#Immigration Strategy

[remitanalyst]

Canada’s Tech Talent Strategy: New Rules for Canadian Work Permits

Canada is setting its sights on becoming a global leader in tech talent recruitment and attraction. With a robust strategy in place, the country aims to not only fill the immediate demand for tech jobs but also create a fertile ground for future job creation and innovation. The Honourable Sean Fraser, Minister of Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship, recently unveiled a comprehensive approach, involving four key pillars, to enhance programs offered by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC).

Developing the Innovation Stream: Addressing persistent labor shortages in key tech occupations is a top priority. The new Innovation Stream under the International Mobility Program is set to be launched by the end of 2023. This innovative approach will exempt high-growth employers and talented workers from the labor market impact assessment process. The goal is to support Canada's industrial innovation goals and bolster high-tech industries. Two options are being considered: employer-specific work permits for up to five years and open work permits for highly skilled workers in select in-demand occupations.

Attracting Digital Nomads: Canada recognizes the changing nature of work, and as such, is actively promoting itself as a destination for digital nomads. Individuals who can perform their jobs remotely from anywhere in the world will find Canada welcoming. Under current rules, digital nomads can relocate to Canada for up to six months while working remotely for foreign employers. Plans are in motion to collaborate with partners to potentially implement policies to attract and retain digital nomads.

Enhancing Labor Mobility: A streamlined work permit is in the works for H-1B specialty occupation visa holders in the US to come to Canada. This move aims to capitalize on the existing ties between the two countries and facilitate opportunities for skilled workers to contribute to North America's high-tech sector. The open work permit, valid for up to three years, will enable these professionals to work for any employer across Canada.

Boosting High-Skilled Tech Programs: Canada is committed to bolstering existing immigration programs tailored to high-skilled tech occupations. The Global Skills Strategy, introduced in 2017, ensures swift access to highly skilled global talent. Processing times for work permit applications have rebounded after pandemic-related delays. The Start-up Visa (SUV) Program, designed to offer a path to permanent residence for foreign entrepreneurs, is also expanding its capacity to reduce wait times and attract more founders to Canada.

Unveiling the Potential: Canada's tech talent strategy is aligned with the nation's commitment to fostering innovation and economic growth. The strategy acknowledges the pivotal role that tech professionals play in advancing various sectors, from artificial intelligence to clean energy. Moreover, Canada's reputation as a multicultural and inclusive society adds to its allure, attracting diverse tech talent from around the world.

Supporting Local and Global Impact: As Canada's tech ecosystem flourishes, it has the potential to create a ripple effect. Not only will the strategy empower local talent and bolster the high-tech industry, but it will also contribute to global collaboration. Tech professionals, digital nomads, and entrepreneurs coming to Canada will bring their expertise, ideas, and innovative spirit, further enriching the nation's tech landscape.

Conclusion: Canada's ambitious tech talent strategy signals a forward-looking approach that aims to secure its position as a global tech powerhouse. By developing innovative pathways, attracting digital nomads, and enhancing existing programs, Canada is paving the way for a vibrant tech ecosystem that fosters growth, innovation, and collaboration on a global scale. As the strategy unfolds, it holds the promise of ushering in a new era of technological advancement and economic prosperity. Stay tuned for updates as Canada continues its journey toward tech excellence.

Official Link: CIC (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada): Canada’s Tech Talent Strategy

[alwaysbewoke]

there was NOTHING (ABSOLUTELY NOTHING) kamala could have done to win this election. NOTHING.

[allhailthe70shousewife]

Just the GQP doing MAGA things…

[plethoraworldatlas]

The ACLU on Tuesday vowed to launch a legal challenge to U.S. President Joe Biden's executive order barring migrants who cross the southern border without authorization from receiving asylum.

Biden's executive action invokes Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act—previously used by the administration of former Republican President Donald Trump to deny migrants asylum—"when the southern border is overwhelmed."

Under the policy, asylum requests will be shut down when the average number of daily migrant encounters between ports of entry hits 2,500. Border entry points would reopen to asylum-seekers when that number dips below 1,500.

The president said he was acting, in part, because "Republicans in Congress chose to put partisan politics ahead of our national security, twice voting against the toughest and fairest set of reforms in decades."

On Tuesday, the ACLU said Biden's policy will "rush vulnerable people through already fast-tracked deportation proceedings, sending people in need of protection to their deaths."

"We intend to challenge this order in court," Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, said in a statement. "It was illegal when Trump did it, and it is no less illegal now."

In July 2020 a federal judge in Washington, D.C. struck down the Trump administration's ban on most Central Americans and migrants from other countries.

ACLU chief political and advocacy officer Deirdre Schifeling said that "we need solutions to address the challenges at the border, but the administration's planned executive actions will put thousands of lives at risk."

"They will not meet the needs at the border, nor will they fix our broken immigration system," Schifeling added. "We urge the administration to uphold its campaign promise to restore asylum and mobilize the necessary resources to address the challenges at the border. It's not just the morally sound thing to do—it's good politics."

The ACLU pointed to polling showing that "voters nationwide and in battleground states largely reject enforcement-only policies that put vulnerable people in danger."

The group is advocating "balanced and humane solutions" including "improving processing at ports of entry and addressing the immigration case backlog by investing in immigration court judges and legal representation."

[trendynewsnow]

Concerns Over Kamala Harris's Political Strategy Among Democrats

Kamala Harris’s Political Strategy Raises Concerns Among Democrats As Vice President Kamala Harris seeks to broaden her appeal toward the political center, a growing number of Democrats express unease about her approach. They worry that in her quest to win over moderates who remain skeptical of former President Donald J. Trump, she may be risking the enthusiasm of progressive and working-class…

[audreythompson1]

LET’S DO A TEST… Are you still proudly VOTING for Donald J. Trump despite the continuous Assassination attempt on him. A. YES B. NO

[doux-amer]

Sorry to the Swiss, but it’s a relief to see that Korea didn’t get knocked out with the biggest defeat in the Round of 16 lkdjflajfa. If only we went against each other and Portugal had Brazil, but oh well.

[bug-bytes]

"This isn't her fault, Kamala had a beautiful campaign" my ass 🙄 she had a shit campaign and you know it

[politixpulse]

Vance and Walz Maintain Politeness in Vice Presidential Debate – Who Came Out on Top?

In a civil and restrained vice-presidential debate on Tuesday night, Republican JD Vance and Democrat Tim Walz focused on key issues affecting American voters ahead of the November 5 election. Unlike the earlier presidential debates this year, the discussion largely involved each candidate critiquing their opponent's running mate rather than engaging in direct personal attacks.

While Walz initially struggled, he found his footing discussing topics like abortion and the Capitol riot. The debate, characterized by its even tone and focus on policy, ultimately favored Vance, a skilled public speaker who presented a polite and humble image.

Vance defended former President Donald Trump, asserting that previous claims of dire consequences under a Trump presidency were unfounded. He remarked, “When Trump was president, inflation was low, and take-home pay was higher.” However, Vance faced moments of frustration with CBS moderators' fact-checking, and at one point, both candidates had their microphones muted.

Notably, Vance and Walz found common ground on several issues, with Walz acknowledging shared views, especially when he shared a personal story about his son witnessing gun violence. Vance expressed genuine concern for Walz’s son, highlighting a human connection amidst the political debate.

The candidates' most significant disagreements arose concerning Trump’s unfounded claims of a stolen 2020 election. When pressed about Trump's loss, Vance sidestepped the question, prompting Walz to call it a “damning non-answer.” Walz stressed the importance of acknowledging the events of January 6, stating, “It’s tearing our country apart.”

The debate showcased the candidates' different styles: Vance, experienced in combative media interactions, appeared more comfortable, while Walz's folksy charm shone through as he settled into the discussion. Although Vance often dominated the early exchanges, Walz gained confidence discussing immigration and other topics, arguing for collaboration to address issues rather than exploiting them politically.

The conversation also touched on abortion rights, where Vance acknowledged Republicans needed to regain voters' trust. He advocated for policies supporting families and women’s options, while Walz emphasized the Democratic stance of being pro-women and pro-choice.

When gun control was raised, Walz opted for a moderate stance, discussing school security rather than endorsing stringent measures, which could disappoint more progressive voters.

Historically, vice-presidential debates tend to have minimal impact on election outcomes. While Walz did not undermine the Democratic ticket, Vance's solid performance may energize Republicans as the election approaches. This debate may also signal Vance’s potential future in national conservative politics, showcasing his ability to articulate party priorities effectively on a significant platform.

[lifes-little-corner]

Addressing Compassion Fatigue in Immigrant Support Workers

I’ve seen the toll it takes. Every day, I see the struggles of those who help immigrants. Their stories and their pain are heavy, and it doesn’t stop when work ends. As someone who supports immigrants, I’ve felt compassion fatigue. It’s a slow loss of empathy that can dim our light. The situation with immigration in the U.S. has made things harder. We’re up against paperwork, bureaucracy,…

[ceilidhtransing]

The discussions around whether or not to vote for Kamala keep being dominated by very loud voices shouting that anyone who advocates for her “just doesn't care about Palestine!” and “is willing to overlook genocide!” and “has no moral backbone at all!” And while some of these voices will be bots, trolls, psyops - we know that this happens; we know that trying to persuade progressives to split the vote or not vote at all is a strategy employed by hostile actors - of course many of them won't be. But what this rhetoric does is continually force the “you should vote for her” crowd onto the back foot of having to go to great lengths writing entire essays justifying their choice, while the “don't vote/vote third party” crowd is basically never asked to justify their choice. It frames voting for Kamala as a deeply morally compromised position that requires extensive justification while framing not voting or voting third party as the neutral and morally clean stance.

So here's another way of looking at it. How much are you willing to accept in order to feel like you're not compromising your morals on one issue?

Are you willing to accept the 24% rise in maternal deaths - and 39% increase for Black women - that is expected under a federal abortion ban, according to the Centre for American Progress? Those percentages represent real people who are alive now who would die if the folks behind Project 2025 get their way with reproductive healthcare.

Are you willing to accept the massive acceleration of climate change that would result from the scrapping of all climate legislation? We don't have time to fuck around with the environment. A gutting of climate policy and a prioritisation of fossil fuel profits, which is explicitly promised by Trump, would set the entire world back years - years that we don't have.

Are you willing to accept the classification of transgender visibility as inherently “pornographic” and thus the removal of trans people from public life? Are you willing to accept the total elimination of legal routes for gender-affirming care? The people behind the Trump campaign want to drive queer and trans people back underground, back into the closet, back into “criminality”. This will kill people. And it's maddening that caring about this gets called “prioritising white gays over brown people abroad” as if it's not BIPOC queer and trans Americans who will suffer the most from legislative queer- and transphobia, as they always do.

Are you willing to accept the domestic deployment of the military to crack down on protests and enforce racist immigration policy? I'm sure it's going to be very easy to convince huge numbers of normal people to turn up to protests and get involved in political organising when doing so may well involve facing down an army deployed by a hardcore authoritarian operating under the precedent that nothing he does as president can ever be illegal.

Are you willing to accept a president who openly talks about wanting to be a dictator, plans on massively expanding presidential powers, dehumanises his political enemies and wants the DOJ to “go after them”, and assures his supporters they won't have to vote again? If you can't see the danger of this staring you right in the face, I don't know what to tell you. Allowing a wannabe dictator to take control of the most powerful country on earth would be absolutely disastrous for the entire world.

Are you willing to accept an enormous uptick in fascism and far-right authoritarianism worldwide? The far right in America has huge influence over an entire international network of “anti-globalists”, hardcore anti-immigrant xenophobes, transphobic extremists, and straight-up fascists. Success in America aids and emboldens these people everywhere.

Are you willing to accept an enormous number of preventable deaths if America faces a crisis in the next four years: a public health emergency, a natural disaster, an ecological catastrophe? We all saw how Trump handled Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico. We all saw how Trump handled Covid-19. He fanned the flames of disaster with a constant flow of medical misinformation and an unspeakably dangerous undermining of public health experts. It's estimated that 40% of US pandemic deaths could have been avoided if the death rates had corresponded to those in other high-income countries. That amounts to nearly half a million people. One study from January 2021 estimated between around 4,200 and 12,200 preventable deaths attributable purely to Trump's statements about masks. We're highly unlikely to face another global pandemic in the next few years but who knows what crises are coming down the pipeline?

Are you willing to accept the attempted deportation of millions - millions - of undocumented people? This is “rounding people up and throwing them into camps where no one ever hears from them again” territory. That's a blueprint for genocide right there and it's a core tenet of both Trump's personal policy and Project 2025. And of course they wouldn't be going after white people. They most likely wouldn't even restrict their tyranny to people who are actually undocumented. Anyone racially othered as an “immigrant” would be at risk from this.

Are you willing to accept not just the continuation of the current situation in Palestine, but the absolute annihilation of Gaza and the obliteration of any hope for imminent peace? There is no way that Trump and the people behind him would not be catastrophically worse for Gaza than Kamala or even Biden. Only recently he was telling donors behind closed doors that he wanted to “set the [Palestinian] movement back 25 or 30 years” and that “any student that protests, I throw them out of the country”. This is not a man who can be pushed in a direction more conducive to peace and justice. This is a man who listens to his wealthy donors, his Christian nationalist Republican allies, and himself.

Are you willing to accept a much heightened risk of nuclear war? Obviously this is hardly a Trump policy promise. But I can't think of a single president since the Cold War who is more likely to deploy nuclear weapons, given how casually he talks about wanting to use them and how erratic and unstable he can be in his dealings with foreign leaders. To quote Foreign Policy only this year, “Trump told a crowd in January that one of the reasons he needed immunity was so that he couldn’t be indicted for using nuclear weapons on a city.” That's reassuring. I'm not even in the US and I remember four years of constant background low-level terror that Trump would take offence at something some foreign leader said or think that he needs to personally intervene in some military situation to “sort it out” and decide to launch the entire world into nuclear war. No one sane on earth wants the most powerful person on the planet to be as trigger-happy and careless with human life as he is, especially if he's running the White House like a dictator with no one ever telling him no. But depending on what Americans do in November, he may well be inflicted again on all of us, and I guess we'll all just have to hope that he doesn't do the worst thing imaginable.

“But I don't want those things! Stop accusing me of supporting things I don't support!” Yes, of course you don't want those things. None of us does. No one's saying that you actively support them. No one's accusing you of wanting Black women to die from ectopic pregnancies or of wanting to throw Hispanic people in immigrant detention centres or of wanting trans people to be outlawed (unlike, I must point out, the extremely emotive and personal accusations that get thrown around about “wanting Palestinian children to die” if you encourage people to vote for Kamala).

But if you're advocating against voting for Kamala, you are clearly willing to accept them as possible consequences of your actions. That is the deal you're making. If a terrible thing happening is the clear and easily foreseeable outcome of your action (or in the case of not voting, inaction), in a way that could have been prevented by taking a different and just as easy action, you are partly responsible for that consequence. (And no, it's not “a fear campaign” to warn people about things he's said, things he wants to do, and plans drawn up by his close allies. This is not “oooh the Democrats are trying to bully you into voting for them by making him out to be really bad so you'll feel scared and vote for Kamala!” He is really bad, in obvious and documented and irrefutable ways.)

And if you believe that “both parties are the same on Gaza” (which, you know, they really aren't, but let's just pretend that they are) then presumably you accept that the horrors being committed there will continue, in the immediate term anyway, regardless of who wins the presidency. Because there really isn't some third option that will appear and do everything we want. It's going to be one of those two. And we can talk all day about wanting a better system or how unfair it is that every presidential election only ever has two viable candidates and how small the Overton window is and all that but hell, we are less than eighty days out from the election; none of that is going to get fixed between now and November. Electoral reform is a long-term (but important!) goal, not something that can be effected in the span of a couple of months by telling people online to vote third party. There is no “instant ceasefire and peace negotiation” button that we're callously overlooking by encouraging people to vote for Kamala. (My god, if there was, we would all be pressing it.)

If we're suggesting people vote for her, it's not that we “are willing to overlook genocide” or “don't care about sacrificing brown people abroad” or whatever. Nothing is being “overlooked” here. It's that we're simply not willing to accept everything else in this post and more on top of continued atrocities in Gaza. We're not willing to take Trump and his godawful far-right authoritarian agenda as an acceptable consequence of feeling like we have the moral high ground on Palestine. I cannot stress enough that if Kamala doesn't win, we - we all, in the whole world - get Trump. Are you willing to accept that?

And one more point to address: I've seen too many people act frighteningly flippant and naïve about terrible things Trump or his campaign want to do, with the idea that people will simply be able to prevent all these bad things by “organising” and “protesting” and “collective action”. “I'm not willing to accept these things; that's why I'll fight them tooth and nail every day of their administration” - OK but if you're not even willing to cast a vote then I have doubts about your ability to form “the Resistance”, which by the way would have to involve cooperation with people of lots of progressive political stripes in order to have the manpower to be effective, and if you're so committed to political purity that you view temporarily lending your support to Kamala at the ballot box as an untenable betrayal of everything you stand for then forgive me for also doubting your ability to productively cooperate with allies on the ground with whom you don't 100% agree. Plus, if the Trump campaign gets its way, American progressives would be kept so busy trying to put out about twenty different fires at once that you'd be able to accomplish very little. Maybe you get them to soften their stance on trans healthcare but oh shit, the climate policies are still in place. But more importantly, how many people do you think will protest for abortion rights if doing so means staring down a gun? Or organise to protect their neighbours from deportation if doing so means being thrown in prison yourself? And OK, maybe you're sure that you will, but history has shown us time and time again that most people won't. Most people aren't willing to face that kind of personal risk. And a tiny number of lefties willing to risk incarceration or death to protect undocumented people or trans people or whatever other groups are targeted is sadly not enough to prevent the horrors from happening. That is small fry compared to the full might of a determined state. Of course if the worst happens and Trump wins then you should do what you can to mitigate the harm; I'm not saying you shouldn't. But really the time to act is now. You have an opportunity right here to mitigate the harm and it's called “not letting him get elected”. Act now to prevent that kind of horrific authoritarian situation from developing in the first place; don't sit this one out under the naïve belief that “we'll be able to stop it if it happens”. You won't.

[darlingkeyzblog]

Local Market vs. International Expansion: Strategies for Women and Immigrants in Poland

In the ever-evolving business landscape, women and immigrant entrepreneurs in Poland are faced with a pivotal decision: should they focus on capturing the local market, or should they set their sights on international expansion? Each strategy has its own set of opportunities and challenges, and understanding these can help in making an informed decision that aligns with one’s business goals.…

[journeyjottings]

AUSTRALIA: UPCOMING MIGRATION STRATEGY UPDATES FROM JULY 2024

The Australian government has just released its Migration Strategy, offering a new outlook for the Australian immigration system.

This strategy outlines a policy blueprint with essential actions the government will pursue to introduce major changes to immigration policies. The aim is to ensure that the Australian immigration system benefits workers, businesses, and the entire nation.

As specified in the strategy, these changes will be effective from July 2024.

Ending of the Business Innovation and Investment (Provisional) Subclass 188 Visa

Within the framework of the Migration Strategy, the government has declared that there will be no new allocations for the Business Innovation and Investment Program (BIIP) (provisional) subclass 188 visa as a new talent and innovation visa is being considered. The new National Innovation visa is expected to be available by the end of 2024.

The BIIP will be permanently discontinued from July 2024. The Department of Home Affairs (DHA) will stop accepting new applications for the BIIP (subclass 188) visa. The Migration Review concluded that the BIIP has been delivering unsatisfactory economic outcomes for Australia. Research, including studies conducted by the Treasury and the Productivity Commission, supports this conclusion.

The Department of Home Affairs (DHA) will handle existing BIIP (subclass 188) visa applications according to government priorities and the Migration Program planning levels. Additionally, the DHA will tighten BIIP policy guidelines to ensure that all business migrants coming to Australia have a successful business background and will contribute economically to the country.

Holders of a subclass 188 visa who meet the eligibility criteria for the Business Innovation and Investment (Permanent) (subclass 888) visa can continue on this path after July 2024.

Those with a subclass 188 visa in the Business Innovation stream or the Significant Investor stream can still apply for an extension of the visa. This extension will provide more time to fulfill the requirements for the Business Innovation and Investment (Permanent) (subclass 888) visa.

Refunds for the subclass 188 visa application charge (VAC) will be offered starting from September 2024 for those wishing to withdraw their application. The Department of Home Affairs (DHA) will provide further details on the withdrawal process and how to request a refund when the refunds become available.

New Restrictions on Transferring to a Student Visa

Starting from 1 July 2024, holders of Temporary Graduate, Visitor, and Maritime Crew visas will not be able to apply for a Student visa while in Australia.

Along with the existing visa categories that already prohibit onshore Student visa applications, the complete list of visa holders who will be unable to apply for a Student visa onshore includes:

Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate)

Subclass 600 (Visitor)

Subclass 601 (Electronic Travel Authority)

Subclass 602 (Medical Treatment)

Subclass 651 (eVisitor)

Subclass 771 (Transit)

Subclass 988 (Maritime Crew)

Subclass 995 (Diplomatic Temporary) – primary visa holders only

Subclass 403 (Temporary Work (International Relations)) – Domestic Worker (Diplomatic or Consular) stream

Subclass 426 (Domestic Worker (Temporary) – Diplomatic or Consular)

These changes to Student visa eligibility were announced earlier in 2024 as part of the Migration Strategy.

New Measures to Curb ‘Permanently Temporary’ Residency in Australia

The Department of Home Affairs explains: “Visa hopping has led to an increasing number of ‘permanently temporary’ former international students residing in Australia. These changes, along with other measures, aim to close this loophole and end this practice.

Temporary Graduate Visa holders should either leave Australia or secure skilled employment and/or explore other visa pathways, including those that could lead to permanent residency in Australia. Visitor visa applicants who wish to study will need to apply for their Student visa from outside Australia. Student visa applicants who genuinely intend to study in Australia can apply from overseas. Those who meet the necessary criteria will be granted a Student visa.”

[maptoimmigrate]

"Luxembourg's Immigration and Settlement Strategies: Navigating Diversit...

Discover how Luxembourg has become a prime destination for immigrants and professionals from all around the globe. Learn about the innovative strategies the country has implemented to attract talent and promote diversity in its society. From navigating the immigration process to settling in this vibrant European nation, find out why Luxembourg stands out as a magnet for individuals seeking new opportunities and a high quality of life.

[trendynewsnow]

Trump Proposes 25% Tariff on Mexican Goods Amid Migration Control Efforts

Trump’s Stance on Migration and Trade Tariffs Former President Donald Trump is making a vigorous push on two major themes in his campaign: migration control and trade tariffs. During a recent rally in Raleigh, North Carolina—a pivotal swing state—Trump announced a bold proposal aimed at Mexico, stating that he would impose a substantial 25% tariff on all Mexican goods if the country fails to…