the law but in how rules are interpreted and enforced.

The numbers tell a broader story. In just two years, rejection rates for all temporary resident categories have increased 10 to 27 per cent. For example, rejection rates for student permits rose to 65 per cent from 41 per cent and work permits for spouses to study and work rose to 52 per cent from 25 per cent. While visitor visas rose to 50 per cent from 39 per cent.

Then there are the persistent disparities in approval rates for applicants from the Global South. African students, in particular, have long faced disproportionate rejection. Parliamentary testimony revealed that French-speaking African students can face refusal rates as high as 80 to 83 per cent, among the highest of any group, often because officers doubt their “intent” to return home after studying.

A 2024 MPOWER Financing report found that fewer than half of African student visa applications are approved, with rates dropping to 22 per cent for some Francophone African countries. Earlier analyses of IRCC data by the Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants showed that from 205 to 2020, Nigeria’s approval rate was 12 per cent. These decisions, couched in bureaucratic language, reproduce long-standing patterns of racial and regional bias, sending a powerful message about who is seen as credible future Canadians, and who is not.

To be clear, today’s policies are not the same as the 1923 Chinese Exclusion Act, which was explicit, racist, and devastating for Chinese Canadian families. But we would be naïve to think that exclusion only happens when written in black and white legislation.

As Catherine Clement’s recent book ”The Paper Trail to the 1923 Chinese Exclusion Act” shows, policy is not just about law, it’s about how it’s felt, lived, and remembered. Her work documents how exclusion operated through bureaucratic delays, suspicion, and silence, separating families for lifetimes and squandering human potential.

What we are seeing today is different, but still worth naming: a shift toward discretion-based refusal, especially for applicants from racialized countries and communities. When exclusion becomes procedural, it becomes harder to see, challenge or measure.

Immigration, at its best, is a promise: that those who qualify will be treated fairly, and that our system reflect our values. My own family benefited from that promise and was able to live the Canadian dream. But rising rejection rates, unclear standards, and a lack of transparency undermine that promise. If we want to preserve the integrity of our immigration system, we must first preserve its fairness.

That starts with publishing disaggregated refusal statistics, improving officer training, clarifying communication with applicants, and creating accountability mechanisms when discretion oversteps reason. Above all, it requires a public conversation that resists easy answers and considers the human cost of policy shifts.

We tell ourselves that we’ve moved past the kind of exclusion Catherine Clement documents so powerfully. But history doesn’t just live in museums, it echoes in policy, in silence, and in the decisions we choose not to question.

We still have time to course correct. But it will take political courage, public awareness, and a willingness to look critically at what our systems are doing, not just what they claim to do. Canada must resist creeping exclusion and remain a place of opportunity, or Gold Mountain (金山) the Chinese nickname for Canada.

Source: Opinion | Canada’s immigration approach is becoming more exclusionary. It’s not the direction we should be heading

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , , , ,

Su | Canada shouldn’t follow Donald Trump’s ICE surge into a Fortress North America

2025/07/09 Leave a comment

Of note. But perceived unmanaged migration is viewed more as a threat than managed immigration and regular arrivals in Canada and it is unlikely that Canadians would accept large scale refugee flows from the USA. C-2 arguably recognizes this reality without going to the well demonstrated excesses of the USA:

…Earlier this year, Ottawa tabled the Strong Border, Safe Communities Act (Bill C-2). The bill closes loopholes in the Safe Third Country Agreement, restricts irregular crossings, grants sweeping new detention and removal powers to the Canadian Border Service Agency, expands cross-border surveillance with the U.S., and fast-tracks inadmissibility decisions. At its core, Bill C-2 borrows from the same logic that underpins Trump’s ICE surge: that migration is a threat best met with force, surveillance and deterrence.

But how does this affect Canada and Canadians? If we care about our global reputation, let alone our Charter values of due process, freedom from arbitrary detention, and equal treatment, we should demand nuance, not mimicry. We shouldn’t allow our leaders to spend billions in taxpayer money to just “keep up” with the Kardashians.

Because once we normalize the framing of immigration as a miliary threat rather than a human reality, the outcome is inevitable and costly. It means bigger detention centres, longer removal backlogs, and growing human rights challenges at the border.

True protection demands funded reception capacity, legal aid and rigorous refugee determination processes alongside border enforcement. History tells me, deterrence doesn’t solve migration, it just hides it. Walls and raids don’t erase the reasons people move, be it conflict, persecution, or economic desperation.

The more the U.S. tightens the screws, the more people seek pathways elsewhere. And if Canada’s only answer is to mirror that escalation, we risk becoming complicit in a Fortress America mentality that abandons the very ideals we claim to defend.

I have spent over a decade studying forced migration. I know these policy waves don’t just impact people in abstract ways. They decide whether children are reunited with parents. Whether survivors of violence are protected or pushed back into danger. Whether Canada remains a place where refugee claims are heard with fairness and due process, not filtered by quotas or political optics.

Acting in concert with a U.S. mandate that’s fuelling mass detention and deportation risks shifting our nation’s stance from refuge to refoulement. But we can’t let that happen. We need to hold on to what makes us different. Canada’s refugee system, while imperfect, has long balanced order and compassion. At a time like this, we need to strengthen that legacy, not weaken it under the shadow of Trumps’ ICE megabudget.

Canada faces a choice: do we build a taller fence because our neighbours did and hide the problems, or do we invest in solutions that uphold dignity and fairness while protecting security? The billions now being spent south of the border should be a cautionary tale, not a blueprint.

Source: Opinion | Canada shouldn’t follow Donald Trump’s ICE surge into a Fortress North America

Filed under Immigration Tagged with ,

Saunders: Canada’s border is broken, but not the way Trump thinks. Here’s how the next government can fix it

2025/02/24 Leave a comment

Good long and thoughtful commentary:

…There has to be a sensible Canadian space between Trumpist mass deportations and closed borders on one hand, and on the other the current reality of a set of policies and institutions that make Canadian governments unable to control who enters the country.

Luckily, there seems to be an awkward political consensus around this. Both the federal Conservatives and the major Liberal leadership candidates appear to be united (though they might not admit it) around a common set of aspirations: a return to a focus on permanent, citizenship-focused immigration of intact families and a reduction of temporary migration to a minimum; immigration targets tied to economic conditions and population-growth needs; a refugee policy driven by genuine humanitarian need and not by irregular border crossings or opportunism.

Those goals won’t easily be attained with mere tinkering of the sort that governments this century have engaged in. Rather, they require a set of systemwide reforms. After interviewing a dozen former immigration officials and experts, I found a strong consensus on the changes that would make the system work:…

Source: Canada’s border is broken, but not the way Trump thinks. Here’s how the next government can fix it

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , , , , ,

Su | From sunny ways to stormy days: navigating Canada’s immigration debate

2025/01/16 Leave a comment

Interesting convergence in position between Su, from York University, and Poilievre, the former stating “…policies should be developed in accordance with Canada’s housing, health care and education capacities and potential,” the latter stating he would “tie the country’s population growth rate to a level that’s below the number of new homes built, and would also consider such factors as access to health-care and jobs:”

….As Canada prepares for new leadership, there is an opportunity to foster a more nuanced and productive dialogue on immigration. We can have hard and honest conversations about immigration without the racism, the hate and the punching down.

Political candidates should develop clear and consistent long-term immigration policies that balance economic needs with social cohesion. These policies should be developed in accordance with Canada’s housing, health care and education capacities and potential. Candidates should also commit to promoting the positive impacts of diversity and multiculturalism on Canadian society and economy to improve social cohesion.

By confronting our immigration identity crisis head-on, political leaders can help shape a more inclusive and prosperous future for all Canadians that stay true to our core values. Immigration has built Canada, so let’s move beyond divisive politics and work toward a unified vision that embraces Canada’s multicultural heritage while addressing the legitimate concerns of voters.

Source: Opinion | From sunny ways to stormy days: navigating Canada’s immigration debate


Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

Su | Trudeau’s government just sent the clearest signal yet that Canada’s doors are closing

2024/12/06 1 Comment

Well, the message needed to be sent given the rapid growth of asylum seekers (encouraged by the Liberal government’s previous policies), the concerns of most Canadians and the reality of the Trump administration.

My general take, rather than just raising their legitimate concerns, academics and settlement organizations have to think what kind of advice and advocacy will be most effective in the current environment. I do think that Su’s example of privately sponsored refugees as a cornerstone is appropriate but perhaps a second step would be to suggest a respective cut in the government assisted refugees. Recognizing trade-offs in a context of zero-sums:

The Canadian government’s recent announcement of a $250,000 global ad campaign warning migrants that seeking asylum here is “not easy,” coupled with the suspension of private refugee sponsorships, is sending a chilling message: Canada’s doors are closing and so too are our commitments to humanitarian principles, multiculturalism and our international obligations to uphold the rights of refugees.

But as the federal Liberal government continues its campaign to look tough on immigration in response to internal as well as external pressures from our neighbours to the south, it is prioritizing optics over meaningful, humane solutions. The government has said immigration restrictions are necessary to reduce pressure on housing, infrastructure and social services.  

The ad campaign is part of troubling shift in our immigration policies that isn’t just short-sighted but a betrayal of our values. It underlines our long-standing identity as a welcome place of refuge and opportunity, risking Canada’s transformation into yet another country using human lives as political pawns.

We are borrowing from the failed playbooks of Australia’s Operation Sovereign Borders and U.K.’s “Stop the Boats” campaign. Campaigns widely associated with cruelty, exclusion and human rights abuse. While these programs may have reduced irregular arrivals on paper, they came at enormous human and ethical costs. Canada, once the antithesis of such approaches, risks following a similar path.

Equally concerning is the suspension of new private sponsorship applications for refugees from groups of five and community organizations citing an “oversupply” of applications and a desire not to give people fleeing war zones false hope.

Private refugee sponsorship has been a cornerstone of Canada’s refugee program and our model has been praised globally for its success. In 2015, the Canadian government proudly said, “Canada can and will do more to help Syrian refugees who are desperately seeking safety, by offering them a new home.”

By 2018, Canada accepted close to 52,000 Syrian refugees, about half of whom were privately sponsored. Since 2013, more refugees have arrived in Canada through private sponsorship than through government support and in 2019, two-thirds of refugees entered through private or community sponsorship.

Not only is the program successful and low-cost for the government, it also enables communities to welcome and integrate newcomers, embodying the very values of generosity and solidarity that underpin Canada’s self-image. Limiting this program feels like a betrayal of our history, one that risks leaving countless vulnerable individuals in limbo.

These policies reflect a dangerous pivot in Canada’s immigration philosophy — from one of proactive humanitarianism to reactive gatekeeping. While the government claims these measures address systemic challenges, they risk conflating the inefficiencies of bureaucracy with the actions of migrants themselves.

These policies are also sowing division among immigrant communities. A recent poll found 65 per cent of Canadians surveys believe the Canada government’s current plans will admit too many people. And most immigrants(67 per cent) support stricter international student policies.

However, the flip side of the growing anti-immigrant and anti-refugee sentiments that is not getting as much attention is that this rhetoric increases racism and discrimination for the whole immigrant population, not just newcomers or international students. The same poll found that over a third of immigrants have faced discrimination at work, especially younger BIPOC immigrants.

Hate crimes reported by the police have also doubled from 2019 to 2023, with 44.5 per cent of incidents in 2023 motivated by ethnicity or race. One will never be able to calculate the social costs of a Canada where the fabric of multiculturalism is being picked apart one policy change at a time, but we will be able to feel it.

Rupinder Singh, a Sikh man living in Scarborough, felt it when he had his turban snatched off his head by someone who jumped into a car and sped off. Singh says he is planning to go back home because of this incident because he no longer feels safe in Canada. Singh is part of a growing trend of newcomers leaving Canada.

Statistics Canada data shows that more than 15 per cent of immigrants left Canada within 20 years of landing and advocates are asking for policies on immigrant retention.

So, a $250,000 global ad campaign might not be necessary to keep people away from Canada when word-of-mouth and the high cost of living is already doing the advertising for us. That money could be better spent on developing immigration policies that prioritize dignity over deterrence. If Canada continues down this path, we risk undermining the Canadian values of generosity, multiculturalism and inclusion that has been our foundation for so long.

Source: Opinion | Trudeau’s government just sent the clearest signal yet that Canada’s doors are closing

Filed under Immigration, Refugees Tagged with

Su: Institutions, not international students, are to blame for rising asylum claims

2024/11/12 Leave a comment

A really good analysis of the data, highlighting the bad actors among public and private institutions. Of course, the main responsibility lies with federal and provincial governments for allowing this situation to develop; the institutions were just responding to the conditions (and incentives) set:

…Among educational institutions, we know who the bad actors are. See table 1.

Of the 650 designated learning institutes, 301 did not have a single study permit holder apply for asylum, IRCC data shows.

On the other hand, 80 institutions had more than 100 asylum claims each, which account for 77 per cent of total asylum applications. Within that, there are 16 institutions with more than 500 asylum claims each and four institutions with more than 1,000 claims each.

https://e.infogram.com/4d844113-a432-4f28-87dc-38d8f9bf2b92?parent_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpolicyoptions.irpp.org%2Fmagazines%2Fnovember-2024%2Finstitutions-students-asylum%2F&src=embed#async_embed

The absolute number of asylum claims is high and the increase over the last seven years is steep, especially after 2022, when pandemic border restrictions were lifted. But the percentage of international students who applied for asylum is low.

https://e.infogram.com/c3343ba8-0a7d-4cde-98fb-2e0e9e6aa167?parent_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpolicyoptions.irpp.org%2Fmagazines%2Fnovember-2024%2Finstitutions-students-asylum%2F&src=embed#async_embed

However, there were 37 institutions where 10 per cent or more of study-permit holders applied for asylum. Here are the 11 where the percentage was higher than 30 per cent:

https://e.infogram.com/6e093816-71ac-490d-94a4-9edf5c9a3d71?parent_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpolicyoptions.irpp.org%2Fmagazines%2Fnovember-2024%2Finstitutions-students-asylum%2F&src=embed#async_embed

The high percentage of international students applying for asylum from these institutions could point to someone at the institution, or the institution itself, suggesting or assisting students with their applications.

Or the institution could be advertising to potential study-permit holders that applying for asylum once they arrive is a viable pathway to staying in Canada amid the changing policy environment.

Specifically, I found a handful of colleges where 100 per cent of their international students have claimed asylum in recent years.

In 2020, the Institute of Technology Development of Canada (ITD) had 10 study permits approved and 10 asylum claims made. In 2023, the Canadian Technology College had 10 study permits approved and 10 asylum claims made, while DEA Canadian College had five study permits approved and five asylum claims made.

More concerning is that while some institutions do not have a 100-per-cent asylum application rate among their study permit holders, their absolute numbers are high.

In 2024, CIMT College had 330 study permits approved and 280 asylum claims – an 85-per-cent rate.

The numbers are similar at the Canadian Career Education College, which had 265 study permits approved and 200 asylum claims made – a 75-per-cent rate. While it is unclear from the data what year the study-permit holders who applied for asylum got their study permits, the trend is worth examining…

Source: Institutions, not international students, are to blame for rising asylum claims

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , ,

Refugees ecstatic over golden opportunity to live in Canada

2024/05/08 Leave a comment

Of note. The purists miss the point:

…Dana Wagner, co-founder of TalentLift, a non-profit recruitment company that matches refugees with employers, said the program gives refugees, welcomed to Canada as skilled employees, a sense of self-worth.

Refugees who have endured extreme hardship also “have remarkable drive and resilience,” she said. But most employers are unaware that the pathway to Canada exists.

Unlike claims for asylum from people fleeing persecution in their home country, the pilot program links refugee resettlement with economic immigration.

It’s a program that raises concerns for Yvonne Su, assistant professor in interdisciplinary refugee and diaspora studies at York University. She warned against creating categories of refugees that are rooted in their economic value, rather than just welcoming people because they are in danger and deserve help.

“If a program like this becomes very popular then we will have refugees that are seen as ‘ideal refugees’ who have a well-founded fear of persecution and have huge economic potential so they are more deserving of a faster visa-immigration process,” she said…

Source: Refugees ecstatic over golden opportunity to live in Canada

Filed under Immigration Tagged with ,

Setting the record straight on refugee claims by international students

2024/05/07 Leave a comment

Good analysis of the data and placing it in perspective.

However, makes the mistake of only focussing on the overall numbers and not considering growth rates. For example, an increase of three percent to eight percent over the last 5 years is an increase of about 170 percent, a valid concern particularly if the trend continues given the overburdened refugee determination system (and higher than the overall increase of 150 percent).

While “only one percent” of international students making claims is a small number, given the large number of international students again that understates the issue.

Of course, the media and much commentary focuses on these issues rather than for example, declining naturalization rates. But that’s the reality, and IRCC and Ministers have contributed to that given the policies that got us to this place.

But valid, of course, to assess against low acceptance rates.:

The Canadian government placed a cap on the number of study permits granted to international students earlier this year. The government stated that a rapid increase in the number of international students was putting added “pressure on housing, health care and other services.”

In addition, Immigration Minister Marc Miller criticized some private colleges for the increasing number of refugee claims from their international students, saying the trend was “alarming” and “totally unacceptable.”

Similarly, a recent article in the Globe and Mail stated refugee claims by international students increased by 646 per cent from 2018 to 2023, and raised concerns about students exploiting Canada’s immigration system.

However, focusing on refugee claims, and not refugee claim approvals, obscures the context needed to understand such a complex issue. These comments and statistics are misleading and contribute to fueling xenophobia and anti-immigrant sentiment.

Given the central place of immigration in heated political debates in Canada, it’s crucial to unpack these claims and understand the implications of perpetuating unfounded criticism of Canada’s refugee and immigration system.

Growing number of displaced people

Amid the war in Ukraine, violence in Haiti and enduring humanitarian crises in Afghanistan, Syria, Somalia, Venezuela, Sudan and elsewhere, over 114 million people have been displaced worldwide. Accordingly, refugee claims have increased around the world from displaced people; many of whom face the risk of being forcibly returned home or sent to a third country.

The number of refugee claims in Canada fluctuates over time, largely in response to global events. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic there was a notable decline in refugee claims from 58,378 in 2019 to 18,500 in 2020. However, refugee claims in Canada increased from 55,388 in 2018 to 137,947 in 2023.

While the increase in the number of international students making refugee claims is worth investigation, the impact of this increase should not be exaggerated or taken out of context. In 2018, international students made up three per cent of new refugee claims. By 2023, this figure increased to only eight per cent.

Most importantly, these numbers need to be examined as a percentage of all international students in Canada. In 2023, only one per cent of international students sought asylum.

A table showing the number of refugee claims madein canada each of the years along with those that were accepted, rejected and made by international students.
Data on the number of refugee claims made in Canada between 2018 and 2023. (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada), Author provided (no reuse)

Refugee fraud is rare

The large majority of refugee claims in Canada succeed. In recent years the number of refugee claims approved increased from 63 per cent in 2018 to 79 per cent in 2023.

During this same period, fraud in the refugee determination system has been relatively rare. When Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Board encounters a claim that is “clearly fraudulent” the Board has a legal obligation to declare that the claim is “manifestly unfounded.” This occurs only a few dozen times per year.

The result is that most refugee claimants in Canada are determined to have a well-founded fear of being sent back home. As such, most will obtain permanent residence in Canada and be on the path to citizenship.

Dangers of alarmist rhetoric

Statistics Canada data indicate that more than 15 per cent of immigrants are deciding to leave Canada within 20 years of immigrating. Meanwhile less than half of permanent residents are deciding to become citizens. There is also a similar trend among international students. More and more international students are contemplating leaving Canada amid declining affordability and diminishing job prospects.

However, these realities are often not as interesting or enraging as the alarmist rhetoric adopted by politicians and media. The fact that fraud is rare in Canada’s refugee system doesn’t sell newspapers or win votes. Declining citizenship rates are not as compelling as tales of international students exploiting loopholes to stay in Canada.

This kind of rhetoric also overlooks the fact that many students do come from countries experiencing political instability and violence, making their refugee claims deserving of consideration. In the face of migration controls and the absence of safe and legal channels, coming to Canada as a student and seeking refuge may be the only viable option for some people seeking protection from persecution.

With that in mind, politicians and media must be careful regarding how they discuss refugee claimants. It is misleading to imply that it is “alarming” and “unacceptable” for someone to make a refugee claim simply because they are an international student. Seeking asylum is a right they have under both international and Canadian law.

Such rhetoric fosters a climate of suspicion and distrust towards newcomers, fueling xenophobia and hostility towards those in need of protection. Instead, politicians, media and the public in general, should recognize that Canada has processes that are well-placed to examine these claims. These include one of the world’s most well-regarded refugee determination systems that assesses each claim on its merits.

When politicians engage in rhetoric that plays into anxieties about migration, the media must act as an informed voice that scrutinizes their comments, instead of amplifying reactionary claims about fraud and the spectre of bogus refugees.

Source: Setting the record straight on refugee claims by international students

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , ,