Meggs: Retour sur l’esprit de l’Accord Canada-Québec relatif à l’immigration pour ses 35 ans

2026/02/11 Leave a comment

Good long read from former Quebec official on the genesis of two-step immigration. Conclusion excerpt:

….Il a été durable en dépit de l’évolution du système d’immigration canadien depuis sa signature, largement grâce aux mécanismes intergouvernementaux de gestion prévus dans les annexes.

Cela étant dit, cette gestion concertée a donné lieu vers 2005 à l’abandon, sans amendement, par les deux gouvernements, d’un article qui — on s’en rend compte aujourd’hui — était la clé de voûte de notre système traditionnel d’immigration. Il s’agit de l’article 9 : « Le Canada et le Québec reconnaissent que les demandes de droit d’établissement doivent normalement être déposées et étudiées à l’étranger. »

L’abandon de cette règle a ouvert la porte à la réception des demandes d’immigration permanente par des personnes déjà sur le territoire avec un statut temporaire. Peu de temps après, le Canada a créé son Programme de la catégorie de l’expérience canadienne (CEC – 2008) et le Québec son Programme de l’expérience québécoise (PEQ – 2010).

Aucun des deux gouvernements n’a pensé aux conséquences de cette décision sur la planification de l’immigration. Si les personnes sélectionnées pour la résidence permanente venaient de l’étranger, planifier les seuils d’immigration permanente suffisait pour prévoir et réguler le nombre d’arrivées et le nombre de personnes qui s’établiraient.

À l’inverse, si les personnes à statut temporaire devaient quitter le pays pour faire une demande d’immigration permanente, il n’était pas nécessaire d’en fixer le nombre. Avec l’octroi de la résidence permanente à des personnes déjà sur le territoire, la planification de l’immigration permanente s’éloignait de plus en plus des arrivées.

Le nombre d’immigrants temporaires a donc grimpé de manière exponentielle dans les dix dernières années, sans que les niveaux planifiés d’immigration permanente suivent le rythme.

Le résultat est un bassin phénoménal de personnes au Québec, comme au Canada, qui s’attendent à pouvoir obtenir la résidence permanence. La crise du PEQ n’en est qu’un exemple particulier.

C’était l’intention des négociateurs de l’Accord Canada-Québec de reconnaître au Québec le contrôle sur l’ensemble de l’immigration sur son territoire, incluant l’immigration temporaire, à l’unique exception des demandeurs d’asile. Aujourd’hui, il y a des avis divergents sur la responsabilité du Québec sur un ensemble important de permis de travail, ce qui fait en sorte que le Québec ne donne pas son consentement à ce pan d’immigration temporaire.

Le système actuel d’immigration à multiples étapes a grandement amplifié le nombre de dédoublements, de chevauchements et de frais auxquels font face les personnes qui souhaitent venir au Québec pour étudier, travailler, et s’établir. Il crée également de la précarité et de la vulnérabilité. L’Accord offre la possibilité de mieux partager les responsabilités entre les deux États pour réduire ces inconvénients et diminuer les coûts.

En cette année électorale, il est évident que tous les partis politiques seront appelés à se positionner sur le dossier complexe de l’immigration. Espérons qu’ils sauront tirer pleinement avantage de l’Accord signé il y a 35 ans afin de protéger la spécificité de la nation québécoise.

Source: Retour sur l’esprit de l’Accord Canada-Québec relatif à l’immigration pour ses 35 ans

…. It has been sustainable despite the evolution of the Canadian immigration system since its signing, largely thanks to the intergovernmental management mechanisms provided for in the annexes.

That being said, this concerted management led around 2005 to the abandonment, without amendment, by the two governments, of an article that – we realize today – was the cornerstone of our traditional immigration system. This is Article 9: “Canada and Quebec recognize that applications for the right of establishment must normally be filed and studied abroad. ”

The abandonment of this rule opened the door to the receipt of applications for permanent immigration by people already in the territory with temporary status. Shortly after, Canada created its Canadian Experience Category Program (CEC – 2008) and Quebec its Quebec Experience Program (QEP – 2010).

Neither government has thought about the consequences of this decision on immigration planning. If the people selected for permanent residence came from abroad, planning permanent immigration thresholds was enough to predict and regulate the number of arrivals and the number of people who would settle.

Conversely, if people with temporary status had to leave the country to apply for permanent immigration, it was not necessary to set the number. With the granting of permanent residence to people already in the territory, the planning of permanent immigration was increasingly far away from arrivals.

The number of temporary immigrants has therefore risen exponentially in the last ten years, without the planned levels of permanent immigration following the pace.

The result is a phenomenal pool of people in Quebec, as in Canada, who expect to be able to obtain permanent residence. The PEQ crisis is just one particular example of this.

It was the intention of the negotiators of the Canada-Quebec Agreement to recognize Quebec’s control over all immigration on its territory, including temporary immigration, with the sole exception of asylum seekers. Today, there are divergent opinions on Quebec’s responsibility for a large set of work permits, which means that Quebec does not give its consent to this part of temporary immigration.

The current system of multi-stage immigration has greatly amplified the number of duplications, overlaps and fees faced by people who wish to come to Quebec to study, work, and settle. It also creates precariousness and vulnerability. The Agreement offers the possibility of better sharing of responsibilities between the two States to reduce these inconveniences and lower costs.

In this election year, it is obvious that all political parties will be called upon to position themselves on the complex issue of immigration. Let’s hope that they will be able to take full advantage of the Agreement signed 35 years ago to protect the specificity of the Quebec nation.

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , ,

Conservatives to propose barring non-citizens convicted of crimes from making refugee claims

2026/02/11 2 Comments

Not sure whether this would withstand a Charter challenge but clever move by the Conservatives to choose this issue which most Canadians, immigrants and non-immigrants, would likely support:

The Conservatives are planning to introduce a motion today to bar non-citizens convicted of serious crimes from making refugee claims.

The motion also calls on the government to prevent asylum claims from people whose cases are still working their way through the courts.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre said on social media Monday non-citizens who commit serious crimes “must be forced to leave our country.”

The Conservative motion cites an increase in extortion cases and what they call lax bail laws as reasons for the motion.

British Columbia Premier David Eby and several big city mayors have also pushed Ottawa to close what they call loopholes around asylum claims following a significant rise in extortion violence in his province and many others.

Delegates at the recent Conservative party convention in Calgary called for similar changes to the immigration and justice systems when they voted in favour of a policy proposal saying Canadian taxpayers should not pay for the “rehabilitation of foreign nationals.”

Source: Conservatives to propose barring non-citizens convicted of crimes from making refugee claims

Filed under Immigration, Refugees Tagged with , ,

Renforcement de la laïcité: Le Barreau propose d’encadrer l’usage de la disposition de dérogation

2026/02/11 Leave a comment

Of note, good to see this pushback. But we will see whether the current or future Quebec governments would support a framework that would limit their action:

Dans un mémoire qui a été soumis lundi aux députés chargés d’étudier le projet de loi 9 sur le renforcement de la laïcité, l’ordre professionnel des avocats – dont la mission est la protection du public et la défense de la primauté du droit – note que le gouvernement de François Legault utilise la disposition de dérogation (aussi nommée la clause de souveraineté parlementaire ou clause nonobstant) pour une sixième fois.

“Le contexte mondial est actuellement marqué par une érosion préoccupante de l’état de droit. La réponse la plus robuste à une telle tendance ne doit pas provoquer l’affaiblissement des mécanismes de justification, de contrôle et de reddition de comptes, mais bien les renforcer. Une démocratie solide se reconnaît à l’obligation que se donne une société de respecter les règles qui la fondent.” Le Barreau du Québec

L’ordre professionnel rappelle que la disposition de dérogation était au départ un « compromis politique historique » dans le cadre du rapatriement de la constitution, en 1982. Or, si son utilisation devait être exceptionnelle, elle a été normalisée au cours des dernières années au Québec, notamment en matière de laïcité et de protection du français. Ottawa a déjà annoncé qu’il s’attardera à la question de son utilisation de façon préventive par le gouvernement québécois dans le cadre de la contestation de la loi 21 sur la laïcité qui sera entendue devant la Cour suprême au mois de mars.

« De mécanisme d’exception destiné à répondre à des situations particulières, la disposition de dérogation est devenue un outil de sécurisation politique mobilisé en amont de la contestation judiciaire et au détriment du dialogue constitutionnel », déplore pour sa part le Barreau.

Une loi-cadre « résolument québécoise »

Dans ce contexte, le Barreau du Québec propose au gouvernement d’adopter une loi-cadre pour assurer une « juste utilisation » de la disposition de dérogation. « Une telle solution sera rassembleuse, sécurisante sur le plan juridique, structurante sur le plan institutionnel, et résolument québécoise », estime l’ordre professionnel.

Une telle loi devrait comporter différents éléments pour assurer « le maintien d’un dialogue réel et soutenu entre le législateur et les tribunaux, tout en réaffirmant sans ambiguïté la souveraineté parlementaire du Québec ». Parmi ces éléments, le Barreau estime qu’il faudrait établir des « conditions strictes » à son recours, l’obligation pour le gouvernement d’expliquer les raisons qui justifient son utilisation, de consulter la société civile et de garantir un débat parlementaire sur la question.

Le Barreau suggère également qu’un seuil supérieur à la majorité simple des députés devrait être requis pour utiliser la disposition de dérogation (afin que la démarche soit transpartisane) et qu’un renvoi vers la Cour d’appel (le plus haut tribunal de la province) soit requis pour obtenir un avis sur la question, sans que celui-ci soit de nature à limiter la souveraineté parlementaire….

Source: Renforcement de la laïcité: Le Barreau propose d’encadrer l’usage de la disposition de dérogation

In a brief that was submitted on Monday to the deputies responsible for studying Bill 9 on the strengthening of secularism, the professional order of lawyers – whose mission is the protection of the public and the defense of the primacy of law – notes that the government of François Legault is using the derogation provision (also called the clause of parliamentary sovereignty or clause notwithstanding) for a sixth time.

“The global context is currently marked by a worrying erosion of the rule of law. The most robust response to such a trend should not cause the mechanisms of justification, control and accountability to weaken, but rather strengthen them. A solid democracy is recognized by the obligation that a society gives itself to respect the rules that base it.” The Quebec Bar

The professional order recalls that the derogation provision was initially a “historic political compromise” in the context of the repatriation of the constitution in 1982. However, if its use were to be exceptional, it has been standardized in recent years in Quebec, especially in terms of secularism and the protection of French. Ottawa has already announced that it will dwell on the issue of its preventive use by the Quebec government in the context of the challenge of Bill 21 on secularism that will be heard before the Supreme Court in March.

“From an exceptional mechanism intended to respond to particular situations, the derogation provision has become a tool for political security mobilized upstream of the judicial challenge and to the detriment of constitutional dialogue,” laments the Bar for its part.

A “resolutely Quebec” framework law

In this context, the Barreau du Québec proposes to the government to adopt a framework law to ensure a “fair use” of the derogation provision. “Such a solution will be unifying, legally secure, institutionally structuring, and resolutely Quebec,” believes the professional order.

Such a law should include different elements to ensure “the maintenance of a real and sustained dialogue between the legislator and the courts, while unambiguously reaffirming the parliamentary sovereignty of Quebec”. Among these elements, the Bar believes that “strict conditions” should be established for its appeal, the obligation for the government to explain the reasons that justify its use, to consult civil society and to guarantee a parliamentary debate on the issue.

The Bar also suggests that a threshold higher than the simple majority of MPs should be required to use the derogation provision (so that the approach is cross-party) and that a referral to the Court of Appeal (the highest court in the province) be required to obtain an opinion on the matter, without this being likely to limit parliamentary sovereignty.

Filed under Interculturalisme, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Kutty | Two major cuts by Carney are testing the limits of community trust

2026/02/10 Leave a comment

As I wrote some four years ago, don’t believe these envoys facilitate integration and greater mutual understanding as they tend to be advocates for particular group: Racism and the need for a national integration commission:

…In practical terms, Ottawa’s legitimacy on this issue will now depend on what happens next.

Who will sit on the new council? Will Muslim and Jewish leaders be adequately represented? Will the council have independence and influence? Will its recommendations shape legislation, policing, education, and online regulation? Will ministers remain directly accessible to affected communities?

Racism and religious discrimination are not interchangeable phenomena. Antisemitism, Islamophobia, anti-Black racism, and anti-Indigenous racism each have distinct histories and dynamics. Treating them as generic “hate” risks flattening those differences. At the same time, siloed responses can obscure shared structural causes such as economic precarity, digital radicalization, and political scapegoating.

The government must now demonstrate — through appointments, funding, transparency, and sustained engagement — that it is not retreating from the fight against Islamophobia and antisemitism, but reorganizing it in good faith.

Community organizations are right to remain vigilant. Monitoring, advocacy, and constructive pressure are not signs of disloyalty. They are essential features of democratic accountability.

This moment should not be framed as a simple victory or betrayal. It is better understood as a test.

A test of whether Ottawa can move from symbolic politics to durable partnerships. A test of whether institutional reform will deepen or dilute accountability. And a test of whether trust — so painstakingly built over years — will be reinforced or quietly eroded.

The answer will not be found in press releases. It will be found in practice.

Source: Opinion | Two major cuts by Carney are testing the limits of community trust

Filed under Antisemitism, Islamophobia, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

HESA: Merit Wars

2026/02/10 Leave a comment

.To watch:

..…The question is: how is the Ford Government going to approach all of this?


As near as I can tell, it has four options.

It can take stock of the full variety of pathways and adjudication of merit and say “eh, this is all too complicated/post-secondary institutes are doing a decent job”. It should go without saying that this is almost certainly the least likely outcome.

It can leave contextualized admissions alone but try to limit the practice of special pathways for Indigenous, racialized or otherwise underserved students. That is, it might give a pass to programs where 10-20% of places are reserved for certain underserved groups, but at the same time say “75% in reserved pathways (as TMU proposes) is too much”. I suspect this is the likeliest option.

It can leave contextualized admissions alone but eliminate pathways entirely. This would mean eliminating things like the U of T’s Indigenous Student Application Program and many other programs like it. My read of Conservatives’ views on this is that they tend to be warier of Indigeneity initiatives than they are of critiquing EDI as a whole, seeing more justice in the claims advanced by Indigenous communities than they do for Black ones (for instance). I think this is less likely than option 2 but would not rule it out.

It could seek to eliminate both pathways and contextualized admissions and tell institutions that the only thing they should use is high school grades.  

That last one might sound radical, but pay attention to what the Ford government has been doing in secondary schools, and in particular the Toronto District School Board (TDSB), which runs a large number of schools which were formerly selective (e.g. Schools of the Arts, Special STEM focus schools, International Baccalaureates, etc.). The selectivity process, naturally, was criticized because marks are often correlated with family income, and so 3 years ago, at the peak of the EDI wave, the TDSB decided to abandon selections and make all these schools lottery-based, which in theory at least would make access to these programs more equitable.

I have no idea whether this policy met its goal or not; to my knowledge there has not been a publicly released study on this. But it caused a number of people to freak out. Accusations of penalizing students who worked hard, of “devaluing merit” began to circulate. And there was some force to those arguments, particularly (IMHO) for elite Fine Arts programs where students no longer had to submit portfolios as evidence of talent/interest, which I think is a bit odd. I have never seen any surveys about this issue, but my guess is that it rankled particularly hard among parents in the entitled upper-middle class and aspirational Chinese families, since these are the groups that tend to do best in a “marks-only” system (for more on how Chinese parents view contextual ideas of merit, do listen to my podcast interview with Ruixue Jia, co-author of The Highest Exam from last fall).

And so, Ford government to the rescue! The government instructed the TDSB to ditch the policy, to loud applause from Trustee Weidong Pei, who gained office campaigning against lotteries. Replacing the lottery system? Well, according to the TDSB “Applicants will be seated based on their overall applicant score; a combination of select report card marks connected to their program of choice and an evaluated demonstration of knowledge and skills”, which sounds a lot like the previous marks-only based system, with all the class-and culture-based biases that brings. 

In other words, if the TDSB’s experience is anything to go by, the Ford government will go straight to option 4. And if that happens, it will be a seriously contentious affair since almost certainly it will mean a big reduction in students from underserved groups getting into high-demand programs. 

Now, none of this is going to happen in this admissions cycle (at least I bloody hope not). The likeliest scenario is that the government makes a move in the spring or summer, in order to put new rules in place – whatever those rules end up being – in place for the fall 2027 admissions cycle. So, we have a few months left before the wars start. But when they start, it won’t be pretty.

Source: Merit Wars

Filed under DEI, Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

“Les parents de Jack Letts, détenu en Syrie, veulent revoir leur fils”

2026/02/10 Leave a comment

Seeing less coverage in English language media than in previous years. Parental nightmare:

“En 2019, en raison du risque qu’il poserait à la sécurité du pays, Jack, qui est né et qui a grandi au Royaume-Uni, s’est fait déchoir de sa citoyenneté britannique. Il ne lui reste que sa citoyenneté canadienne, obtenue par filiation. À l’époque, Ottawa avait déploré que Downing Street se soit « déchargé de ses responsabilités ».

Depuis, le gouvernement canadien refuse de rapatrier Jack, comme tous les autres ressortissants canadiens soupçonnés d’avoir combattu avec Daech. En 2023, la Cour d’appel fédérale avait donné raison à Ottawa en précisant qu’il n’existait pas de « droit absolu » permettant de contraindre l’État à rapatrier ses citoyens afin de « les soustraire aux répercussions de leurs actions ».

Sally Lane espère qu’Ottawa révisera sa position à la lumière des récents développements. Si Jack est traduit en justice en Irak, il risque de subir un procès expéditif et partial, pourrait être contraint de passer aux aveux sous la torture et être condamné à la peine de mort, craignent ses parents.

“« Les abus du système judiciaire en Irak sont bien connus », mentionne Mme Lane. « J’espère que l’attention médiatique va réellement forcer le gouvernement canadien à agir [en le rapatriant], ce qu’il a refusé de faire jusqu’à présent. » Jack pourrait ensuite subir un procès ici, soutient John Letts.

Depuis des années, les autorités kurdes et états-uniennes réclament que les détenus étrangers retournent dans leurs pays d’origine. « Je pense que les Américains utilisent ces transferts comme une technique de rapatriement sous haute pression. C’est la manière qu’ils ont trouvée pour forcer les pays réticents à rapatrier leurs ressortissants », confie Mme Lane.”

“Extrémisme
Les parents de Jack — qui n’ont pas pu parler à leur fils depuis 2017 — se disent tous deux convaincus de son innocence. Jack, qui s’était converti à l’islam à 16 ans et qui s’est rendu en Syrie à 18 ans, s’est fait arrêter parce qu’il se trouvait dans le territoire contrôlé par Daech, clament-ils.



« Ce n’est pas parce que vous travaillez ou vivez dans l’espace géographique contrôlé par Daech que vous êtes forcément membre de Daech », mentionne son père. Plusieurs médias, qui ont affublé leur fils du surnom de Jihadi Jack, l’ont toutefois dépeint comme un homme ayant été radicalisé.



Sally Lane et John Letts ont eux-mêmes dû faire face à la justice en 2019 pour avoir envoyé de l’argent à leur fils. Ils ont été jugés coupables d’un chef lié au financement du terrorisme, puisque l’argent envoyé aurait pu être utilisé par Daech, a statué le tribunal.”

Source: “Les parents de Jack Letts, détenu en Syrie, veulent revoir leur fils”

In 2019, due to the risk he would pose to the security of the country, Jack, who was born and raised in the United Kingdom, was deprived of his British citizenship. All he has left is his Canadian citizenship, obtained by filiation. At the time, Ottawa deplored that Downing Street had “discharged its responsibilities”.

Since then, the Canadian government has refused to repatriate Jack, like all other Canadian nationals suspected of fighting with Daesh. In 2023, the Federal Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Ottawa by specifying that there was no “absolute right” to force the State to repatriate its citizens in order to “subtract them from the repercussions of their actions”.

Sally Lane hopes that Ottawa will revise its position in light of recent developments. If Jack is brought to justice in Iraq, he risks an expedited and biased trial, could be forced to confess under torture and be sentenced to death, his parents fear.

“The abuses of the judicial system in Iraq are well known,” says Ms. Lane. “I hope that the media attention will really force the Canadian government to act [by repatriating it], which it has refused to do so far. “Jack could then face a trial here,” says John Letts. For years, the Kurdish and American authorities have been demanding that foreign prisoners return to their countries of origin. “I think Americans are using these transfers as a high-pressure repatriation technique. This is the way they have found to force reluctant countries to repatriate their nationals, “says Ms. Lane.”

“Extremism

Jack’s parents – who have not been able to talk to their son since 2017 – both say they are convinced of his innocence. Jack, who converted to Islam at the age of 16 and went to Syria at the age of 18, was arrested because he was in the territory controlled by Daesh, they claim.

“It is not because you work or live in the geographical area controlled by Daesh that you are necessarily a member of Daesh,” says his father. Several media outlets, which gave their son the nickname Jihadi Jack, however, portrayed him as a radicalized man.

Sally Lane and John Letts themselves had to face justice in 2019 for sending money to their son. They were found guilty of a charge related to the financing of terrorism, since the money sent could have been used by Daesh, the court ruled.”

Filed under Citizenship, Radicalization Tagged with

Sweden to tighten citizenship rules amid push to cut immigration

2026/02/10 Leave a comment

Of note, trend in the Nordics:

Sweden will tighten citizenship rules with applicants facing a longer, eight-year wait before they can apply, a minimum wage threshold and a test of their understanding of Swedish society, the centre-right government said on Monday.

Successive governments have tightened immigration policies since 2015, when around 160,000 asylum seekers sought refuge in Sweden. But the minority coalition government is betting that an even more restrictive line on immigration will prove popular with voters in September’s parliamentary election.

“These requirements are much tougher than the situation as it is today because currently there are basically no requirements (to become a citizen),” Migration Minister Johan Forssell told reporters.

The government said applicants for Swedish citizenship would have to live in the country for eight years, up from five, have a monthly income of more than 20,000 Swedish crowns ($2,225), and be able to pass a language and culture test.

“It seems reasonable that you should know whether Sweden is a monarchy or a republic, if you want to be a citizen,” Forssell said.

Anyone with a criminal record, either in Sweden or abroad, will have to wait longer before they can apply. Someone who had served a four-year prison sentence, for example, would have to wait 15 years before being able to apply for citizenship….

Source: Sweden to tighten citizenship rules amid push to cut immigration

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with

These migrants escaped war and disaster to come to Canada. Should they go home or be offered permanent residence? It’s not that simple

2026/02/10 Leave a comment

Good call for greater care and transparency regarding these programs, including consideration of likely impact should these groups not be able to return:

…Seeking clear criteria for humanitarian programs

Ninette Kelley, chair of the World Refugee and Migration Council, said temporary humanitarian programs have a place but require very clear criteria and a limited time frame. Sometimes there could be benefits if Canada can quickly admit more people at risk on temporary status than it would under slower and more modest permanent resettlement.

She said each of these special programs should be independently evaluated. While Canada can’t take in everyone, she said the intake levels earmarked for humanitarian migrants should be open for debate.

“Government immigration programs change so frequently and not in a transparent manner,” said Kelley. “We could continue in a humanitarian tradition by accepting more than we do, but we should be careful and transparent about how we arrive at those numbers, who we assist, how we process them, and what kind of status they’re afforded, which is not happening at the present.”

The Immigration Department began developing a “crisis response framework” since 2023 to better anticipate, respond to and manage international crises, though little is known about it publicly.

In a statement, the department said the framework has been “formalized” since early 2025 and is meant to be a set of tools and guidelines that helps officials proactively assess emerging situations, determine an appropriate and feasible response, and carry it out from start to finish.

“Any potential new measures would be carefully assessed to balance humanitarian needs against available levels space and existing program capacity,” it said, underlying the need to be more proactive, better co-ordinate with key partners, and align with immigration levels plans and “domestic welcoming capacity.”

Source: These migrants escaped war and disaster to come to Canada. Should they go home or be offered permanent residence? It’s not that simple

Filed under Immigration, Refugees Tagged with ,

USA: Colleges See Major Racial Shifts in Student Enrollment

2026/02/09 1 Comment

Of note:

The Supreme Court ruling in 2023 banning race-conscious college admissions led to declines in Black and Latino admissions at highly selective universities. At many other schools, the opposite occurred, according to a new analysis.

Overall, freshman enrollment of underrepresented minority groups increased by 8 percent at public flagship universities. The analysis, by a nonprofit organization, Class Action, concludes that those schools were among institutions that benefited as a result of higher rejection rates for Black and Hispanic students at the nation’s 50 most selective schools.

At those top 50 schools, Black freshman enrollment was down by 27 percent and Latino enrollment down by 10 percent.

The data from Class Action, which works to promote equity in education, was based on 2024 federal enrollment figures released in January covering more than 3,000 colleges and universities.

Data released publicly by a smaller number of schools have hinted that highly selective schools admitted fewer Black and Latino students following the Supreme Court decision, but the report was one of the first efforts to analyze the impact of the decision on enrollment demographics across a broad swath of the nation’s colleges.

While the data covers only freshman enrollment the first year after the Supreme Court decision went into effect, it bolsters the prediction by some education experts that the decision would create a chain of consequences. Highly qualified Black and Latino students, who might have been admitted to the Ivy League and other similar schools before the Supreme Court decision, enrolled in less-selective schools as a result of the decision, potentially leading to a “cascade” of less-qualified minority students enrolling in even less-selective institutions.

Some research suggests that the phenomenon, called a “cascade” effect and identified in California following a statewide ban on affirmative action in 1998, may have long-term effects on employment opportunities and earnings for the students who ended up in the least selective institutions.

The new report concludes that the Supreme Court decision reduced the number of students of color at institutions with the highest graduation rates and largest median incomes after graduation, a result that the authors said could lead to persistent racial inequities in income….

Source: Colleges See Major Racial Shifts in Student Enrollment

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

Jamie Sarkonak: New Liberal ‘inclusion’ council heralds more division

2026/02/09 Leave a comment

Simplistic and overly biased. Better to bring different groups together than have ongoing separate envoys. Of course, selection of members is key, ideally one wants to find persons from the different groups that are not part of a particular advocacy organization but have visibility and credibility from the group. The Cross Cultural Round Table on Security under the Harper government was relatively useful as while some of the members were tied to specific groups, some were not:

….“It seems that the more reconciliation and diversity the government promotes, the more division we get. Nearly half of the country says it’s “time to move on” from residential schools. Half of Canadians are opposed to new immigration. Half of those born outside of Canada believe the country belongs to Indigenous people. Half of Canadians claim to have witnessed systemic racism. These are all stats from 2025. And then, there’s the general vibe: conversations and comments sections seem to be more racially charged than ever.

The Liberal response to the overdose crisis was to give more drugs to addicts, and it left everyone worse off. On social cohesion, they’re doing something similar: put everyone into boxes and make up reasons to treat some of them better than others, and then wonder how society got so divided.

The answer, which Miller’s committee is unlikely to arrive at, is to drop the agenda of discrimination and start promoting Canadian history — not the abridged version that only focuses on dark parts, enclaves, and the legal victories of progressives. If you want Canadians to feel like they are one people, you need to treat them like it.”

Source: “Jamie Sarkonak: New Liberal ‘inclusion’ council heralds more division”

Filed under Multiculturalism Tagged with , ,

← Older posts