Here is a story from the Times of India . Why are people like this one able to stall for years and walk the streets freely? Why is he not in custody and kicked out unceremoniously after exhausting all his rights of review? What a joke! Go figure...
Sikh man resists deportation to India
18 Oct 2008, 0914 hrs IST, IANS
TORONTO: A Sikh man from India, who has been denied refugee status in Canada, has refused to sign papers to facilitate his deportation.
According to reports, Manjit Singh Rattu, who entered Canada in 1995 and sought refugee status citing danger to his life in India, is currently lodged at the Calgary Remand Centre in Alberta before his deportation.
He was questioned by the police for clues to the killing of Punjabi journalist and Indo-Canadian Times founder-editor Tara Singh Hayer after his arrest in Toronto two years ago.
Hayer, who had agreed to testify as a witness in the 1985 Air India bombing trial, was shot dead at his home in November 1998 even before the trial could begin.
But Rattu's lawyer said his client has been cleared in the Hayer case, even as he faces other charges of lying and fraud, including use of stolen identities, during his stay in Canada since 1995.
Rattu appeared before the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board which has decided that he should remain in custody till his deportation to India.
But the deportation plan has run into a problem as Rattu's Indian passport has expired and he needs a fresh passport to travel back to India. Reports say Ratty has refused to sign the documents to get him a new Indian passport.
A Calgary-based newspaper reported that the Canadian Border Security Agency (CBSA) has contacted the Indian High Commission in Ottawa to get Rattu's travel documents without his consent.
It has also been revealed Rattu was once a permanent resident of the US. But since this status expired, the Americans are refusing to take him back.
His lawyer pleaded with the refugee board that Rattu should be conditionally freed so that he could seek revival of his US permanent residence status and return to the US. He said his client faced danger to his life he is deported to India.
"He is escaping from India to save his life," the paper quoted the lawyer as saying.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
SOME IMMIGRANTS NOT DOING AS WELL AS OTHERS
Immigrants face growing economic mobility gap
MARINA JIMÉNEZ
From Monday's Globe and Mail
October 6, 2008 at 1:06 AM EDT
Children of Chinese and South Asian immigrants to Canada do dramatically better over time than the offspring of blacks, Filipinos and Latin Americans, new census data reveal.
The findings, released quietly last week by Statistics Canada, suggest a new paradigm for understanding immigrants' integration and success.
The old vertical mosaic – with whites from Britain and Europe at the top and visible minorities underneath – is no longer valid. Instead, second- and third-generation Chinese and Japanese surpass all other groups of newcomers, including whites, while for blacks and other groups, there is little or no economic mobility across generations.
“You can no longer make broad generalizations about how badly visible minorities are doing. Some groups are doing really well, and others are not,” said Jack Jedwab, a historian and head of the Association for Canadian Studies, who wrote a report on the findings.
“We need to rethink the vertical mosaic and look at why mobility is weak among certain ethnic groups.”
The new research, based on the 2006 census, comes as a disappointment – but not a surprise – to Patricia Hines, a teacher and communications expert who emigrated from Jamaica in 2001.
She believes that, while discrimination is a factor, the community could also do more to help itself.
“A lot of us look for schools and communities with black students and teachers so our children won't feel isolated. But that is self-limiting,” says Ms. Hines, 40, who relocated to Toronto with her husband, an accountant.
“If you really don't have an interest in what other people do, or focus overly on your community, then you are limiting your potential,” said Ms. Hines, who owns her own business and works at the Black Business and Professional Association, but noted that her opinions are her own.
The 2006 census data show that first-generation white immigrants with university degrees, aged 25-44, earned $68,036 a year on average – just above the Canadian-born baseline of $65,000. Those from Japan earned $58,294 and those from China $55,270, while black immigrants earned $51,317 a year.
The below-average incomes relate to immigrants' language barriers, lack of Canadian job experience, and difficulties getting their credentials recognized.
The balance shifts, however, with the second and third generation.
The Chinese catapulted ahead, with the grandchildren of immigrants earning an average of $79,022 a year. Incomes for South Asians also increased substantially by the third generation.
In contrast, blacks languished, with third-generation immigrants earning less than newcomers. The incomes of Latin Americans also fell across the generations.
The census findings also suggest that blacks experience more discrimination and difficulties in the labour market than others.
Jeffrey Reitz, a sociologist at the University of Toronto, has researched this area extensively and found that while recently arrived immigrants from the Caribbean and Africa are fairly well educated, their employment outcomes are far worse than other newcomer groups.
“Blacks do fairly well in terms of education, but black men especially stand out with strikingly lower incomes. They report experiences of discrimination on a much higher level than other racial groups,” he said.
Canada's black community has struggled with racial stereotyping and higher-than-average rates of poverty. The high school drop-out rate for blacks in the Toronto public school system has been estimated at about 40 per cent, almost double the rate for non-blacks, prompting the school board to create an alternative Afrocentric school.
An articulate professional, Ms. Hines observed that she never encountered discrimination until she began studying for her master's degree at the University of Toronto. She was shocked to discover there were no other black students or lecturers.
When the class was asked to write the names of five black people, many could only come up with Lincoln Alexander, Ontario's former lieutenant-governor, and Michael (Pinball) Clemons of the Toronto Argonauts football team.
“It made me realize that even though Canada is so diverse, the different ethnic groups don't really mix or understand one another's culture,” Ms. Hines said. “It is hard to talk about this. What are South Asian and Chinese immigrants doing that somehow gets them ahead?”
The census data found that 60 per cent of second-generation Chinese immigrants had university degrees, compared with 52 per cent of South Asians, 36 per cent of Filipinos, 32 per cent of blacks and 23 per cent of Latin Americans.
The higher education levels among Chinese and South Asians appears to reflect the values of their parents – middle-class, educated newcomers who may be underemployed when they arrive, but who expect their children to advance.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081006.wcensus0610/BNStory/robAtWork/
MARINA JIMÉNEZ
From Monday's Globe and Mail
October 6, 2008 at 1:06 AM EDT
Children of Chinese and South Asian immigrants to Canada do dramatically better over time than the offspring of blacks, Filipinos and Latin Americans, new census data reveal.
The findings, released quietly last week by Statistics Canada, suggest a new paradigm for understanding immigrants' integration and success.
The old vertical mosaic – with whites from Britain and Europe at the top and visible minorities underneath – is no longer valid. Instead, second- and third-generation Chinese and Japanese surpass all other groups of newcomers, including whites, while for blacks and other groups, there is little or no economic mobility across generations.
“You can no longer make broad generalizations about how badly visible minorities are doing. Some groups are doing really well, and others are not,” said Jack Jedwab, a historian and head of the Association for Canadian Studies, who wrote a report on the findings.
“We need to rethink the vertical mosaic and look at why mobility is weak among certain ethnic groups.”
The new research, based on the 2006 census, comes as a disappointment – but not a surprise – to Patricia Hines, a teacher and communications expert who emigrated from Jamaica in 2001.
She believes that, while discrimination is a factor, the community could also do more to help itself.
“A lot of us look for schools and communities with black students and teachers so our children won't feel isolated. But that is self-limiting,” says Ms. Hines, 40, who relocated to Toronto with her husband, an accountant.
“If you really don't have an interest in what other people do, or focus overly on your community, then you are limiting your potential,” said Ms. Hines, who owns her own business and works at the Black Business and Professional Association, but noted that her opinions are her own.
The 2006 census data show that first-generation white immigrants with university degrees, aged 25-44, earned $68,036 a year on average – just above the Canadian-born baseline of $65,000. Those from Japan earned $58,294 and those from China $55,270, while black immigrants earned $51,317 a year.
The below-average incomes relate to immigrants' language barriers, lack of Canadian job experience, and difficulties getting their credentials recognized.
The balance shifts, however, with the second and third generation.
The Chinese catapulted ahead, with the grandchildren of immigrants earning an average of $79,022 a year. Incomes for South Asians also increased substantially by the third generation.
In contrast, blacks languished, with third-generation immigrants earning less than newcomers. The incomes of Latin Americans also fell across the generations.
The census findings also suggest that blacks experience more discrimination and difficulties in the labour market than others.
Jeffrey Reitz, a sociologist at the University of Toronto, has researched this area extensively and found that while recently arrived immigrants from the Caribbean and Africa are fairly well educated, their employment outcomes are far worse than other newcomer groups.
“Blacks do fairly well in terms of education, but black men especially stand out with strikingly lower incomes. They report experiences of discrimination on a much higher level than other racial groups,” he said.
Canada's black community has struggled with racial stereotyping and higher-than-average rates of poverty. The high school drop-out rate for blacks in the Toronto public school system has been estimated at about 40 per cent, almost double the rate for non-blacks, prompting the school board to create an alternative Afrocentric school.
An articulate professional, Ms. Hines observed that she never encountered discrimination until she began studying for her master's degree at the University of Toronto. She was shocked to discover there were no other black students or lecturers.
When the class was asked to write the names of five black people, many could only come up with Lincoln Alexander, Ontario's former lieutenant-governor, and Michael (Pinball) Clemons of the Toronto Argonauts football team.
“It made me realize that even though Canada is so diverse, the different ethnic groups don't really mix or understand one another's culture,” Ms. Hines said. “It is hard to talk about this. What are South Asian and Chinese immigrants doing that somehow gets them ahead?”
The census data found that 60 per cent of second-generation Chinese immigrants had university degrees, compared with 52 per cent of South Asians, 36 per cent of Filipinos, 32 per cent of blacks and 23 per cent of Latin Americans.
The higher education levels among Chinese and South Asians appears to reflect the values of their parents – middle-class, educated newcomers who may be underemployed when they arrive, but who expect their children to advance.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081006.wcensus0610/BNStory/robAtWork/
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
COURTING THE IMMIGRANT VOTE
Parties get sophisticated in bid for immigrant vote
Voter-profile tool identifies individuals' backgrounds, values and political support, allowing strategists to hone their messages
MARINA JIMÉNEZ
October 7, 2008
For the first time in a federal election, three of Canada's five main political parties are using a sophisticated new micro-targeting voter-profile tool, which outlines people's ethnicity, social values and income level, cross-referenced with their political support.
The tool, developed by Environics, allows political strategists to fine-tune their message for voters at the neighbourhood level, helping candidates win key battleground ridings in Ontario and British Columbia, many of which have large ethnic communities.
"This tool not only gives you the big picture, but goes to a riding level and tells you which percentage of voter groups live in the riding and whether ethnicity is an issue," said Jan Kestle, president of Environics Analytics.
She said client confidentiality prevented her identifying which three political parties are using her services.
There is a sudden demand for multicultural research tools such as this one, as Canada's ethnic communities grow in size and political importance. Now that immigrants no longer vote exclusively for the Liberals, all parties are reaching out to them.
A thousand more votes for the Conservatives in Newton-North Delta, where 60 per cent of residents are visible minorities, could help the party win one of the extra 28 seats it needs to form a majority government. In 2006, Liberal MP Sukh Dhaliwal won the suburban Vancouver riding with 34.3 per cent of the vote, compared with 30.6 for the Tory candidate, and 32 per cent for the NDP.
"It's a numbers game. The election can turn on a dime. Ethnics play a key role in this and happen to be living in the ridings that are close," said David Crapper, president of Genesis Public Opinion Research Inc., the Conservatives' official pollster in the 2006 election.
The Conservative Party would not say whether it was using Environics' new tool. But the party is targeting certain ethnic groups, and has assembled a detailed database of voters in battleground ridings, and given fictional names to demographic segments in the electorate.
The Environics program breaks down voters into 18 groups, including suburban upscale ethnic and urban downscale ethnic, and provides a map of where they live in each of the 308 constituencies. Residents are assigned to a group based on their income level, age, job type, family type, ethnicity, and social values. The program then analyzes the 2006 election results through this lens to understand how much support each party received from each voter group, how large each group is, and where each one lives.
For example, in Newton-North Delta, suburban upscale ethnic voters comprised 64 per cent of eligible voters in the 2006 election. However they were 68 per cent of the Liberal vote and only 54 per cent of the Conservative vote in the riding.
Suburban upscale ethnics are described as recent immigrants from China, India, Pakistan and the Philippines, with white-collar and service-sector jobs. They tend to have children who play outdoor sports, own lots of computer electronics and enjoy rock concerts and amusement parks. They aren't interested in ecology or status recognition, but are global in outlook, tend to be savers, and enjoy trying new products and services.
"This information helps candidates with messaging, how to talk to these people and what their core belief systems are," said Ms. Kestle. For example, a candidate could emphasize crime, but not environmental issues, when talking to a suburban upscale ethnic audience.
Campaigns already have a good sense about the demographics of their supporters, through their own data bases and polls. But this tool allows them to go deeper, on a street by street level.
In Don Valley West, a highly diverse riding in northeast Toronto, a quarter of the riding's voters were urban downscale ethnic in the 2006 election. Half of them supported the Liberals, while 21 per cent voted for both the Conservatives and the NDP.
Urban downscale ethnics are defined as young and single, or divorced single parents living in high-rise rental apartments. They are not interested in the environment, and don't have a keen sense of social responsibility. However they are concerned about crime, have a strong need to escape the stresses of ordinary life and enjoy eating out.
This is just one of many new tools political parties are using to connect with immigrant voters. Parties are also placing ads in ethnic media, conducting Internet surveys aimed at tech-savvy newcomers who prefer to read rather than talk, and running focus groups in Punjabi and Mandarin.
Multicultural political polling and research has gone on for years in the United States, where Hispanics form 15 per cent of the population. In Quebec, research firms also ensure pollsters conduct interviews and focus groups not just in French, but in Québécois French, otherwise they get high refusal rates.
In the rest of Canada, it has been more difficult - and expensive - to conduct national surveys of immigrant voters in their mother tongue because of the diversity of languages.
Viewpoints Research, a Winnipeg-based polling firm, conducted focus groups in Punjabi and Cantonese for the NDP in the 2005 provincial B.C. election in Surrey, Burnaby and parts of Vancouver to understand the priorities of new Canadians.
"It helped the party win back a lot of seats in the Lower Mainland that they had lost in 2001," said Leslie Turnbull, a partner with Viewpoints, the NDP's official pollster. She found that immigrants from Hong Kong are concerned about access to health care and postsecondary education.
The Liberal Party has conducted polls in other languages at the riding level, says Michael Marzolini, president of Pollara, the Liberal Party's pollster. "Every market segmentation you can find is important, be it ethnic background, income level, education, gender, home ownership," he said.
In the past two years, retail giants such as Coca Cola, the Bank of Montreal and Microsoft have also invested in multicultural research and polling to understand the immigrant consumer. "The Chinese community likes to get to know the interviewer, so you have to build in 10 minutes of chit chat," says John Wright, senior vice-president of Ipsos Reid, which has a division to conduct multilingual polls. "East Indians find face-to-face interviewing more important than phone interviewing."
Greg Lyle, managing director of Innovative Research Inc., also does multilingual polling on behalf of corporate clients, including the B.C. Securities Commission. "Immigrants may be more reluctant to speak to a stranger about finances or political views than with someone who comes from their culture," said Mr. Lyle.
"Political parties are becoming more interested in ethnic enclaves as they have grown, and different parties try to break into these groups."
Multicultural marketing
Three of Canada's five main political parties are sharpening their campaigns in key battleground ridings in Ontario and B.C., using a sophisticated tool that identifies and profiles ethnic voters.
ELIGIBLE VOTERS BY TARGET
Turnout of 61.33% (43,821 voters)
Suburban upscale ethnic: 64%
Other: 35.76%
Urban downscale ethnic: 0.24%
THE TARGET VOTERS
The Environics program breaks down voters into 18 groups.
Here's how it describes the two most critical voter groups
in the battle for Newton-North Delta:
Urban downscale ethnics can
be seen as a gateway community
for new immigrants. They are:
{bull}Young and single, or divorced single parents
{bull}Live in high-rise rental apartments
{bull}Less interested in the environment
{bull}Don't have a keen sense of social responsibility
{bull}Concerned about crime
{bull}Enjoy dating services, health clubs and restaurants
Suburban upscale ethnics are:
{bull}Recent immigrants from China, India, Pakistan and the Philippines
{bull}Have white-collar and service-sector jobs
{bull}Aren't interested in ecology or status recognition
{bull}Tend to be savers
{bull}Tend to have children of varying ages who play sports, own lots of computer electronics, go to rock concerts and amusement parks
CARRIE COCKBURN/ THE GLOBE AND MAIL // SOURCE: STATSCAN
Voter-profile tool identifies individuals' backgrounds, values and political support, allowing strategists to hone their messages
MARINA JIMÉNEZ
October 7, 2008
For the first time in a federal election, three of Canada's five main political parties are using a sophisticated new micro-targeting voter-profile tool, which outlines people's ethnicity, social values and income level, cross-referenced with their political support.
The tool, developed by Environics, allows political strategists to fine-tune their message for voters at the neighbourhood level, helping candidates win key battleground ridings in Ontario and British Columbia, many of which have large ethnic communities.
"This tool not only gives you the big picture, but goes to a riding level and tells you which percentage of voter groups live in the riding and whether ethnicity is an issue," said Jan Kestle, president of Environics Analytics.
She said client confidentiality prevented her identifying which three political parties are using her services.
There is a sudden demand for multicultural research tools such as this one, as Canada's ethnic communities grow in size and political importance. Now that immigrants no longer vote exclusively for the Liberals, all parties are reaching out to them.
A thousand more votes for the Conservatives in Newton-North Delta, where 60 per cent of residents are visible minorities, could help the party win one of the extra 28 seats it needs to form a majority government. In 2006, Liberal MP Sukh Dhaliwal won the suburban Vancouver riding with 34.3 per cent of the vote, compared with 30.6 for the Tory candidate, and 32 per cent for the NDP.
"It's a numbers game. The election can turn on a dime. Ethnics play a key role in this and happen to be living in the ridings that are close," said David Crapper, president of Genesis Public Opinion Research Inc., the Conservatives' official pollster in the 2006 election.
The Conservative Party would not say whether it was using Environics' new tool. But the party is targeting certain ethnic groups, and has assembled a detailed database of voters in battleground ridings, and given fictional names to demographic segments in the electorate.
The Environics program breaks down voters into 18 groups, including suburban upscale ethnic and urban downscale ethnic, and provides a map of where they live in each of the 308 constituencies. Residents are assigned to a group based on their income level, age, job type, family type, ethnicity, and social values. The program then analyzes the 2006 election results through this lens to understand how much support each party received from each voter group, how large each group is, and where each one lives.
For example, in Newton-North Delta, suburban upscale ethnic voters comprised 64 per cent of eligible voters in the 2006 election. However they were 68 per cent of the Liberal vote and only 54 per cent of the Conservative vote in the riding.
Suburban upscale ethnics are described as recent immigrants from China, India, Pakistan and the Philippines, with white-collar and service-sector jobs. They tend to have children who play outdoor sports, own lots of computer electronics and enjoy rock concerts and amusement parks. They aren't interested in ecology or status recognition, but are global in outlook, tend to be savers, and enjoy trying new products and services.
"This information helps candidates with messaging, how to talk to these people and what their core belief systems are," said Ms. Kestle. For example, a candidate could emphasize crime, but not environmental issues, when talking to a suburban upscale ethnic audience.
Campaigns already have a good sense about the demographics of their supporters, through their own data bases and polls. But this tool allows them to go deeper, on a street by street level.
In Don Valley West, a highly diverse riding in northeast Toronto, a quarter of the riding's voters were urban downscale ethnic in the 2006 election. Half of them supported the Liberals, while 21 per cent voted for both the Conservatives and the NDP.
Urban downscale ethnics are defined as young and single, or divorced single parents living in high-rise rental apartments. They are not interested in the environment, and don't have a keen sense of social responsibility. However they are concerned about crime, have a strong need to escape the stresses of ordinary life and enjoy eating out.
This is just one of many new tools political parties are using to connect with immigrant voters. Parties are also placing ads in ethnic media, conducting Internet surveys aimed at tech-savvy newcomers who prefer to read rather than talk, and running focus groups in Punjabi and Mandarin.
Multicultural political polling and research has gone on for years in the United States, where Hispanics form 15 per cent of the population. In Quebec, research firms also ensure pollsters conduct interviews and focus groups not just in French, but in Québécois French, otherwise they get high refusal rates.
In the rest of Canada, it has been more difficult - and expensive - to conduct national surveys of immigrant voters in their mother tongue because of the diversity of languages.
Viewpoints Research, a Winnipeg-based polling firm, conducted focus groups in Punjabi and Cantonese for the NDP in the 2005 provincial B.C. election in Surrey, Burnaby and parts of Vancouver to understand the priorities of new Canadians.
"It helped the party win back a lot of seats in the Lower Mainland that they had lost in 2001," said Leslie Turnbull, a partner with Viewpoints, the NDP's official pollster. She found that immigrants from Hong Kong are concerned about access to health care and postsecondary education.
The Liberal Party has conducted polls in other languages at the riding level, says Michael Marzolini, president of Pollara, the Liberal Party's pollster. "Every market segmentation you can find is important, be it ethnic background, income level, education, gender, home ownership," he said.
In the past two years, retail giants such as Coca Cola, the Bank of Montreal and Microsoft have also invested in multicultural research and polling to understand the immigrant consumer. "The Chinese community likes to get to know the interviewer, so you have to build in 10 minutes of chit chat," says John Wright, senior vice-president of Ipsos Reid, which has a division to conduct multilingual polls. "East Indians find face-to-face interviewing more important than phone interviewing."
Greg Lyle, managing director of Innovative Research Inc., also does multilingual polling on behalf of corporate clients, including the B.C. Securities Commission. "Immigrants may be more reluctant to speak to a stranger about finances or political views than with someone who comes from their culture," said Mr. Lyle.
"Political parties are becoming more interested in ethnic enclaves as they have grown, and different parties try to break into these groups."
Multicultural marketing
Three of Canada's five main political parties are sharpening their campaigns in key battleground ridings in Ontario and B.C., using a sophisticated tool that identifies and profiles ethnic voters.
ELIGIBLE VOTERS BY TARGET
Turnout of 61.33% (43,821 voters)
Suburban upscale ethnic: 64%
Other: 35.76%
Urban downscale ethnic: 0.24%
THE TARGET VOTERS
The Environics program breaks down voters into 18 groups.
Here's how it describes the two most critical voter groups
in the battle for Newton-North Delta:
Urban downscale ethnics can
be seen as a gateway community
for new immigrants. They are:
{bull}Young and single, or divorced single parents
{bull}Live in high-rise rental apartments
{bull}Less interested in the environment
{bull}Don't have a keen sense of social responsibility
{bull}Concerned about crime
{bull}Enjoy dating services, health clubs and restaurants
Suburban upscale ethnics are:
{bull}Recent immigrants from China, India, Pakistan and the Philippines
{bull}Have white-collar and service-sector jobs
{bull}Aren't interested in ecology or status recognition
{bull}Tend to be savers
{bull}Tend to have children of varying ages who play sports, own lots of computer electronics, go to rock concerts and amusement parks
CARRIE COCKBURN/ THE GLOBE AND MAIL // SOURCE: STATSCAN
Saturday, October 4, 2008
INTERESTING PERSPECTIVE ON CANADA-US BORDER ISSUES
The Great Wall of the United States
EDWARD ALDEN
From Saturday's Globe and Mail
October 4, 2008 at 12:22 AM EDT
Stephen Harper has said that, if he is re-elected, he wants a "fresh start" with the new U.S. administration on dealing with the border, to see if ways can be found to reassure the Americans on security while easing restrictions that are causing costly delays for Canada.
John McCain, who made the unusual gesture of delivering a campaign speech in Ottawa in June, said he recognizes that the backups caused by new security measures "can pose a serious impediment to trade." Barack Obama has wanted nothing to do with Canada since a Canadian official embarrassed him by leaking one of his adviser's private reassurances over NAFTA, but he too is likely to be sympathetic to the Canadian concerns.
There is little reason, however, to think that dealing with border issues will be any easier after the elections in both countries; indeed, it is likely to become harder.
Canada and the United States long defined what it meant to have an open border. The orange cones that were placed at night across rural border crossings from Vermont to B.C. symbolized an extraordinary level of trust, rarely achieved by two neighbouring nations. That trust permitted ever deeper, and in some ways riskier, economic ties, from an automobile industry that grew up in virtual disregard of the border to a free-trade agreement that set rules since imitated on a global scale.
Since Sept. 11, 2001, we no longer live in a high-trust world. In the eyes of many Americans, 9/11 was a failure not of its foreign and military policies, or even of its intelligence agencies, but rather of its open borders. In seven years, the United States has doubled the number of its Border Patrol agents and tripled its enforcement expenditures and it is now deporting more than 250,000 illegal immigrants a year, all in the elusive quest for border security. On the Canadian border, it's known as "thickening"; on the Mexican border, it comes closer to warfare.
In the months after 9/11, some in the Bush administration turned to Canada in the hopes of building what they called "the border of the future" - one that would be open to trade and tourism but impervious to terrorists, drug smugglers and illegal immigrants. The virtual shutdown of the border after the terrorist attacks had been disastrous for the auto industry and the regions that relied on it, and both Ottawa and Washington were determined to prevent anything similar in the future. Tom Ridge, the White House homeland-security czar, had grown up on the shores of Lake Ontario and, as a former Pennsylvania governor, he understood the value of trade with Canada.
The result was the 2001 Smart Border accords, a laundry list of measures that was a remarkably cool-headed, sophisticated response to the trauma of 9/11. Its architects on both sides of the border believed two seemingly contradictory things: that the safeguards against terrorists crossing the border had to be maximized, but that barriers to legitimate cross-border traffic must be minimized for the prosperity of both countries. The way to do so was to "manage risk." By using modern information technologies and co-operating closely, the two governments would be better armed to recognize threats to security. Low-risk traffic — the commercial truck filled with auto parts or the nurse crossing daily from Windsor to Detroit — would be sped through, saving precious inspection resources that could instead be devoted to more suspicious targets.
SQUARING THE CIRCLE
That model was, and remains, the only way to square the circle of security and commerce, but the Smart Border Declaration has never quite delivered on its promise. There are many reasons why; most have to do with lack of trust. One promising idea, for instance, was to begin moving inspection facilities away from the bridges and other chokepoints. NEXUS and FAST lanes are a fine thing, but not if the backups are so long that preferred travellers must wait in line just to reach them. Ottawa had offered land inside Canada for U.S. "preclearance" facilities. But after more than two years, negotiations fell apart last year, although the Harper government was willing to take the politically risky step of allowing U.S. Customs inspectors to carry guns on Canadian soil. Washington, though, wanted its agents to have full powers under U.S. law to take fingerprints and make arrests inside Canada, a concession no sovereign country could offer. So we are left with the crowded bridges.
The new U.S. identification requirements under the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative make considerable sense from a security perspective. It's hard to manage risk if you're not sure that someone crossing the border is who he says he is. But Canada's concerns over the implementation of WHTI have largely been ignored. And more is coming; the Department of Homeland Security is moving ahead to implement a law that will not only require Canadians and others to identify themselves every time they enter the United States, but every time they leave, too. The hope is that by embedding fingerprints and other personal data in remotely readable travel documents, these new security mandates will produce only minimal additional delays, but the technological complexities are immense. The only silver lining in the recession that is now likely to hit both countries is that cross-border traffic will fall further, allowing border inspectors some breathing room to work the bugs out of these new systems.
Canada has certainly tried hard to accommodate U.S. security concerns - probably too hard. After 9/11, for instance, Ottawa agreed to co-ordinate its policies on refugees with Washington. Canada has always been more generous than its neighbour in admitting refugees, but to assuage concerns that this could be a loophole for terrorists, Canada has since 2004 refused to consider refugee applications from anyone who originally lands in the United States. This decision has condemned many to languish for months in American prisons, due to new U.S. policies under which most refugee seekers, and their families, are incarcerated while their claims are considered.
QUEST FOR PERFECTION
But the measures the Washington is taking to harden its border have little to do with what Canada has or has not done to shore up it defences against terrorists. Canada is facing a tamer version of the same thinking that is leading the United States to build hundreds of miles of steel barriers on its Mexican border. It is the quest for perfect security.
Alongside the risk managers surrounding Mr. Ridge, there was a different, and more powerful, faction in the Bush administration that was convinced that protection from terrorist attacks would come only once the United States had taken total control over its borders. In part, the terrorism rationale was hijacked by those in the administration and Congress whose real aim was to crack down on illegal immigrants, but it had a certain logic: If illegal migrants can find holes in the border, how can Americans be sure that terrorists will not do the same? Turning that reasoning into reality, however, would be an unprecedented feat, especially for a big, rich country that attracts large numbers of immigrants. One former senior official in the Department of Homeland Security told me: "In the history of the world, nobody's ever secured borders. The Great Wall of China didn't work. It's never worked, and we are trying to do it." Despite the inauspicious historical record, he was supremely confident that his country would succeed.
It won't, and at some point Washington will need to reconsider, but a chorus of "we told you so" from north of the border will not be terribly persuasive. Instead, the next Canadian government will have to sit down with the next U.S. administration and gently try to nudge it back to the spirit of the Smart Border accords. Ottawa will have to try to persuade the new White House to separate the northern border issues of security versus commerce from the far more complicated southern border stew of drugs, gangs, corruption and illegal immigration. They will have to point out that a modern, global economy cannot function without a high degree of trust.
It will be a hard sell. The American public is scared, feeling betrayed over 9/11, over Katrina, over Iraq, over an economy that has delivered little to its middle classes, and now over a massive bailout of Wall Street financiers that will not save the homes or jobs of ordinary people. They are desperately seeking security, in whatever guise it is offered. At other such times in its history, the United States has turned inward, not recognizing that its openness is its greatest strength. Canadians, too, are less than likely to be in a generous mood after their election, as the economic downdraft from the United States will again raise long-standing questions about whether Canada's economic fortunes should be tied quite so tightly to its southern neighbour.
But making some effort to rebuild the waning trust is critical for both countries. The two nations have a long history of showing others what it means to co-operate across borders. The obstacles to doing so today are perhaps greater than they have ever been, but the stakes are higher as well. We know what the alternative is, and good fences do not make good neighbours.
Edward Alden was the Washington bureau chief of the Financial Times, and the newspaper's bureau chief in Toronto from 1998 to 2000. He is currently a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington and author of The Closing of the American Border: Terrorism, Immigration and Security Since 9/11.
EDWARD ALDEN
From Saturday's Globe and Mail
October 4, 2008 at 12:22 AM EDT
Stephen Harper has said that, if he is re-elected, he wants a "fresh start" with the new U.S. administration on dealing with the border, to see if ways can be found to reassure the Americans on security while easing restrictions that are causing costly delays for Canada.
John McCain, who made the unusual gesture of delivering a campaign speech in Ottawa in June, said he recognizes that the backups caused by new security measures "can pose a serious impediment to trade." Barack Obama has wanted nothing to do with Canada since a Canadian official embarrassed him by leaking one of his adviser's private reassurances over NAFTA, but he too is likely to be sympathetic to the Canadian concerns.
There is little reason, however, to think that dealing with border issues will be any easier after the elections in both countries; indeed, it is likely to become harder.
Canada and the United States long defined what it meant to have an open border. The orange cones that were placed at night across rural border crossings from Vermont to B.C. symbolized an extraordinary level of trust, rarely achieved by two neighbouring nations. That trust permitted ever deeper, and in some ways riskier, economic ties, from an automobile industry that grew up in virtual disregard of the border to a free-trade agreement that set rules since imitated on a global scale.
Since Sept. 11, 2001, we no longer live in a high-trust world. In the eyes of many Americans, 9/11 was a failure not of its foreign and military policies, or even of its intelligence agencies, but rather of its open borders. In seven years, the United States has doubled the number of its Border Patrol agents and tripled its enforcement expenditures and it is now deporting more than 250,000 illegal immigrants a year, all in the elusive quest for border security. On the Canadian border, it's known as "thickening"; on the Mexican border, it comes closer to warfare.
In the months after 9/11, some in the Bush administration turned to Canada in the hopes of building what they called "the border of the future" - one that would be open to trade and tourism but impervious to terrorists, drug smugglers and illegal immigrants. The virtual shutdown of the border after the terrorist attacks had been disastrous for the auto industry and the regions that relied on it, and both Ottawa and Washington were determined to prevent anything similar in the future. Tom Ridge, the White House homeland-security czar, had grown up on the shores of Lake Ontario and, as a former Pennsylvania governor, he understood the value of trade with Canada.
The result was the 2001 Smart Border accords, a laundry list of measures that was a remarkably cool-headed, sophisticated response to the trauma of 9/11. Its architects on both sides of the border believed two seemingly contradictory things: that the safeguards against terrorists crossing the border had to be maximized, but that barriers to legitimate cross-border traffic must be minimized for the prosperity of both countries. The way to do so was to "manage risk." By using modern information technologies and co-operating closely, the two governments would be better armed to recognize threats to security. Low-risk traffic — the commercial truck filled with auto parts or the nurse crossing daily from Windsor to Detroit — would be sped through, saving precious inspection resources that could instead be devoted to more suspicious targets.
SQUARING THE CIRCLE
That model was, and remains, the only way to square the circle of security and commerce, but the Smart Border Declaration has never quite delivered on its promise. There are many reasons why; most have to do with lack of trust. One promising idea, for instance, was to begin moving inspection facilities away from the bridges and other chokepoints. NEXUS and FAST lanes are a fine thing, but not if the backups are so long that preferred travellers must wait in line just to reach them. Ottawa had offered land inside Canada for U.S. "preclearance" facilities. But after more than two years, negotiations fell apart last year, although the Harper government was willing to take the politically risky step of allowing U.S. Customs inspectors to carry guns on Canadian soil. Washington, though, wanted its agents to have full powers under U.S. law to take fingerprints and make arrests inside Canada, a concession no sovereign country could offer. So we are left with the crowded bridges.
The new U.S. identification requirements under the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative make considerable sense from a security perspective. It's hard to manage risk if you're not sure that someone crossing the border is who he says he is. But Canada's concerns over the implementation of WHTI have largely been ignored. And more is coming; the Department of Homeland Security is moving ahead to implement a law that will not only require Canadians and others to identify themselves every time they enter the United States, but every time they leave, too. The hope is that by embedding fingerprints and other personal data in remotely readable travel documents, these new security mandates will produce only minimal additional delays, but the technological complexities are immense. The only silver lining in the recession that is now likely to hit both countries is that cross-border traffic will fall further, allowing border inspectors some breathing room to work the bugs out of these new systems.
Canada has certainly tried hard to accommodate U.S. security concerns - probably too hard. After 9/11, for instance, Ottawa agreed to co-ordinate its policies on refugees with Washington. Canada has always been more generous than its neighbour in admitting refugees, but to assuage concerns that this could be a loophole for terrorists, Canada has since 2004 refused to consider refugee applications from anyone who originally lands in the United States. This decision has condemned many to languish for months in American prisons, due to new U.S. policies under which most refugee seekers, and their families, are incarcerated while their claims are considered.
QUEST FOR PERFECTION
But the measures the Washington is taking to harden its border have little to do with what Canada has or has not done to shore up it defences against terrorists. Canada is facing a tamer version of the same thinking that is leading the United States to build hundreds of miles of steel barriers on its Mexican border. It is the quest for perfect security.
Alongside the risk managers surrounding Mr. Ridge, there was a different, and more powerful, faction in the Bush administration that was convinced that protection from terrorist attacks would come only once the United States had taken total control over its borders. In part, the terrorism rationale was hijacked by those in the administration and Congress whose real aim was to crack down on illegal immigrants, but it had a certain logic: If illegal migrants can find holes in the border, how can Americans be sure that terrorists will not do the same? Turning that reasoning into reality, however, would be an unprecedented feat, especially for a big, rich country that attracts large numbers of immigrants. One former senior official in the Department of Homeland Security told me: "In the history of the world, nobody's ever secured borders. The Great Wall of China didn't work. It's never worked, and we are trying to do it." Despite the inauspicious historical record, he was supremely confident that his country would succeed.
It won't, and at some point Washington will need to reconsider, but a chorus of "we told you so" from north of the border will not be terribly persuasive. Instead, the next Canadian government will have to sit down with the next U.S. administration and gently try to nudge it back to the spirit of the Smart Border accords. Ottawa will have to try to persuade the new White House to separate the northern border issues of security versus commerce from the far more complicated southern border stew of drugs, gangs, corruption and illegal immigration. They will have to point out that a modern, global economy cannot function without a high degree of trust.
It will be a hard sell. The American public is scared, feeling betrayed over 9/11, over Katrina, over Iraq, over an economy that has delivered little to its middle classes, and now over a massive bailout of Wall Street financiers that will not save the homes or jobs of ordinary people. They are desperately seeking security, in whatever guise it is offered. At other such times in its history, the United States has turned inward, not recognizing that its openness is its greatest strength. Canadians, too, are less than likely to be in a generous mood after their election, as the economic downdraft from the United States will again raise long-standing questions about whether Canada's economic fortunes should be tied quite so tightly to its southern neighbour.
But making some effort to rebuild the waning trust is critical for both countries. The two nations have a long history of showing others what it means to co-operate across borders. The obstacles to doing so today are perhaps greater than they have ever been, but the stakes are higher as well. We know what the alternative is, and good fences do not make good neighbours.
Edward Alden was the Washington bureau chief of the Financial Times, and the newspaper's bureau chief in Toronto from 1998 to 2000. He is currently a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington and author of The Closing of the American Border: Terrorism, Immigration and Security Since 9/11.
EXCELLENT OPINION PIECE ON IMMIGRATION AND THE ELECTION
Power of the immigrant vote
Vancouver Sun
Friday, October 03, 2008
As Canada moves closer to election day, our most topical issues are being debated with increasing intensity. The subject of immigration isn't among them. Given its relevance in modern Canadian society, this seems curious.
Perhaps some answers can be found in the Sept. 29 Issues & Ideas article by James Bissett, former executive director of the Canadian Immigration Service. In it, he wrote that "there is only one reason why our political parties push for high immigration intake, and that is they see every new immigrant as a potential vote for their party."
A rather bold statement, but perhaps he's on to something.
The fact is, our mainstream political parties have been buying immigrant votes for decades. The Liberals have been most successful in using immigration to their electoral advantage. A 2005 poll found that 44 per cent of minority community members identified most closely with the Liberals, compared to six per cent identifying with the Conservatives. In the 15 ridings in Canada with the largest immigrant populations, the Liberals claimed victory in every one.
Economically speaking, there has yet to be a study produced showing a positive economic contribution from Canada's immigration policies. There does exist, however, a 2005 study by a Simon Fraser University economics professor pointing out that the 2.5 million immigrants who came to Canada between 1990 and 2002 received $18.3 billion more in government services and benefits in 2002 than they paid in taxes. All major parties advocate an increase in annual immigration numbers. The New Democrats are calling for an annual increase from 237,000 to 333,000. The Conservative party numbers are more modest, while the Liberal party recommendation is 490,000 immigrants annually by 2016.
A 2004 government-sponsored study, Counting and Courting the Immigrant Vote, states that "at no other time in our country's history has the foreign-born elector been so fundamental to whether there will be a majority or minority government in Canada." Perhaps it's time for immigration to take its rightful place among Canada's primary political issues.
Brad Saltzberg
North Vancouver
Vancouver Sun
Friday, October 03, 2008
As Canada moves closer to election day, our most topical issues are being debated with increasing intensity. The subject of immigration isn't among them. Given its relevance in modern Canadian society, this seems curious.
Perhaps some answers can be found in the Sept. 29 Issues & Ideas article by James Bissett, former executive director of the Canadian Immigration Service. In it, he wrote that "there is only one reason why our political parties push for high immigration intake, and that is they see every new immigrant as a potential vote for their party."
A rather bold statement, but perhaps he's on to something.
The fact is, our mainstream political parties have been buying immigrant votes for decades. The Liberals have been most successful in using immigration to their electoral advantage. A 2005 poll found that 44 per cent of minority community members identified most closely with the Liberals, compared to six per cent identifying with the Conservatives. In the 15 ridings in Canada with the largest immigrant populations, the Liberals claimed victory in every one.
Economically speaking, there has yet to be a study produced showing a positive economic contribution from Canada's immigration policies. There does exist, however, a 2005 study by a Simon Fraser University economics professor pointing out that the 2.5 million immigrants who came to Canada between 1990 and 2002 received $18.3 billion more in government services and benefits in 2002 than they paid in taxes. All major parties advocate an increase in annual immigration numbers. The New Democrats are calling for an annual increase from 237,000 to 333,000. The Conservative party numbers are more modest, while the Liberal party recommendation is 490,000 immigrants annually by 2016.
A 2004 government-sponsored study, Counting and Courting the Immigrant Vote, states that "at no other time in our country's history has the foreign-born elector been so fundamental to whether there will be a majority or minority government in Canada." Perhaps it's time for immigration to take its rightful place among Canada's primary political issues.
Brad Saltzberg
North Vancouver
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
NEW CENSUS FIGURES SHOW IMMIGRATION IMPACT
We are 33,311,389: StatsCan
Immigration feeds the increase, especially in Prairie provinces, P.E.I.
Canwest News Service
Monday, September 29, 2008
CREDIT: Allen McInnis/Montreal Gazette
Canada's population, as of July 1, was recorded at 33,311,389, with the Prairie provinces and Prince Edward Island showing the fastest growth.
Immigration accounted for a spike in the Canadian population during the second quarter of 2008, the largest increase in 17 years, according to a Statistics Canada report released Monday.
Of the 125,800 additional Canadians during the quarter, 91,600 were from another country. That total was the highest number of immigrants Canada has experienced since the late 1980s.
Immigration increased in every province and territory, with new second-quarter records being set in Prince Edward Island, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.
Overall, every region of the country, with the exception of the Northwest Territories, saw its population increase during the second quarter.
The population of Canada, as of July 1, was recorded at 33,311,389.
The Prairie provinces and Prince Edward Island were the fastest growing provinces, according to the report. Alberta's growth rate - at 0.78 per cent or more than 27,500 people - was the largest in Canada.
Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia all recorded growth levels above the national average and Manitoba experienced its largest quarterly jump since 1982.
In Eastern Canada, the Atlantic provinces all had population jumps, but P.E.I. increased by 0.60 per cent or 831 people, which was attributed largely to immigration.
Immigration feeds the increase, especially in Prairie provinces, P.E.I.
Canwest News Service
Monday, September 29, 2008
CREDIT: Allen McInnis/Montreal Gazette
Canada's population, as of July 1, was recorded at 33,311,389, with the Prairie provinces and Prince Edward Island showing the fastest growth.
Immigration accounted for a spike in the Canadian population during the second quarter of 2008, the largest increase in 17 years, according to a Statistics Canada report released Monday.
Of the 125,800 additional Canadians during the quarter, 91,600 were from another country. That total was the highest number of immigrants Canada has experienced since the late 1980s.
Immigration increased in every province and territory, with new second-quarter records being set in Prince Edward Island, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.
Overall, every region of the country, with the exception of the Northwest Territories, saw its population increase during the second quarter.
The population of Canada, as of July 1, was recorded at 33,311,389.
The Prairie provinces and Prince Edward Island were the fastest growing provinces, according to the report. Alberta's growth rate - at 0.78 per cent or more than 27,500 people - was the largest in Canada.
Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia all recorded growth levels above the national average and Manitoba experienced its largest quarterly jump since 1982.
In Eastern Canada, the Atlantic provinces all had population jumps, but P.E.I. increased by 0.60 per cent or 831 people, which was attributed largely to immigration.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
